⚔️HEAD-TO-HEAD
Harry Brook vs Washington Sundar — International Fantasy Cricket Stats Comparison
Harry Brook has the edge on the headline numbers: Harry Brook leads on T20I batting (1,702 runs, avg 36.2). Full T20I, ODI, Test and IPL stats are below.
Harry Brook (England) has 1,702 T20I runs at avg 36.2 in 71 matches. Washington Sundar (India) has 254 T20I runs at avg 16.9 in 58 matches. Head-to-head batting, bowling & fielding across T20I, ODI & Test.
Full season · batting · bowling · fielding · MOTM · form
Harry Brook vs Washington Sundar — 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 | Harry Brook | Washington Sundar |
|---|---|---|
| Matches | 20 | 20 |
| Avg fantasy points | 80 | 53 |
| Best fantasy score | 212 | 223 |
| Runs | 894 | 387 |
| Strike rate | 129.8 | 112.2 |
| Fours | 81 | 37 |
| Sixes | 37 | 9 |
| Half-centuries (50+) | 6 | 4 |
| Centuries (100+) | 1 | 0 |
| Highest score | 114 | 52 |
| Wickets | 0 | 9 |
| Economy rate | 4.00 | 5.17 |
| Best spell (wkts) | 0 | 5 |
| Catches | 18 | 8 |
| Total dismissals | 18 | 8 |
| Statistic | Harry Brook | Washington Sundar |
|---|---|---|
| Matches | 71 | 58 |
| Runs | 1702 | 254 |
| Batting average | 36.21 | 16.93 |
| Centuries (100+) | 2 | 0 |
| Half-centuries (50+) | 8 | 1 |
| Wickets | 0 | 51 |
| Bowling average | — | 22.80 |
| Economy rate | — | 7.08 |
📋 Format by format
T20I. Harry Brook has played 71 T20Is and Washington Sundar 58. Harry Brook has 1,702 runs at 36.2, against 254 at 16.9 for Washington Sundar, so Harry Brook has scored more. Hundreds: Harry Brook 2, Washington Sundar 0. Fifties: 8 and 1. Washington Sundar also bowls: 51 wickets at an economy of 7.08, while Harry Brook has not taken a T20I wicket.
ODI. Harry Brook has played 44 ODIs and Washington Sundar 31. Harry Brook has 1,530 runs at 38.3, against 426 at 22.4 (81.9) for Washington Sundar, so Harry Brook has scored more. Hundreds: Harry Brook 3, Washington Sundar 0. Fifties: 8 and 2. Washington Sundar also bowls: 29 wickets at an economy of 4.91, while Harry Brook has not taken a ODI wicket.
Test. Harry Brook has played 41 Tests and Washington Sundar 17. Harry Brook has 3,610 runs at 53.1, against 885 at 42.1 (45.9) for Washington Sundar, so Harry Brook has scored more. Hundreds: Harry Brook 10, Washington Sundar 1. Fifties: 20 and 5. With the ball, Harry Brook has 1 wickets at an economy of 4.24 and Washington Sundar 36 at 3.26; Washington Sundar has more wickets.
International numbers up to 27 August 2026.
Harry Brook vs Washington Sundar — T20I is a highly-debated cricket matchup. Below are their T20I career highlights.
T20I career: Harry Brook has scored 1,702 T20I runs in 71 matches at an average of 36.21, with 2 centuries.
T20I career: Washington Sundar has scored 254 T20I runs in 58 matches at an average of 16.93, with 1 half-century. He has also taken 51 T20I wickets at an average of 22.80 with an economy of 7.08.
Fantasy Impact: From a pure fantasy perspective, Harry Brook is the stronger pick with an average of 80 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.
Who has better fantasy stats — Harry Brook or Washington Sundar?
Harry Brook vs Washington Sundar — who is a better fantasy captain?
Who has a better strike rate — Harry Brook or Washington Sundar?
What is the price difference between Harry Brook and Washington Sundar?
How many MOTM awards have Harry Brook and Washington Sundar won?
Should I pick Harry Brook or Washington Sundar in my fantasy XI?
Who has more T20I runs, Harry Brook or Washington Sundar?
Who has more ODI runs, Harry Brook or Washington Sundar?
Who has more Test runs, Harry Brook or Washington Sundar?
SETTLE IT IN A GAME
Numbers only get you so far. Pick a side — Harry Brook or Washington Sundar — and see who actually delivers.
Found an issue or have a suggestion? Contact us — we’d love to hear from you.