Tendulkar v Inzamam TEST CRICKET ONLY

[shantanu_rooney]

Just saw the public poll all who support Pakistan have voted for Inzi .

Well Sachin is simply far better than if his record speaks for himself .

 

[Insomniac]

His average is higher, that means he scores more runs per innings than Inzamam did - all he can do is score runs, it's not his fault what the situation is when he comes in to bat...

Nobody is going to agree with you, no matter what you post, so how about you admit you are wrong, give up the arguing and shut up?

Also, you can not tell me where to post .

When a team sets up a platform of something like 140/2, you expect him to perform, no?

He is a CHOKER. I can show you over 20 occasions he should have performed when he didn't and CHOKED.

The Blazer and Feelin Blue? have agreed with me, so you are wrong there.

I have pointed out countless times with NUMEROUS, SO MANY reasons as to why Inzamam > Sachin.

All of the Sachin supporters decide to either blame India's bowling, or that he scores a lot of runs and runs is all that matters and not the team's performance

Saisrini, I am no mind reader, but I have a mind, and I have provided you expert opinion on the matter as well as the fact that he chokes in SO MANY MATCHES.

zMario added 1 Minutes and 42 Seconds later...

Just saw the public poll all who support Pakistan have voted for Inzi .

Well Sachin is simply far better than if his record speaks for himself .

The records show that Inzamam's average is way higher than Sachin's when their respective teams win.

Shot yourself in the foot there.

The records show Sachin chokes when faced with pressure.

The records show Sachin cannot perform when expected to, while Inzamam can.

The records show Sachin usually does not contribute runs when the team requires him to score.

 

[The Blazer]

One thing about the votes...There are a higher number of Indians on this board than Pakistanis, so don't be too quick to point a finger at the votes as conclusive proof.

 

[Insomniac]

How many times do I have to say this.
A batsman's job is to score runs for their team, the better batsmen score the most runs for their team. A batting average is the average amount of runs a batsman scores per innings, and with Sachin's average being higher than Ul-Haq's, that means that on average, he scores more runs that Inzamam, meaning he is the better batsman.

Saying about winning knocks and such is like saying the better striker in football is one that scores the most winning goals for their team, not the most goals, which is completely wrong.

What a surprise, another Pakistani arguing for Ul-Haq :.
Yes, but if you didn't count the votes by Pakistanis and Indians, Sachin would still win hands down by a mile.

First of all, football and cricket are COMPLETELY different sports. You cannot compare them.

Secondly, the batsman is NO USE to the team if he cannot win games.

Let me use your football analogy - if Team A is winning 5-0, somebody scores 3 goals in a row.

However, if the same player is unable to do that when his team is 2-0, then it really shows that he cannot survive under pressure to score. In a consistent situation - one off is different - for Sachin its the same type of situation nearly everytime he chokes - I can give you examples of that too

I'd rather have the footballer who scores when the pressure is on and its required, not when you don't need the goals.

Now do you know what I mean?

 

[The Blazer]

How many times do I have to say this.
A batsman's job is to score runs for their team, the better batsmen score the most runs for their team. A batting average is the average amount of runs a batsman scores per innings, and with Sachin's average being higher than Ul-Haq's, that means that on average, he scores more runs that Inzamam, meaning he is the better batsman.

Saying about winning knocks and such is like saying the better striker in football is one that scores the most winning goals for their team, not the most goals, which is completely wrong.

Let me repeat what I said: Stats such as averages are not the sole factor in deciding between two batsmen. Maybe you just have some unexplainable difficulty in getting your mind to grasp the concept, maybe you're just innately argumentative, maybe you just haven't played cricket. If you make any progress though, let me know. Then we can continue.

And don't make me tell you how flawed your football analogy is; they're completely different games.

 

[iZeeshan]

In this debate, there's a lot of passion involved and less brain work.

But honestly, if you all look at it, you can't compare the two. yes they were both middle order batsmen, but one was a technical genius and the other was a pressure-holding freak. How do you compare the two? Sure, you can say one is better then the other, but based on what? Just stats? Stats don't tell you anything.

Now, if you forget the stats, because they can be terribly biased, you look at the situations the two batsmen have been in, in terms of winning a game. Who holds their breath and who decides to lose the battle? I think we both can answer that.

See, it all depends on how YOU define the best batsman. A batsman who scores runs at will, or a batsmen who stays at the crease offering the best for his team. Sure Tendu scored more runs, but did he really score them when they counted? I know for a fact, and if you don't agree, your just a blind goat, Inzamam has held his cool in more pressured situations then anyway.

Let's see, Pakistan vs India. Harbhajan/Saurav bowling, last over, 10 odd to win, 4 required off the last ball, Inzi goes through with it, stays calm, and scores the winning runs. Sachin could never do that. He probably would have scored a 100 before, but if it came down to the final runs, he'd choke.

 

[Allrounder18]

Eye Opener Stats - PAK fans are right in this case
SRC - CRICINFO - PLAYERS in era 1987 - 2008
Question:- How many times great/good BATSMEN(NOT BOWLING) got man of the matches in a test match and it lead to a team victory.
NOTE - Iam excluding MOM got for Bang and ZIM.

1. R.Ponting- 9 MOM awards ( 8 in HOME, 1 outside) - Match Winner
2. ML Hayden- 7 MOM awards ( 5 in HOME, 2 outside) - Match Winner
3. GC Smith- 5 MOM awards( 2 HOME, 3 outside)-Match Winner
4. Inzamam- 5 MOM awards( 3 in HOME, 2 outside) - Match Winner
5. R. Dravid- 5 MOM awards(1 in HOME, 4 outside) - Match Winner
6. AC Gilchrist- 5 MOM awards(0 in HOME, 5 outside) - Truly match winner
7. JH Kallis - 9 MOM awards(8 in HOME, 1 outside) - Match Winner
8. S. Waugh- 12MOM awards(6 in HOME, 6 outside)- LEGEND
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BLOOPERS

1. SR Tendulkar - 2 MOM( 2 HOME, Not got MOM since 1998) - Not a Match winner Guys( in TESTS)

2. BC LARA - 3MOM( 3 Home, 0 outside) - 1 Better than tendulkar but not a Match Winner

3.M. Yousuf - 2MOM (2 HOME) - As good as the above 2

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Guys - FACTS dont lie.....I will leave it to your own interpretation of this. Tendulkar so much of talent has sadly not been able to win matches as much as others.
Probably MOM for Drawn test matches would take LARA into some sort of legends here.

Sorry if i disappoint some Indian fans, but want to bring the reality. Agreed bowling did not supported Tendulkar but there have been numerous occasion where he could have clinched it for India. May be some of the dark pages of tendulkar in otherwise a glorius career.

Quoted from Pakpassion posted by Indian poster.

Enuf said.

 

[iZeeshan]

I was not comparing the sports, just similar situations.
I know what you mean, but I disagree with it as I think you judge the quality of one player on their performances, not the performances of the players around them and how their matches end up...Batsmen are meant to score runs, Sachin scores more on average than Inzamam did, therefore Sachin did his job of scoring runs better than Inzamam did, which indeniable as the stats prove this.
I have played cricket, and I would say that the person with the best batting average on the team over the season has been the better batsman.

I am not comparing the sports of football and cricket, but just comparing similar situations in the sports, for example:

Football

Player A scores a goal in a hard-fought 1-0 victory
Player B scores 3 individual goals in an easy win for the team

Cricket
Player A scores a 50, and the team wins by a few wickets
Player B scores 200, and the team wins by an innings and loads of runs.

Which players would be the best? I would say B in both cases.

Just because you do not believe stats are a good way of determining how good a player is, it doesn't mean others think the same way. However, if the shoe was on the other foot and Inzamam had a better average, I would bet that you would be using it as a plus point for him against Sachin...

I am sorry, but you're first class idiot. You just made this arguement so much easier, and in fact I can't believe you think B is the better player!

let's take an example. Nasir Jamshed scores 70 against Bangladesh. Suresh Raina scores 54 against Pakistan. Nasir is the better player?

 

[The Blazer]

Just because you do not believe stats are a good way of determining how good a player is, it doesn't mean others think the same way.

Sure, I still see madmen in the high street proclaiming that the world is flat and Geoffrey the Indomitable Bunny is coming to deliver us our untimely demise.

 

[Insomniac]

Just to point out, I do believe stats are a good way to determine the skill of an ESTABLISHED player.

In this case, Sachin and Inzamam are / were established players.

I showed the many statistics which showed Inzamam scores more runs and causes Pakistan to win, while Sachin doesn't. Sachin supporters decided not to listen to that, so I continued my explanation of MANY statistics.

It was only one filter, and it told a major story.

Madman, your analogy is totally correct.

The problem is, Sachin cannot do the job of Player A consistently, like Inzamam did when he is depended on to do that job.

Hence, he chokes.

 

[manee]

Not in particular reply to anyone but it is wrong to say that Tendulkar did not face and succeed against pressure often throughout his career. Remember that India have very rarely found two openers throughout the late 1990s to early 2000s and so there was a lot of pressure to the middle order.

 

[Insomniac]

Not in particular reply to anyone but it is wrong to say that Tendulkar did not face and succeed against pressure often throughout his career. Remember that India have very rarely found two openers throughout the late 1990s to early 2000s and so there was a lot of pressure to the middle order.

I think the opening problem in Pakistan was far worse during Inzy's time. We had over 20 different openers in 3 years.

 

[Insomniac]

I forgot to add, if the opposition was the same... Obviously the quality of opposition has ot be taken into account as well.

Have you notice that it's only Pakistani's arguing why Inzamam is better? Should tell you something.

We see Sachin choke at our hands far more often than you see him choke. That's why

Prehaps if you followed all of India's games, especially the ones against Pakistan, you could see what I speak of.

 

[manee]

I think the opening problem in Pakistan was far worse during Inzy's time. We had over 20 different openers in 3 years.

Of course, Inzy faced pressure too. But 'pressure' has been used as a negative against Tendulkar and I am merely wishing to dispute it.

 

[iZeeshan]

I forgot to add, if the opposition was the same... Obviously the quality of opposition has ot be taken into account as well.

Have you notice that it's only Pakistani's arguing why Inzamam is better? Should tell you something.

I'll just leave it now and you can all argue amongst yourselves, you lot are too stubborn and I have better things to do with my time than to argue about cricketers all day .

Sure, if your analogy includes the same team, then that scenario is obviously not fair. One team is better then the other, and at the time of Inzi vs Sachin, Pakistan and India were equally good, or Pakistan was better.

When you say winning by an innings or something, that involves bowling which canNOT assess the batsman!