⚔️HEAD-TO-HEAD
David Warner vs Hardik Pandya — International Fantasy Cricket Stats Comparison
David Warner (Australia) has 3,254 T20I runs at avg 33.2 in 108 matches. Hardik Pandya (Mumbai Indians) has 2,221 T20I runs at avg 27.8 in 136 matches. Head-to-head batting, bowling & fielding across T20I, ODI & Test.
Full season · batting · bowling · fielding · MOTM · form
David Warner vs Hardik Pandya — Stat Comparison Table
Head-to-head numbers at a glance. Higher value is highlighted in green (lower is better for economy and bowling/batting averages).
| Statistic | David Warner | Hardik Pandya |
|---|---|---|
| Matches | 0 | 10 |
| Avg fantasy points | 0 | 43 |
| Best fantasy score | 0 | 87 |
| Runs | 0 | 194 |
| Strike rate | 0.0 | 136.6 |
| Fours | 0 | 19 |
| Sixes | 0 | 7 |
| Highest score | 0 | 34 |
| Wickets | 0 | 4 |
| Economy rate | 0.00 | 11.41 |
| Best spell (wkts) | 0 | 1 |
| Catches | 0 | 2 |
| Total dismissals | 0 | 2 |
| Statistic | David Warner | Hardik Pandya |
|---|---|---|
| Matches | 108 | 136 |
| Runs | 3254 | 2221 |
| Batting average | 33.20 | 27.76 |
| Strike rate | 142.8 | 145.1 |
| Centuries (100+) | 1 | 0 |
| Half-centuries (50+) | 28 | 9 |
| Wickets | 0 | 114 |
| Bowling average | — | 26.82 |
| Economy rate | — | 8.33 |
David Warner vs Hardik Pandya — T20I is a highly-debated cricket matchup. Below are their T20I career highlights.
T20I career: David Warner has scored 3,254 T20I runs in 108 matches at an average of 33.20, with 1 century.
T20I career: Hardik Pandya has scored 2,221 T20I runs in 136 matches at an average of 27.76, with 9 half-centuries. He has also taken 114 T20I wickets at an average of 26.82 with an economy of 8.33.
Fantasy Impact: From a pure fantasy perspective, Hardik Pandya is the stronger pick with an average of 43 pts per game in recent fantasy cricket. Always check the playing XI and toss before locking in your captain.
Stats are sourced from international career records. Compare more players using our Player Comparison Tool.
Found an issue or have a suggestion? Contact us — we’d love to hear from you.