Tendulkar v Inzamam TEST CRICKET ONLY

[Cricketdude]

Ive seen numerous times where Tendulkar has thrown away a century when he was in the 90's.

 

[Chetan0304]

Excellent post mate(pal) Impressed me and till the end of my life i ll stick to reality which was is and always be Sachin is best compared to Inzi

Poll says it all ...If you say that majority Indians and fans and all the blah blah.... You shouldn't have a poll .if you knew the result...

 

[Cricketdude]

http://in.reuters.com/article/cricketNews/idINIndia-34977620080812

REUTERS - India batsman Sachin Tendulkar has dropped to his lowest ranking since 1992 in the International Cricket Council's test standings for batsmen after a disappointing series against Sri Lanka.

Tendulkar, who started the series in 13th position, slipped to 23rd after scoring 95 runs at an average of 15.83. He managed only six and 14 in the third and final test which Sri Lanka won by eight wickets in Colombo on Monday to clinch the series 2-1.

India's Virender Sehwag returned to the top 10 for the first time since March 2006 while Sri Lanka's Kumar Sangakkara climbed to second behind top-ranked West Indian Shivnarine Chanderpaul.

 

[khalek]

An Indian created the poll

 

[Chetan0304]

I read That in TMOI So Zmario how about Sehwag V Inzamam thread? Keep the Stats ready

 

[manee]

Ive seen numerous times where Tendulkar has thrown away a century when he was in the 90's.

Recently, that is of course true, but Tendulkar would not hold the record for Test centuries if he has been doing that consistently throughout his career.

 

[Insomniac]

Point 1:



Response 1:

That does seem like a point of contention, doesn't it? What you have unfortunately missed is the fact that the Indian batting line up, for most of the last two decades, has also contained the batting behemoths of Dravid, Ganguly, and Laxman. Dravid, in particular, has scored over 10,246 runs. Ganguly and Laxman have chipped in with 6888 and 6000, respectively. Now, it should be easy enough to understand that when setting a score, Sachin has to compete with those three batsmen (Dravid in particular) in scoring the required runs. Now, take a look at the Pakistani batting line up. Among all of Inzamam's peers, only Mohammad Yousuf has scored above 6000 runs in tests.

I hope that response is made clear, because it answers your point. Take a look at the statistics. In test matches India have won, Dravid averages 71.54. If you want to look at the 'lesser' two batsmen of the three, Laxman and Ganguly average 51 and 46 respectively. So, if India is chasing some score to win, Sachin competes with those three to score the runs and consequently, he can't score as much. I will say that Inzamam has certainly performed admirably to average 78.16 in tests Pakistan has won. That only re-iterates his importance to the Pakistani team and his ranking as one of the greatest Pakistani batsmen.

I can also play this game. Saeed Anwar, Younus Khan, and Mohammad Yousuf have all been a part of the Pakistan batting for so long in test cricket and have also helped Inzamam win.

Mohammd Yousuf averages 59.47 in Pakistan wins, Younus Khan averages 67.90 in Pakistan wins, and Saeed Anwar averages 66.29 in matches won

If anything, Inzamam's had less opportunities to take his team to victory. If Pakistan is chasing some score to win, Inzamam had to compete with them to score the runs. Interestingly if you add those 3's averages, it comes out MORE than India's.[/B]





Point 2:



Response 2:

That's illogical. Cricket is played by teams of eleven. You can't fault Sachin for scoring 100s when the other ten players don't perform. Sachin has scored 30 hundreds when India has won/drawn. Inzamam has scored 23 hundreds when Pakistan has won/drawn. I could also use your statistics to frame the argument this way. Sachin scoring more hundreds in lost matches only defeats your point about him failing under pressure. When the team crumbles around him and when India fails an insurmountable task, he still manages to score 100s.

It does NOT help the team if Sachin scores 100s for lost causes. What's it worth if it doesn't help the team win? This is very debatable, becasue would you want a player that scores a 100 when his team is knowingly in a position to lose, or a player that scores a 100 when the team is struggling, but in a position to win.



A little joke I've heard, if you don't mind:

Inzamam
Pronounced: Inz-a-mam
Definition: A fat tub of immovable lard.


Point 4:



Response 4:

How convenient. We'll simply ignore the fact that Sachin has been plagued by his tennis elbow problem since 2004 (which once again has sidelined him from the ODIs). We'll also ignore the fact that Sachin averaged 60.38 in his last 50 tests matches before his elbow injury appeared. And why not, let's also ignore the fact that it is quite meaningless to arbitrarily pick an interval of 50 matches to compare the two batsmen's averages, instead of comparing them over their entire careers.

Why does it seem to me that you have done nothing up to this point except harp on the point that Inzamam has averaged a higher number of runs in matches Pakistan have won than Sachin has averaged in matches India have won. I have already answered that argument with my first point. I would think that it is quite simple. In the same 5-year interval that you have taken the luxury of choosing (and assuming for everybody to be the 'best time of his career'), Dravid averaged 69.30 in the matches India won. Laxman averaged 63.46 and Ganguly averaged 52. In any successful run chase for India, Sachin had to compete with those three batsmen in scoring the required amount of runs. Once again, Inzamam's average in the arbitrary interval that you have taken the luxury of choosing indicates his importance to successful Pakistani run chases.

Now, I wish to propose something that, apparently, might seem revolutionary to you, considering you haven't addressed it. Why not look at their averages in matches their teams have drawn or lost? Isn't that a fairer indication of mettle under pressure, when your team is crumbling around you, when you are facing a daunting task?

In the tests India have drawn/lost, Sachin has averaged 51.05.

In the tests Pakistan have drawn/lost, Inzamam has averaged 35.

Talk about performing (or not performing) in difficult situations.

First of all, I used the time period of 1997 to 2002 after asking Manee what Tendulkar's prime time would be considered as. I DID NOT conveniently pick the statistics, I asked manee via MSN, and I was told that 1997-2002 would be his prime time. His elbow injury occured in 2004. Forget the last 50 tests and the last 2 years, just look at their "primes"

Point 5:


Response 5:

Thank goodness, then, that your 'most daming ever' statistic is a false one. Sachin Tendulkar has received, not 'TWO', but ELEVEN man of the match awards. Inzamam has received nine.

Actually you're wrong. My most damning ever statistic is true. Sachin Tendulkar has received only two man of the match awards in INDIA wins. He has NOT received a man of the match award since 1998 in an Indian win.

Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are removed for this statistic

Point 6:



Response 6:

I disagree. You have provided 3 matches as examples where Sachin has failed under pressure. He has played 150 matches. It is only natural for all batsmen to fail in some matches. Not all of us are built like Pakistanis, apparently. Ricky Ponting has failed under pressure in matches, Brian Lara has failed under pressure in matches, why even the great Donald Bradman failed under pressure in his final match. Pointing out such arbitrary matches, while ignoring the bigger picture, means nothing. Why not look at matches where he has thrived under pressure?

I've provided 3 matches, do I need to show more? This is a respond to below as well - All batsmen will fail at some point when put under pressure. The truth is that Sachin happens to fail more often than not than Lara and Inzamam.

Regarding your attitude on the draw/loss thing, I speak of pressure when you're chasing a decent total, like 220 on day 5, but are 20/2 and you're able to take your team to victory. I'm not talking about the situations where the team players utter crap, and is 70/5 on day 1 of a test.

This is why one should use the won match thing, and the fact that everyone around him scores is not an excuse anymore, because I've shown that Younus, Yousuf, and Saeed Anwar average more in Pakistan wins (once you add them up and add India's)

Here are a few matches that immediately come to mind:

India vs. England (http://content-www.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/63535.html)

India needs 408 runs to win. India falls to 183/6, when Sachin Tendulkar rescues them with a 119* and takes them safely to 343/6.

India vs. Australia (http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1997-98/AUS_IN_IND/AUS_IND_T1_06-10MAR1998.html)

India falls behind after Australia posts 328 to India's 257. In India's crucial second innings, Sachin scores 155* to set a fighting lead for his bowlers to defend. Australia is all out for 168.

There is, of course, the memorable Sharjah final against Australia, where Sachin singlehandedly won the match for India scoring 134. In fact, Shane Warne actually made his famous comment about seeing Sachin hitting him for sixes in his nightmares after this match. Why not take a look at that unbelievable Champions Trophy match where Sachin scored 141 from 128 balls and then took 4 wickets for 38 runs when Australia were poised well at 172/3?

We can also take a look at matches were Inzamam has failed miserably. In fact, I pointed this out before, but I will do so again for emphasis. In matches Pakistan have drawn/lost (which are a better representative of how a batsman performs under pressure, with his team crumbling around him while facing an imposing task), Inzamam averages a paltry 35. Sachin averages 51. I'm not going to take the time to post scorecards of matches where Inzamam has failed his team. If you would like to see them, I'm sure the Indian members here will be more than happy to do so. As for me, it is 2 am here. I am pretty sleepy, but I have presented reasonable arguments to your points. I'm also sure that you will feel the need to respond to some of my more emotive comments, but if you do so, just remember that we deal with facts alone and not unsupported opinions or speculations. I respect Inzamam. He has been one of the greatest Pakistani batsmen and a great international player. It's important to note that I don't detract from that fact in any way when I say that Sachin (along with Ponting and Lara) have simply been better (perhaps by a small margin) over their careers.

My responses in bold.

 

[manee]

First of all, I used the time period of 1997 to 2002 after asking Manee what Tendulkar's prime time would be considered as. I DID NOT conveniently pick the statistics, I asked manee via MSN, and I was told that 1997-2002 would be his prime time. His elbow injury occured in 2004. Forget the last 50 tests and the last 2 years, just look at their "primes"

You have ignored the fact that I noted that taking the 'prime' of batsmen is arbitrary and it is far less arbitrary to merely remove irrelevant portions of batsmen's careers, such as if a batsman was out of his depth at the beginning of their career, playing while unfit, etc.

 

[King Pietersen]

Pal's post > thread.

Tendulkar averages higher than Inzamam in almost all the top countries in the world.

Australia:
Inzamam- 494 runs at 31
Tendulkar- 1522 runs at 58

England
Inzamam- 850 runs at 42.50
Tendulkar- 1302 runs at 62

South Africa
Inzamam- 445 runs at 53
Tendulkar- 835 runs at 40

Sri Lanka
Inzamam- 528 runs at 58
Tendulkar- 765 runs at 64

New Zealand
Inzamam- 715 runs at 58
Tendulkar- 498 runs at 42

West Indies
Inzamam- 634 runs at 57
Tendulkar- 620 runs at 47

There we have all the major places in the world for test batsmen. Tendulkar averages higher than Inzamam in Australia, England and Sri Lanka, arguably the 3 hardest places to go and play for a foreign player. His Australia and England stats walk all over Inzamam. Inzamam only seems to average higher than Sachin in the places that are easier to bat, South Africa, New Zealand and West Indies. West Indies and New Zealand also play a lower standard of cricket when compared to the likes of Australia, England and Sri Lanka also.

I just feel that this is a mini version of PakPassion, with the Pakistani representatives claiming their players are the best in the world, even when facts glare them in the face to disprove them. The poll shows that Tendulkar is better, the career stats in both forms show that Tendulkar is better, the sheer amount of runs shows Tendulkar is better, and the amount of hundreds also prove Tendulkar is better. All this baloney about Inzamam being a better cricketer because he scores hundreds in Pakistan wins is complete rubbish. India are a top side because of the sheer amount of runs Tendulkar has scored, and the quality throughout the side has meant that India hasn't always relied on Sachin to score runs. Sachin is undoubtedly the better cricketer for me. Nothing I've seen indicates otherwise.

 

[Insomniac]

Another statistic:

Steve Waugh has the most number of not outs in a test innings that led to a victory with 27

Inzamam-ul-Haq has 17 not outs

Sachin Tendulkar has 12 not outs.

By the way, since we're talking about pressure and chasing in the 4th innings,

Sachin Tendulkar averages 33.12 in the 4th innings of a test.

Inzamam averages 37.69. This does not factor the result of a game (all tests)

Lets add the qualification of having won the game and the 4th innings average

Inzamam averages 88.75 on such occasions, showing he leads his team to victory.

Sachin Tendulkar averages 54.83 on such occasions, showing he may contribute to taking his team to a win, but doesn't do it as well as Inzamam.

zMario added 5 Minutes and 2 Seconds later...

You have ignored the fact that I noted that taking the 'prime' of batsmen is arbitrary and it is far less arbitrary to merely remove irrelevant portions of batsmen's careers, such as if a batsman was out of his depth at the beginning of their career, playing while unfit, etc.

We may as well remove all of Sachin's games then since he was unfit.

Responding to King Pietersen:

Are you even going through this forum, or posting random BS?

It does not matter whether Sachin scores more runs, if they don't help the team.

Also how the hell is New Zealand an easy place to bat? The ball swings and seams, and they've had Bond and Vettori as well as other good bowlers

Once again, if Sachin Tendulkar cannot help the team win, what use are his runs?

Inzamam ALWAYS tried to help the team win, and often succeeded at that.

 

[manee]

We may as well remove all of Sachin's games then since he was unfit.

What?

You have come up with many statistical facts which would be able to separate two batsmen with similar 'basic' statistics but it is clear that Tendulkar has far superior 'basic' statistics and so it becomes irrelevant.

 

[Cricketdude]

Another statistic:

Steve Waugh has the most number of not outs in a test innings that led to a victory with 27

Inzamam-ul-Haq has 17 not outs

Sachin Tendulkar has 12 not outs.

By the way, since we're talking about pressure and chasing in the 4th innings,

Sachin Tendulkar averages 33.12 in the 4th innings of a test.

Inzamam averages 37.69. This does not factor the result of a game (all tests)

Lets add the qualification of having won the game and the 4th innings average

Inzamam averages 88.75 on such occasions, showing he leads his team to victory.

Sachin Tendulkar averages 54.83 on such occasions, showing he may contribute to taking his team to a win, but doesn't do it as well as Inzamam.

zMario added 5 Minutes and 2 Seconds later...


We may as well remove all of Sachin's games then since he was unfit.

Responding to King Pietersen:

Are you even going through this forum, or posting random BS?

It does not matter whether Sachin scores more runs, if they don't help the team.

Also how the hell is New Zealand an easy place to bat? The ball swings and seams, and they've had Bond and Vettori as well as other good bowlers

Once again, if Sachin Tendulkar cannot help the team win, what use are his runs?

Inzamam ALWAYS tried to help the team win, and often succeeded at that.

Heres another stat. Every century Dravid has scored a century India then drew the match. What a match saver!

 

[Insomniac]

What?

You have come up with many statistical facts which would be able to separate two batsmen with similar 'basic' statistics but it is clear that Tendulkar has far superior 'basic' statistics and so it becomes irrelevant.

You're saying to remove the parts of a batsman's career where they were playing unfit.

By Sachin's own excuses, that would be every game he's played.

Anyway, since when does Tendulkar have far superior "basic" statistics?

We are comparing the cricketers. Also sometimes you have to look deeper into the basic statistics.

Define a batsman for me manee?

For me, it is a player who is to score runs for the team in every situation, correct?

Assuming you agree with that, Sachin Tendulkar does NOT score runs for the team in every situation. When the pressure is on, and the team needs him most, he happens to just.. get out stupidly.

The art of choking.

 

[manee]

You're saying to remove the parts of a batsman's career where they were playing unfit.

By Sachin's own excuses, that would be every game he's played.

Would it?

Anyway, since when does Tendulkar have far superior "basic" statistics?

We are comparing the cricketers. Also sometimes you have to look deeper into the basic statistics.

He has a higher Test average against Test quality teams. He also has more Test centuries and performs more consistently all over the world.

Define a batsman for me manee?

Someone who bats as their specialist skill.

Assuming you agree with that, Sachin Tendulkar does NOT score runs for the team in every situation. When the pressure is on, and the team needs him most, he happens to just.. get out stupidly.

The art of choking.

Tendulkar does not always fail when needed to perform, as Pal has noted. However, as I have noted earlier, such specific intracacies become irrelevant as the simple analysis shows Tendulkar is the better batsman.

 

[Insomniac]

Would it?



He has a higher Test average against Test quality teams. He also has more Test centuries and performs more consistently all over the world.



Someone who bats as their specialist skill.



Tendulkar does not always fail when needed to perform, as Pal has noted. However, as I have noted earlier, such specific intracacies become irrelevant as the simple analysis shows Tendulkar is the better batsman.

So manee

Are you saying you would rather have a batsman that paddles his stats and scores his runs when theres no pressure? For example, a score such as 250/2.

But when the same batsman is facing a situation where the score is 20/2 with 200 needed, he plays a stupid shot like trying to hit a six, and gets out.

Or would you have the batsman that ALWAYS scores consistently whether there is pressure or not? And the batsman that can take his team to victory when faced with a pressure situation?