Tendulkar v Inzamam TEST CRICKET ONLY

[Insomniac]

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

It's used as a negative because he never performed when he was expected to.

While I see where Madman's point is from, over at least 60-65 games of choking shows that he can play when he's not required

 

[Deleted member 9102]

Edit: Chris Gayle

 

[Insomniac]

Thanks for sort of seeing what we're saying Madman as to why one would rather prefer Inzamam.

Batsmen like Tendulkar are rare, when they can score so many centuries (granted, it doesn't happen anymore, and most of the time he didnt perform when his team needed him, but he was a rare type of a batsman)

BUT, batsmen like Inzamam-ul-Haq are even rarer. Thanks to their pressure-absorbing ability, and that is why we feel that Inzamam is better than Sachin.

I hope others can see why I've been here for 11 pages posting and why I and a few others have said that Inzamam is a better batsman than Sachin.

 

[Chetan0304]

50 up for Sachin Tendulkar - he played in a very tense free situation* but as usual with classic hit all over the ground.

Inzamam is still batting on 12 on pressure*

 

[iZeeshan]

Thanks for sort of seeing what we're saying Madman as to why one would rather prefer Inzamam.

Batsmen like Tendulkar are rare, when they can score so many centuries (granted, it doesn't happen anymore, and most of the time he didnt perform when his team needed him, but he was a rare type of a batsman)

BUT, batsmen like Inzamam-ul-Haq are even rarer. Thanks to their pressure-absorbing ability, and that is why we feel that Inzamam is better than Sachin.

I hope others can see why I've been here for 11 pages posting and why I and a few others have said that Inzamam is a better batsman than Sachin.

I think that really sums it up. The 2nd and 3rd stanzas tell the entire story and debate of Pakistanis and the non-ignorant Indians.

iZeeshan added 2 Minutes and 2 Seconds later...

50 up for Sachin Tendulkar - he played in a very tense free situation* but as usual with classic shorts all over the ground.

Inzamam is still batting on 12 on pressure*

Sachin, coming in after Sehwag and Gambhir are out at 111/2. Scores 144, India loses.

Inzi, coming in at 7/2, scores a 100* from 212 with the tail to win the game.

 

[Chetan0304]

Worst part Inzi is retired and to whom he has transferred his pressure-absorbing ability ?

 

[evertonfan]

Childish? That's pretty rich coming from an Englishman- Care to cast your mind back and remember how Steve Harmison got Inzamam out in the 2005 Test series? When England do it, it's called great initiative; when the rest of the world do it, it's called dirty underhand tactics.

Your stance on Ovalgate is pretty much laughable- A certain Mr. Hair was completely in the wrong and I don't see how you could shift the blame onto Inzamam.

He could have been a man and played on with the game but no, he has to do the typical Pakistani thing and make a big deal out of something that they could have proved false after the game had finished. Crying in the dressing room like a baby and making out that the whole world against you is not the mark of a great player.

 

[Allrounder18]

50 up for Sachin Tendulkar - he played in a very tense free situation* but as usual with classic shorts all over the ground.

Inzamam is still batting on 12 on pressure*

I am also in need of that classic shorts ,where can I get it from? Does it makes you a better player? how much it cost ? plz give me more info.

 

[Insomniac]

Worst part Inzi is retired and to whom he has transferred his pressure-absorbing ability ?

You can't "transfer" such skill, practice, and ability.

 

[iZeeshan]

He could have been a man and played on with the game but no, he has to do the typical Pakistani thing and make a big deal out of something that they could have proved false after the game had finished. Crying in the dressing room like a baby and making out that the whole world against you is not the mark of a great player.

Umm, ok so let the umpires constantly bully you, and take it like a man? Or take a stand against it, after constant umpiring decisions going against you, and being an even BIGGER man! Remember, this wasn't the first one! Also, must I remind you that Pakistan was going to win that game, so we didn't do it out of 'chickening' or whatever you said.

 

[Chetan0304]

lol a typing mistake there sorry

 

[The Blazer]

He could have been a man and played on with the game but no, he has to do the typical Pakistani thing and make a big deal out of something that they could have proved false after the game had finished. Crying in the dressing room like a baby and making out that the whole world against you is not the mark of a great player.

Typical Pakistani thing? You don't strike me as a chap who's all that culturally aware about Pakistan.

Ball tampering was a huge accusation; furthermore so because of the Anglo-Pak ball tampering saga of the '90s. So before you accuse a team of ball tampering, you better have some God damn conclusive evidence or else you're going to get shown up in court like Botham and Lamb did against Imran.

 

[Skater]

Typical Pakistani thing? You don't strike me as a chap who's all that culturally aware about Pakistan.

Ball tampering was a huge accusation; furthermore so because of the Anglo-Pak ball tampering saga of the '90s. So before you accuse a team of ball tampering, you better have some God damn conclusive evidence or else you're going to get shown up in court like Botham and Lamb did against Imran.

Then wait until after the game and take it to court. Don't act like a baby and refuse to come out.

 

[prarara]

Am gonna be quick about this, BUT EVERY commentator, ex-player, when comparing Tendulkar or Inzamam, usually says they would rather have Inzamam in their team:

Sanjay Manjrekar, Ravi Shastri, Ramiz Raja, David Gower, Robin Jackman, Ian Chappell, Tony Greig.

You are COMPLETELY wrong with that. Also, Harsha Bhogle does NOT count as an expert opinion, having never played this game. He is just a "jockey fan-boy" like us, but somehow got a contract with ESPN-Star.

The only one who I have heard say Sachin > Inzamam is Sunil Gavaskar, and we know his sad story.

Both Inzamam and Tendulkar are legends of the modern game, but when you bring in the commentators and ex-players, you've just dug your own grave.

Inzamam can soak up pressure, Sachin can't. End of story.

Nice try I'd like to see some sourcing to that, rather than pulling said material out of thin air. Also add to the Sachin camp, Richie Benaud, Don Bradman, Shane Warne, and the best of all Inzamam himself. That's just off the top of my head. I can go on for days, if you'd really like a list of players that rate Tendulkar (and the class of Tendulkar Ponting and Lara in their own league.)

Notice on cricinfo they had a panel of judges judging the performance of the best modern bastmen. They concluded Lara to be the best, but Inzamam was rarely mentioned. They took the batsmen's carrer into record hollistically and came up with the answer that only the above three deserve to be called modern legends.

No amount of your screaming, typing with CAPSLOCKS, and chopping and screwing around views and statistics will change this fact that Inzamam is not in this league.

Here's a transcript of the discussion:

..a few highlights:

SM: Let's move on and talk on our final subject of today. As a batsmen what defines greatness? When you say this batsman is great what are the qualities and characteristics that you are looking for? Is it technique, natural skills, ability to handle pressure or is it just being consistent? We've got contemporary greats here; Tendulkar, Lara, Waugh, Dravid, Ponting, Inzamam and Jaques Kallis. I want you pick your greatest batsmen in this era. So John, first of all what do you think makes a batsman great and who's your choice?

JW: For me it's the look, you just see it and think, he's a great player.

SM: So you don't look at the figures?

JW: Well, hopefully that bloke who looks so good is not averaging 10. There are three great players that I saw during my career. There are players that were great or good or very good, whatever you would like to call them -- Miandad, Gavaskar, Border, Kallicharran, Zaheer, Boycott--but to me true greatness was something that I looked at and said "wow, you don't see that very often", and their figures bear it out. I watched Barry Richards play three innings- two for Kent and one when I played against him for Derbyshire. He didn't play much test cricket but to my mind he was great; and so was Viv Richards and Greg Chappell. They were the three guys who I thought were great. There were a lot of names on that list but for me it was the look and out of this lot it's Tendulkar and Lara.


...



SM: He's a completely different person now, totally selfless! But Ian, from this lot, Tendulkar, Lara, Waugh, Dravid, Ponting, Inzamam and Jaques Kallis, who would you pick?

IC: Out of that lot I would put Tendulkar, Lara and Ponting in that category.

SM: Will you also not pick amongst them?

IC: I will. The point I want to make is that Tendulkar and Lara started quite a lot time before Ponting and it does take a long time to establish yourself as a great player. And whilst I think that Ponting has now surpassed Tendulkar and Lara, that has got a bit to do with age. While I do think that Ponting has entered that category since he hasn't been around for that long, I'll pick from the other two. And if you pointed a gun to my head and said pick one, I'd pick Brian Lara with the proviso that his brain is in gear, because when his brain is in gear I love watching him.


...



SM: Ravi, your definition of greatness?

RS: You mentioned technique, natural skills, ability to handle pressure and ability to score in different conditions meaning adaptability. I would add two more things; consistency and your career, the span of your career. You can't do it just for one or two years. To be rated it should be a decade, a little more than a decade. And one key word that's missing -- the ability to dominate attacks. Ian mentioned Geoffrey Boycott and like he said, he could score a lot of runs but could never dominate the attack. From this list I would pick Tendulkar and Lara. Ponting too has definitely come in there now but he still has a long way to go, maybe another 5-6 years of cricket. But between Tendulkar and Lara, you would have to give it to Lara because he's dominated more often than not over a span of time. Tendulkar has had his years of brilliance, 96-97 against Australia. Now that is the Tendulkar you would remember; not only did he score hundreds but it was dominating.

SM: He dominated the attacks when the attacks were better.

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/talk/content/multimedia/268727.html?view=transcript

Now overwhelmingly the argument comes to the three said batsmen. Only Sanjay Manjrekar brings up Inzamam, and it is pretty rare infact. I believe it is rightfully concluded that the three best of this day and age are Ponting, Tendulkar, and Lara.

You have been royally owned.

 

[Insomniac]

Nice of you to bring up something from 2006 to support your argument, real nice.

Tendulkar became a BIG choker from 06 to 08. He was already a choker, but he started even choking some more.

Did you know, that Lara is another one of those "players" who don't play to the team requirement.

The difference between Lara and Tendulkar is Lara almost NEVER had a team to put him in a winning position.

If only he played in the era of the 1980s, WI would be unbeatable.

Lara played for his 400* when he could have declared earlier and gave his bowlers a chance to beat England. That was possibly his biggest mistake, yes it had to be done to get 400, but he should have declared so the team could stand a chance of winning.


Anyway, you can believe what you want. Tendulkar CANNOT possibly handle any pressure whatsoever.

Inzamam has the higher average in games their respective teams have won than Sachin.

Inzamam can handle pressure far better than Sachin

Sachin likes to come up with excuses as to why he failed before he even starts his innings.

Sachin chokes when his team needs him to step up to the plate.

Sachin can only score runs for India on most occasions when runs aren't required from him.

When runs are required from him, he decides to get out in a silly way.

Hence, CHOKING.

I've been royally owned? You've shot yourself in the damn foot by bringing up something from 2 years ago! You honestly think Sachin is in that category now? With his head-shaking antics and his dramas?

I'm not surprised he's not in the match referee's office after all these antics. But that doesn't matter, Sachin just can't perform in pressure situations.

He HAS NOT GOT a man of the match award for TEN YEARS. Prehaps in the ONE DAY game Sachin may be with Ponting and Lara, but IN TEST CRICKET, he is NOWHERE NEAR.