Heath Streak or Chris Cairns?

[drainpipe32]

Cairns would have played more against the top sides.

 

[OKP]

Cairns .
Just started reading his autobiography last night :o

 

[nz0003]

Cairns >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Streak with the bat.
Cairns = Streak with the ball.

Cairns by a fair bit.

 

[AbhishekS]

Its a tough one.
But I will go with Heath Streak.

 

[chiranjitpathak]

Cairns by far.

Don't think so as playing for a smaller country is more difficult than playing for an good country.

 

[TumTum]

Don't think so as playing for a smaller country is more difficult than playing for an good country.

That is not proven.

 

[-D-S-B-]

Don't think so as playing for a smaller country is more difficult than playing for an good country.

So, just look at Cairns stats, he is one of New Zealands best ever players, to say Heath Streak is better because he played for a worse country is a joke. Streak was good but Cairns was much better.

 

[nz0003]

Cairns averaged 45 in the 2000s with the bat, and averaged 29 with the ball at a world class strike rate of 50.5.

Proves how good of a player he was when he matured.

 

[rocky_g]

Heath Streak always reminded me of Waqar Younis. But i will take Chris Cairns over Heath Streak.

 

[AkshayS]

I also prefer cairns over Streak.

 

[drainpipe32]

Cairns >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Streak with the bat.
Cairns = Streak with the ball.

Cairns by a fair bit.

Yeah, Cairns by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :laugh

 

[sami ullah khan]

Cairns easily. He was a good bowler and was unparalleled in his ability to hit sixers.

 

[irottev]

It's fair to say it was tougher for Streak because he had worse batsmen to bat with, thus lesser partnerships making it tougher batting-wise. And worse bowlers at the other end hence less pressure.

In saying that NZ and Zimbabwe weren't exactly worlds apart. NZ were the better side, but Zimbabwe had a good side back then.

 

[drainpipe32]

And NZ played more against the top nations.

 

[-D-S-B-]

And Cairns was better