Tendulkar v Inzamam TEST CRICKET ONLY

[Insomniac]

'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.

Yes, he does. I apologize for my slightly exaggerated statement.

Tendulkar does score in Indian wins, but does he have as much of a contribution as a player such as Inzamam-ul-Haq? Rahul Dravid averages WAY more than Tendulkar in Indian wins, and does not falter as much under pressure as Tendulkar.

 

[manee]

Tendulkar does score in Indian wins, but does he have as much of a contribution as a player such as Inzamam-ul-Haq? Rahul Dravid averages WAY more than Tendulkar in Indian wins, and does not falter as much under pressure as Tendulkar.

Tendulkar does not thrive under excessive match pressure, but is he not so much superior to Inzamam away from excessove match pressure (not to mention that he is under constant pressure from fans due to massive expectation on him) that the point becomes moot?

 

[Insomniac]

Cricinfo: 11 Massive Efforts that helped a team go home.

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/363876.html

Inzamam-ul-Haq, 58*, v Australia, Karachi 1994-95
Mark Taylor's first Test as Australia's captain was a barren affair with the bat as he bagged a pair, but it looked as though he would be celebrating victory when Pakistan fell to 258 for 9 chasing 314. Then Inzamam-ul-Haq, batting at No. 8, shared a final-wicket stand of 57 with Mushtaq Ahmed. Jo Angel was convinced at one stage that he had Inzamam lbw - and was later report for dissent, although not charged - before the winning runs came in agonising fashion. Inzamam came down the pitch at Warne, the ball clipped the pad and beat Ian Healy, rushing away for four. "So ended one of the great Test matches," wrote Greg Baum in the Sydney Morning Herald. "One that was never out of reach of either side, but never in the firm grasp of one or the other, was never dull, never lacked quality, and was never going to finish in a draw."

Now honestly tell me, could Sachin Tendulkar even get close to that type of innings?

zMario added 1 Minutes and 22 Seconds later...

Tendulkar does not thrive under match pressure, but is he not so much superior to Inzamam away from match pressure (not to mention that he is under constant pressure from fans due to massive expectation on him) that the point becomes moot?

So hold up - you're saying that because Tendulkar does not thrive under match pressure, it doesn't matter?

Match pressure is PART of the game. You cannot ignore it just because Tendulkar isn't good at handling it.

 

[Harrypotter_fan]

I believe no knocks are meaningless.

 

[Insomniac]

I believe no knocks are meaningless.

Of course they're not exactly meaning-less.

But a match-winning knock is more valued than one that comes in a losing cause, agreed?

 

[manee]

Cricinfo: 11 Massive Efforts that helped a team go home.

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/363876.html

Now honestly tell me, could Sachin Tendulkar even get close to that type of innings?

This one comes close. It 'should' have won the match and would have had Tendulkar some support from his team mates. It was a fantastic innings in the fourth innings against Waqar, Wasim and Saqlain

So hold up - you're saying that because Tendulkar does not thrive under match pressure, it doesn't matter?

Match pressure is PART of the game. You cannot ignore it just because Tendulkar isn't good at handling it.

That is not what I am saying, perhaps you should reread the post.

 

[King Pietersen]

So hold up - you're saying that because Tendulkar does not thrive under match pressure, it doesn't matter?

Match pressure is PART of the game. You cannot ignore it just because Tendulkar isn't good at handling it.

I'm sorry, but no player would be able to average 54 in test cricket if they did not thrive under match pressure. You're claiming that every time that Tendulkar is under pressure in a match situation he fails, which clearly isn't the case. You fail to mention any times where Tendulkar might have saved India from defeat to earn them a draw. He averages 68 in games that India draw, meaning he must have some impact on the team result. No player could score that many runs and that many hundreds if they buckled under pressure at almost every instance. Your argument is becoming more and more obsurd by the post.

 

[evertonfan]

Now honestly tell me, could Sachin Tendulkar even get close to that type of innings?

If Ian healy hadn't have fumbled then Pakistan wouldn't have won so therefore it wouldn't have been a match winning innings. Hence by your logic, it's no innings at all.

 

[Insomniac]

This one comes close. It 'should' have won the match and would have had Tendulkar some support from his team mates. It was a fantastic innings in the fourth innings against Waqar, Wasim and Saqlain



That is not what I am saying, perhaps you should reread the post.

Guess what Manee?

Sachin choked in that game.

Let me quote my post on that exact game which I already talked about.

First test between India and Pakistan in 1999, taking place in Chennai.

Pakistan struggle along to 240 odd in the first innings.

India make 260 in reply.

In the second innings Afridi scores 141 and the rest of the Pakistani batsmen play around him. Pakistan 290 (?) all out, India require 271 to win.

The chase begins badly, with Ramesh and Laxman out, India 6-2.

Dravid and the rest fall, with Sachin surviving a few LBW shouts and caught behinds.

Sachin survives to 218-6.

Sachin starts playing Saqlain nicely, and is about to take India home.

Till Sachin chokes. He decides to hit Saqlain over everyone's head. He's caught easily at mid-off.

He could have easily taken India home, had he played sensibly, and nudged the ones and twos and all.

But no, I have to hit a big shot, I'm Sachin Tendulkar.

India lost the test match and the series by 12 runs.

What a game of test match cricket. And what could have been, for India, had Sachin not choked.

Sachin Tendulkar tried to hit a six, and got out to Saqlain Mushtaq. All his job was to work the ball around, but the pressure, or his mind broke or whatever, and he lost his cool.

Compare that to Inzamam, who would have won the game for Pakistan.

zMario added 4 Minutes and 55 Seconds later...

If Ian healy hadn't have fumbled then Pakistan wouldn't have won so therefore it wouldn't have been a match winning innings. Hence by your logic, it's no innings at all.

Err - Ian Healy was NOWHERE near the ball.

It came off of Inzamam's pad, and went far right to Ian Healy's glove.

Don't argue with me on this point, because I actually have a video of it. Tell me how Ian Healy is suppoused to get that?

Warne bowled the ball down legside, so Healy went to his right. The ball came off the pad, and you may have a case for arguing that first slip should have stopped it, but it bounced in front, so it would be very difficult

I can upload the video if required.

 

[manee]

Guess what Manee?

Sachin choked in that game.

Let me quote my post on that exact game which I already talked about.

Sachin Tendulkar tried to hit a six, and got out to Saqlain Mushtaq. All his job was to work the ball around, but the pressure, or his mind broke or whatever, and he lost his cool.

Compare that to Inzamam, who would have won the game for Pakistan.

The tail were crumbling, they did crumble. Tendulkar had to bat with controlled agression and although it was a poorly excecuted shot; it was a calculated decision as it was an extremely difficult pitch which the tail had no chance of surviving in time for Tendulkar to win the game in singles.

 

[Insomniac]

I'm sorry, but no player would be able to average 54 in test cricket if they did not thrive under match pressure. You're claiming that every time that Tendulkar is under pressure in a match situation he fails, which clearly isn't the case. You fail to mention any times where Tendulkar might have saved India from defeat to earn them a draw. He averages 68 in games that India draw, meaning he must have some impact on the team result. No player could score that many runs and that many hundreds if they buckled under pressure at almost every instance. Your argument is becoming more and more obsurd by the post.

Fair enough.

Here's the first one, where Sachin should have saved India, but failed, once again.

India vs England, Mumbai, March 22, 2006

India have to bat out two complete sessions on the final day to draw
the match and win the series. The score is 75/3, with the most
over-hyped batsman of our generation not out at 34. Predictably, as he
has done throughout his test career, he gets out. India lose the match
and the series.

Pakistan vs England, Lord's, July 17, 2006

Pakistan have to bat out one and a half sessions on the final day to
draw the match. Inzamam arrives at the crease with the scoreboard
reading 116/3. One and a half sessions later, he is still not out at
56. As he has done many times in his career, he has saved a test match for his country.


Do you see the difference?

 

[Gunner786]

looking at stats it is tendulkar,
but there is more to it than stats

did tendulkar make a difference to his team results?
and did inzamam?

 

[Insomniac]

The tail were crumbling, they did crumble. Tendulkar had to bat with controlled agression and although it was a poorly excecuted shot; it was a calculated decision as it was an extremely difficult pitch which the tail had no chance of surviving in time for Tendulkar to win the game in singles.

What are you talking about?

Joshi was at the crease defending every ball comfortably.

When Tendulkar had choked he was batting on 136 off 273

Joshi at the other end was batting at 8 off 20 with one decently hit six.

Joshi averaged 20 with the bat in test cricket, and had a high score of 92. He also averaged 28 in FC cricket.

Let me tell you this - had Tendulkar stayed at the crease till the end, India would have won. Joshi did not look like he was going to get out till Sachin threw his wicket away, and that is the difference between Inzamam and Sachin. Inzamam would have taken Pakistan to victory, Sachin would (as he did here) fail.

zMario added 0 Minutes and 46 Seconds later...

looking at stats it is tendulkar,
but there is more to it than stats

did tendulkar make a difference to his team results?
and did inzamam?

See thats the thing - Tendulkar's performances did lead to match wins, but more of Inzamam's performances lead to match wins.

You cannot argue against an average of 93.00.

 

[King Pietersen]

Fair enough.

Here's the first one, where Sachin should have saved India, but failed, once again.

India vs England, Mumbai, March 22, 2006

India have to bat out two complete sessions on the final day to draw
the match and win the series. The score is 75/3, with the most
over-hyped batsman of our generation not out at 34. Predictably, as he
has done throughout his test career, he gets out. India lose the match
and the series.

Pakistan vs England, Lord's, July 17, 2006

Pakistan have to bat out one and a half sessions on the final day to
draw the match. Inzamam arrives at the crease with the scoreboard
reading 116/3. One and a half sessions later, he is still not out at
56. As he has done many times in his career, he has saved a test match for his country.


Do you see the difference?

Yes. The India game was played on a very difficult pitch, whereas the Pakistan game was played on a typically flat Lords pitch. The whole India team was bowled out for 100 in the 4th innings, you cannot blame that on Tendulkar. England made over 500 in the first innings at Lords, followed by 400 from Pakistan, then 268 from England, and batting out 73 overs on a flat Lords pitch isn't a great challenge, as proven by the touring South African team this summer as well. I'll use one of your quotes here, you need to look beyond the basic stats

 

[manee]

What are you talking about?

Joshi was at the crease defending every ball comfortably.

When Tendulkar had choked he was batting on 136 off 273

Joshi at the other end was batting at 8 off 20 with one decently hit six.

Joshi averaged 20 with the bat in test cricket, and had a high score of 92. He also averaged 28 in FC cricket.

Let me tell you this - had Tendulkar stayed at the crease till the end, India would have won. Joshi did not look like he was going to get out till Sachin threw his wicket away, and that is the difference between Inzamam and Sachin. Inzamam would have taken Pakistan to victory, Sachin would (as he did here) fail.

Having watched the game, I dispute how comfortably Joshi managed to score runs, ignoring the six, of course, which could have easily resulted in a wicket as any six attempt can. 'Inzamam would have taken Pakistan to victory' - Ha! Inzamam may be good in successful chases but you cannot guarantee that he'd win every single close situation definately - you are stepping a tad over the line with the Inzi love, here.