Tendulkar v Inzamam TEST CRICKET ONLY

[Deleted member 9102]

Edit: Chris Gayle

 

[Harrypotter_fan]

I don't get the point of making runs when 'not needed'. When are runs not needed? Saying that implies that when India wins and Sachin scored a century, his century was not needed. And that is really um... <no word can describe it>.

 

[lightbulb]

The stats show Inzamam's average is higher in matches his team has won than Sachin's in matches he has won

Why would Inzamam be under less pressure when he started his innings effectively with the score at 0/2.

Lightbulb, are you blind? Have you not seen everything we have written? All the reasons.

Please read what we have said, then talk to us. You are just coming into this thread giving your less than half cent without even reading why we feel Inzamam is better than Tendulkar.

How about you look around and smell the roses?

 

[Insomniac]

I don't get the point of making runs when 'not needed'. When are runs not needed? Saying that implies that when India wins and Sachin scored a century, his century was not needed. And that is really um... <no word can describe it>.

My point is, the score is around 350/2, after India bowled the opposition for around 180.

And Sachin scores in that situation (and why shouldn't he, I'm not saying he shouldn't have scored runs)

But in the second innings, when chasing say, 200, India are 80/2

Sachin would probably get out before India even got to 100. That is called choking.

We're not saying his runs are totally useless, but he can only score when hes not under pressure to perform for the team. When in a chasing pressure situation, he CHOKES

zMario added 0 Minutes and 48 Seconds later...

How about you look around and smell the roses?

All I smell is dirt spouting from your mouth

 

[prarara]

My point is, the score is around 350/2, after India bowled the opposition for around 180.

And Sachin scores in that situation (and why shouldn't he, I'm not saying he shouldn't have scored runs)

But in the second innings, when chasing say, 200, India are 80/2

Sachin would probably get out before India even got to 100. That is called choking.

We're not saying his runs are totally useless, but he can only score when hes not under pressure to perform for the team. When in a chasing pressure situation, he CHOKES

zMario added 0 Minutes and 48 Seconds later...


All I smell is dirt spouting from your mouth

If the point of your thread is that Sachin chokes more than Inzamam fine, you've got a valid point. However, if you are talking about the best batsmen, in the test arena even, then the expert opinion is that Tendulkar is the better.

It's pathetic that you have to scrounge so deep into the barrel to proove your point.

Anywho, you have been soundly beaten, this is me vindictively poking the dead and beaten horse.

 

[King Pietersen]

Sachin is far better. He's the greatest batsman of his generation. He is pure brilliance, Inzamam was a great batsman, but Tendulkar is up there with the greats for me, apart from Bradman of course. He's up there with Ponting, Pollock, Lara, Richards, Grace, Hobbs, etc etc. Inzamam's not even the highest scoring Pakistani Test batsman of all time. He has nothing on Tendulkar from where I'm sitting.

 

[TruSachFan]

Sachin is far better. He's the greatest batsman of his generation. He is pure brilliance, Inzamam was a great batsman, but Tendulkar is up there with the greats for me, apart from Bradman of course. He's up there with Ponting, Pollock, Richards, Grace, Hobbs, etc etc. Inzamam's not even the highest scoring Pakistani Test batsman of all time. He has nothing on Tendulkar from where I'm sitting.

damn, how'd u manage to leave lara out?

 

[King Pietersen]

Look again

;p

I knew I'd forget a few greats, they were the few that came into my head first.

 

[Insomniac]

Let's please follow the point of discussion logically.

1.) The panel of Experts (John Wright, Ian Chappell-a noted antiSachin critic, Sanjay Manjrekar, and Ravi Shastri-someone who I might add, you falsely said supports Inzi over Sachin) met in 2006 to judge the hollistic performance of the modern batsmen. They all concurred that the top three include Ricky Ponting, Brian Lara, and Sachin Tendulkar. Now Inzi was not considered. If Inzi is as good as you claim him to be why was he not on this list?

This list was done in 2006. It is the ONLY proof you have been able to give me. Once again, if you ask these panel of experts again, they will NOT NAME Sachin Tendulkar in this list. And you know it

2.) Now you make a point that since 2006 Tendulkar's Test Average has precluded him to be a choker. While I agree, this was the nadir of his career, he still out performed Inzi in terms of the batting average.
I would also like to add, 1 and a 1/2 years should not make much of a difference to what is decided as 'legend' status. I repeat again, if Inzi was as good as you say he is, why was he not in the list in 2006? I will quote you directly to proove a point:

You idiot, you're using your stats that you played around with that made Inzamam's average lower. Inzamam's average WAS HIGHER than Sachin Tendulkar's in both of their last 2 years of playing (Inzamam 2005 to Oct 2007, Sachin 2006-08). If it doesn't make a difference, why are you still continuing to LIE?

That is JUST one list, that you are using to defend Sachin. Sachin is an elegant batsman, but he CHOKES under pressure, unlike Inzamam. Sachin has choked throughout his ENTIRE country.



So if this panel was done in 2006, when Inzi's last year (06-07) would have brought down his average, why was he not considered as the top three? If anything your argument disprooves your point, because if Inzi is as good as you say he is he should have been in the top three/four in 2006

Yet his average is higher than Tendulkar's

3.) Now you have had to go to specific examples to say that Inzi is a better pressure absorber, and though in specific circumstances Inzi may come out better. As a hollistic examination of a batsmen carrer, Tendulkar is the clear winner, and I can refute any point you make with the panel decision in 2006.

WHO CARES ABOUT THE DAMN PANEL? It was in 2006. You can only point out one panel

4.) I will concede all the points, if you can point out a newer (after 2006) panel that has claimed Inzamam as higher. If you cannot do so, then do not presuppose what they might consider.

Wisden 2008. Is that a good enough panel for you?

In 2008 Wisden identified five prominent players from the past who, for various reasons, had missed out on the honour: they were Abdul Qadir, Bishan Bedi, Wes Hall, Inzamam-ul-Haq and Jeff Thomson. .

As you can see, even Wisden did not realize the greatness of Inzamam - he is very under-rated because there is no statistic for the handling of preessure



Also, a round-table discussion took place yesterday. Its members: Sanjay Manjrekar, Imran Khan, Ramiz Raja, Geoffrey Boycott, and Chris Cairns. I believe this took place 2 weeks back, however, it was aired today.

They were talking about the game of cricket in today's time, and how the review system will affect it (which leads me to believe it was right before SL v Ind, 1st test).

Sanjay brought up, whether batsmen will be under more pressure, because if the umpire gives him the benefit of the doubt, then the fielding captain can appeal it, and get the decision in his favor.

The discussions lead to one thing and another (I wasn't paying much attention), till Sanjay mentions, "Facing pressure guys, how is it? When you're in those situations when you need 60 runs off 37 balls, or need 30 runs but are batting with the #11 batsman?"

Imran remarked, that even without that situation, you're ALWAYS under pressure in international cricket. It doesn't matter what the situation is, if you've bowled a team out for 100, and are 500/1, you will be under pressure to some extent, because this is international cricket.

Sanjay: Right, Geoffrey?

Geoffrey: Well, I'll just share Imran's sentiments, because you will be under pressure. It just depends on those situations like you mentioned Sanjay, it takes special batsmen to handle those situations.

Sanjay: What sort of batsmen do you mean? We've seen the Laras, the Tendulkars, Kallis, the Waughs, even the great Imran Khan whose sitting with us. *laugh*

Ramiz gives his 2 cents: Well Sanjay, the batsmen who can handle that type of pressure consistently, my opinion theres only 2. Steve Waugh and Inzamam-ul-Haq. Both could be depended on in ODIs, and test cricket. It would not matter what format, any format. If you have a pressure situation, I'd want Steve Waugh or Inzamam at the crease.

Chris Cairns chips in, what about Fleming? Usually when chasing a big score, he'd give us confidence at the beginning of a one day innings by going after the bowlers and getting us to a great start.

Geoffrey: I like Fleming, he's a great player, but could he be trusted at the end of an innings to finish a game off? He's an opener by trade, you cannot determine it.

Sanjay: Imran, what are your thoughts?

Imran: Well Sanjay, I think Inzamam is one of the greatest if not the greatest batsman to play for Pakistan. He was able to absorb presure, and play those special innings when the team needed him. Whenever Inzamam went out to bat, there was a trust that he would make a big score.

I did not see Steve Waugh many times, but when I did, I could tell that he could easily control the situation.

Sanjay: So do you guys feel, that Steve Waugh and Inzamam-ul-Haq can handle pressure better than Lara, Ponting, or Tendulkar?

Boycott: Lara, Ponting, and Tendulkar are great batsmen of this era. But, most of the time, they will not perform when put under pressure. *Boycott starts moving his hands* In my opinion, Steve Waugh and Inzamam are very under-rated batsmen. Most people look at the statistics, and at the top you have Ponting, Dravid, Lara, and Tendulkar.

Then towards the bottom, you have Waugh and Inzamam. Sanjay, if there was a statistic for pressure, they would be at the top.

Sanjay: So you would have Steve Waugh and Inzamam in your team rather than say, Ricky Ponting, Brian Lara, or Sachin Tendulkar?

Imran: Absolutely. NO question about it. Inzamam was able to grasp the World Cup for us, at the age of 22. That semi final innings he played - amazing. Thats real pressure for you, and that at such a young age.
But to be fair, Rahul Dravid has played many pressure knocks for India, but hes in one class under Inzamam and Steve Waugh.

Chris Cairns: Well, I'm gonna be a little biased here, because all three batsmen have destroyed us in the past, but I will have to do agree with that. Its just that in the modern day game, everyone looks at the averages. You don't even think about how this player helped his team win.

Sanjay: Well there you have it - if you have a pressure situation, it seems that you would want Steve Waugh or Inzamam-ul-Haq at the crease.

Now coming back to this review system, would you think that the big 500, 600 scores we see will come down?

 

[Harrypotter_fan]

My point is, the score is around 350/2, after India bowled the opposition for around 180.

And Sachin scores in that situation (and why shouldn't he, I'm not saying he shouldn't have scored runs)

But in the second innings, when chasing say, 200, India are 80/2

Sachin would probably get out before India even got to 100. That is called choking.

We're not saying his runs are totally useless, but he can only score when hes not under pressure to perform for the team. When in a chasing pressure situation, he CHOKES

For Sachin to get out before India reaches 100, 2 wickets have to fall. So this means that the whole team hasn't played, you can't blame Sachin alone.

 

[Insomniac]

If the point of your thread is that Sachin chokes more than Inzamam fine, you've got a valid point. However, if you are talking about the best batsmen, in the test arena even, then the expert opinion is that Tendulkar is the better.

It's pathetic that you have to scrounge so deep into the barrel to proove your point.

Anywho, you have been soundly beaten, this is me vindictively poking the dead and beaten horse.

Whats the definition of a great batsmen? One who can just score runs, but can't score them when under pressure?

Or is it one that can always get runs, and can handle pressure situations brilliantly?

zMario added 0 Minutes and 53 Seconds later...

For Sachin to get out before India reaches 100, 2 wickets have to fall. So this means that the whole team hasn't played, you can't blame Sachin alone.

80 FOR 2.

2 wickets have fallen to the new ball

zMario added 6 Minutes and 48 Seconds later...

Damn,Sachin lacks of Nandrolone there.

Ok Let me End the discussion here.
I am going very logical,

1) Sachin carries pressure of 100 Crores people behind him where Inzi doesn't even half of them.
2) Failure from Sachin costs him more than Inzi's failure.(In terms of expectation)

For Example Sachin eveytimes carries the pressure of 53 peoples from PC where in comparision Inzi carries evn 20 percent of it.

there was a long period between 1997 and 2000 where whole Indian team depended on Sachin's batting.Only Sachin's batting was hope for India to win.
Same time Inzi got support from Great fast bowling(though don't know they did dope test or not).

Why despite of all your stats all the non indian's voted for Sachin?
Because Sachin is a far more better personality.After the hell of sucess He is still so calm and Kind.It doesn't make difference in your point but it certainly makes difference to the people who vote.

If you write more 10 pages with stats then also Sachin would get more votes whatever the reason.If it is because there are more Indians in Forum then in the whole World you will find same conditions and so Sachin will lead anywhere you set up the same poll(Except Pakistan).

I am not asking you to stop your arguments neither I can but I am just telling you that after wasting so much anergy If you still can't reverse the poll then and It is not worth.Still your Choice,go on..

Vaibhav, are you actually serious?

You're using the excuse of the number of people in India as pressure? Wow, thats sad.

You are saying Sachin is a better personality? He's calm and kind?

He is a LIAR. He is trying to make the umpires think that he's edged a ball when he hasn't, or vice versa. And YOU KNOW IT.

Watch this: I have some sympathy with Indian fans on the decision, but there is NO NEED for this crap from Sachin. He is LUCKY not to be in the match referee's office, but if he was, then India would throw all their toys out of the box, and go home.

Why does Sachin have to lie to the umpires? Why does Sachin have to do such antics.

1:28 is when the LBW appeal occurs. Then watch what Sachin does. Regarding the LBW, height, and the edge was a factor. Watch 2:36.

DISGRACEFUL. Sachin is not the umpire. While the decision may be correct, he CANNOT do that. And guess what, if you look, he's waiting for the camera to be pointed at him, and then he raised the finger. You call him a sportsman?

Wow, you are a "True Sachin Fan"

zMario added 1 Minutes and 17 Seconds later...

Sachin is far better. He's the greatest batsman of his generation. He is pure brilliance, Inzamam was a great batsman, but Tendulkar is up there with the greats for me, apart from Bradman of course. He's up there with Ponting, Pollock, Lara, Richards, Grace, Hobbs, etc etc. Inzamam's not even the highest scoring Pakistani Test batsman of all time. He has nothing on Tendulkar from where I'm sitting.

He has the most 100s by a Pakistani batsman, and is only 3 runs away from the most runs in Test Cricket for Pakistan.

 

[Pakistani Army]

Wow zMario, that is quite impressive. Even I thought Sachin was the better batsman, but you have seriously convinced me with all the stats and now this. I for one am convinced by this. When I think about it, it seems that Inzamam actually was able to deal with pressure and score runs at a reasonable pace whilst Tendulkar could just score runs in meaningless situations to be honest. But still Sachin is a World Class batsmen and should not be unclassed.

 

[prarara]

Nice job there, I have to agree. However, neither the Wisden nor the interview claims Inzy is better then Tendulkar, in terms of pure test batsmenship (as the first interview shows) Tendulkar is rated higher. As a team player, and a pressure absorber, Inzy is rated higher.

 

[Insomniac]

Nice job there, I have to agree. However, neither the Wisden nor the interview claims Inzy is better then Tendulkar, in terms of pure test batsmenship (as the first interview shows) Tendulkar is rated higher. As a team player, and a pressure absorber, Inzy is rated higher.

Are we comparing the two as batsmen or cricketers?

I was thinking this thread was on their cricket-playing skills and what they do on the field

 

[Chetan0304]

This Guy gives Stats and long post Sachin is Far better Than Inzamam

Mario there are some facts that you can never change...

for me