Tendulkar v Inzamam TEST CRICKET ONLY

[King Pietersen]

Yeh, you're right. Tendulkar's not scored as many runs as Inzamam in a pressure situation to help his team win, which therefore makes Inzamam a better player. If that's true then you're saying that Brian Lara is worse than Inzamam. Lara only won 32 test matches out of 131, he averaged 60 in the ones that West Indies won, but he failed to make his team win often, so he's rubbish. Lara averaged 70 in draws for the West Indies, does that mean he's a choker or that he wasn't good enough to help his team win, does that mean that Lara played for his stats ?

Your point makes no sense. So what if Inzamam made more runs in winning situations, that doesn't make him a better player. As the great Michael Holding often proclaims, batsmen make the runs, bowlers win test matches. Inzamam was graced with some fantastic fast bowlers which I'm sure had more of a contribution to the team wins that Inzamam's runs. Wasim and Waqar offered far more match winning potential than the likes of Kumble and Srinath. At the end of the day, Tendulkar has a higher test average, a higher ODi average, More Test runs, more ODi runs, more Test Hundreds, more ODi hundreds, a better ODi strike rate, a better record against the best team in the world away from home, yet you still believe that Inzamam is better. It's laughable.

 

[Insomniac]

Yeh, you're right. Tendulkar's not scored as many runs as Inzamam in a pressure situation to help his team win, which therefore makes Inzamam a better player. If that's true then you're saying that Brian Lara is worse than Inzamam. Lara only won 32 test matches out of 131, he averaged 60 in the ones that West Indies won, but he failed to make his team win often, so he's rubbish. Lara averaged 70 in draws for the West Indies, does that mean he's a choker or that he wasn't good enough to help his team win, does that mean that Lara played for his stats ?

Your point makes no sense. So what if Inzamam made more runs in winning situations, that doesn't make him a better player. As the great Michael Holding often proclaims, batsmen make the runs, bowlers win test matches. Inzamam was graced with some fantastic fast bowlers which I'm sure had more of a contribution to the team wins that Inzamam's runs. Wasim and Waqar offered far more match winning potential than the likes of Kumble and Srinath. At the end of the day, Tendulkar has a higher test average, a higher ODi average, More Test runs, more ODi runs, more Test Hundreds, more ODi hundreds, a better ODi strike rate, a better record against the best team in the world away from home, yet you still believe that Inzamam is better. It's laughable.

Brian Lara unfortunately was born in the wrong country, but anyway regarding him.

What year would you say the West Indies "became second-class"

Just answer me that question, and I'll give you an answer

In my opinion, they started struggling in 2004.

Secondly your ODI stats have nothing to do with this thread, please take them back to your toilet cleaning job

Thirdly, let me tell you this. Rao Iftikhar averaged 80.00 with the bat in ODIs. Is he better than Sachin and Inzamam?

Sometimes you have to analyze the statistics, to paint the picture

 

[McLOVIN]

inzi played those "CAPTAIN INNGINS", he scored lots of match winning runs. On the other hand sachin the master with more TALENT then inzi just SCORED RUNS.

sacins scored 42 centuries, and india lost on 26/28 of em.

>>Since 1999, India has won 36 test matches. Most surprisingly Sachin Tendulkar was not man of the match in a single match. It shows he is not a match winning player. On the other hand man of the match award in these winning matches have gone to: Kumble -7, Dravid - 5, Harbhajan - 5, Sehwag - 3, Ganguly - 2, Laxman - 2 and Zaheer Khan - 2.

want more examples? he couldn't score on WC 2003 final, when every one was expecting him to do so. He made 5 100s [could have been 9] on the whole world cup, but couldn't score one when he had to.

oh yeah. so much of "sachin is gona kill mendis", "mendis is no good, sachin will prove it", "just wait and see what sachin does to mendis". but...sachin couldnt do anything.

 

[Insomniac]

inzi played those "CAPTAIN INNGINS", he scored lots of match winning runs. On the other hand sachin the master with more TALENT then inzi just SCORED RUNS.

sacins scored 42 centuries, and india lost on 26/28 of em.

>>Since 1999, India has won 36 test matches. Most surprisingly Sachin Tendulkar was not man of the match in a single match. It shows he is not a match winning player. On the other hand man of the match award in these winning matches have gone to: Kumble -7, Dravid - 5, Harbhajan - 5, Sehwag - 3, Ganguly - 2, Laxman - 2 and Zaheer Khan - 2.

want more examples? he couldn't score on WC 2003 final, when every one was expecting him to do so. He made 5 100s [could have been 9] on the whole world cup, but couldn't score one when he had to.

oh yeah. so much of "sachin is gona kill mendis", "mendis is no good, sachin will prove it", "just wait and see what sachin does to mendis". but...sachin couldnt do anything.

Since 1998 actually Sachin Tendulkar has not received a man of the match award in a test match (not counting Bangladesh or Zimbabwe)

And in his entire career he's only received 2 man of the match awards (1987-1998) against a team in the top 8 :

I am still awaiting a response to that damning statistic.

 

[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.

Tendulkar is not some sort of run stealing demon; he scores runs all over the world and many times, he would have come in in poor situations especially when scoring runs in England, New Zealand or South Africa, especially with India's opening problems.

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?

You are overrating Inzamam a tad. Tendulkar averages higher in lost games than Inzamam, does this mean that Inzamam single handedly cost his team the match; just as you imply that he has single handedly won these games in which he averages so high. In fact, Tendulkar scoring runs in lost games perhaps notes that he can score runs when the chips are down, only to be let down by his peers. The point is that statistics can be interpreted in many many ways and so used to prove anything, 40% of people know that.

 

[King Pietersen]

Secondly your ODI stats have nothing to do with this thread, please take them back to your toilet cleaning job

Thirdly, let me tell you this. Rao Iftikhar averaged 80.00 with the bat in ODIs. Is he better than Sachin and Inzamam?

Sometimes you have to analyze the statistics, to paint the picture

If I had just based my entire argument on the averages then you have every reason to insult, but I didn't, so your Rao Ifitkhar point is ridiculous. I know that this thread isn't regarding ODi stats, but i thought I'd mention them anyway, as they show the difference in talent even further. Sachins only played a few extra ODi's and has 20 extra hundreds, that speaks volumes for the man. Surely the depth of stats mentioned in my few posts in this thread show you something, Sachins averages are higher, more runs (in both forms), more hundreds, better record against the worlds best.

You seem to be basing your entire argument around the fact that Inzamam has scored more runs to give his team victories. That's just purely coincidental, the pure fact of the matter is, the basic stats show that Tendulkar is a better player. The sooner you accept that, the better off the forum will be. You've already become slightly offensive towards me, with the toilet cleaning comment, and I can just see this escalating and you getting into trouble. So it would be easier for us all if you just backed down and admitted that your views are steeped in bias. I have no reason to be backing Tendulkar, I'm not Indian, but the clear facts state that he's a better player.

 

[nightprowler10]

Wrong on that account zMario. He was man of the match in the Chennai Test against Pakistan that India lost in '99.

 

[Insomniac]

Tendulkar is not some sort of run stealing demon; he scores runs all over the world and many times, he would have come in in poor situations especially when scoring runs in England, New Zealand or South Africa, especially with India's opening problems.

And he'd fail there, would he not? More than often, when the pressure is on, he struggles. Just look what happened to him in Sri Lanka? (Ok fair enough, the review system exposed him a little, but still)



You are overrating Inzamam a tad. Tendulkar averages higher in lost games than Inzamam, does this mean that Inzamam single handedly cost his team the match; just as you imply that he has single handedly won these games in which he averages so high. In fact, Tendulkar scoring runs in lost games perhaps notes that he can score runs when the chips are down, only to be let down by his peers. The point is that statistics can be interpreted in many many ways and so used to prove anything, 40% of people know that.

If you read my post to pal, the batsmen around Inzamam average a lot higher than the Indian batsmen he named (Dravid, Ganguly, Laxman)

Tendulkar scoring runs in LOST situations such as chasing 500 with 2 days to play is when he scores. More than often the team in that situation loses anyway, so I'm not sure exactly how Tendulkar is scoring runs when the chips are down.

Again, I asked you the question, and I'm going to reask it, and I ask that you answer it.

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?

Also King Pietersen, can you please answer my question as to when you feel West Indies became a "bad" team as far as their performances in the test arena are concerned.

By the way King Pietersen. You're saying coincidental. Are 49 test matches COINCIDENTAL? You cannot be serious with that point. Absolutely not.

Replies in bold.

zMario added 2 Minutes and 18 Seconds later...

Wrong on that account zMario. He was man of the match in the Chennai Test against Pakistan that India lost in '99.

India lost

Let me reiterate (sp?) the statistic again.

This stat include only matches won for their respective countries.

Since 1998 Sachin Tendulkar has NOT received a man of the match award in a winning cause. Sachin Tendulkar only has TWO man of the match awards that came in a winning cause. And both came IN INDIA.

Inzamam-ul-Haq in his test career has received FIVE man of the match awards in his career in a winning cause. 3 were at home, 2 were away. He also received 2 man of the SERIES awards with that.

Matches which had Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are NOT counted.

 

[Harrypotter_fan]

*cough* has Rao Iftikhar played even 100 innings? *cough*. Once a player has played more than 300 matches, stats don't lie. If Inzi was so damn good, why didn't he score more runs than Sachin per inning? Answer that.

 

[manee]

If you read my post to pal, the batsmen around Inzamam average a lot higher than the Indian batsmen he named (Dravid, Ganguly, Laxman)

At the same time as each other? Throughout Inzamam's entire career, keeping in mind that the Fab Four have existed throughout a large portion of Tendulkar's career. Why ignore Sehwag, who averages 40(odd) in won games?

 

[nightprowler10]

Wrong on that account zMario. He was man of the match in the Chennai Test against Pakistan that India lost in '99.

Since 1998 actually Sachin Tendulkar has not received a man of the match award in a test match (not counting Bangladesh or Zimbabwe)

And in his entire career he's only received 2 man of the match awards (1987-1998) against a team in the top 8 :

I am still awaiting a response to that damning statistic.

Don't care about the result, I just corrected your statement.

 

[Insomniac]

*cough* has Rao Iftikhar played even 100 innings? *cough*. Once a player has played more than 300 matches, stats don't lie. If Inzi was so damn good, why didn't he score more runs than Sachin per inning? Answer that.

Answering my question with another question, clever.

I will have the decency to at least answer your question, and the answer is Sachin Tendulkar paddled his statistic with meaningless knocks that never relaly helped the teaem.

Also manee, Saeed Anwar, Yousuf Youhana / Mohammad Yousuf, and Younus Khan all played with Inzamam for a very long time.

Pal did not mention Sehwag, and thus he was not included. I limited the number of players to three as well. Also, you're yet to answer my question -

Why does Tendulkar not have a man of the match award since 1998 in an Indian win? Why does he only have TWO in an Indian win?

Surely a man of such class would have more man of the match awards if he can take his team to victory and all.

zMario added 0 Minutes and 50 Seconds later...

Don't care about the result, I just corrected your statement.

You just clarified my statement

But it is a damning statistic

 

[manee]

Why does Tendulkar not have a man of the match award since 1998 in an Indian win? Why does he only have TWO in an Indian win?

Surely a man of such class would have more man of the match awards if he can take his team to victory and all.

He doesn't outperform his teammates in wins, what is your point?

 

[Insomniac]

He doesn't outperform his teammates in wins, what is your point?

Or maybe he doesn't perform at all, while pressure absorbers like Rahul Dravid do?

 

[manee]

Or maybe he doesn't perform at all, while pressure absorbers like Rahul Dravid do?

'Maybe he doesn't perform at all'? C'mon, you can't just make things up, Tendulkar does score runs in Indian wins and you know that.