Tendulkar v Inzamam TEST CRICKET ONLY

[manee]

Well its a true statistic. Umar Gul's bowling average vs Tendulkar is 2, in the only test he played against Tendu

But a misleading and pretty irrelevant one; discrediting you significently.

 

[King Pietersen]

Hmm, I wonder why the Inzamam fan doesn't want to discuss ODi cricket. Must be some reasoning behind it..........

I feel that the Test Match comparison has been discussed enough, we're just going round in circles, Tendulkar fans showing faith in the basic statistics, with you claiming that Inzamam is better because of a few hundreds in winning situations. I feel it's now time to move onto ODi cricket, although I'm sure you'll be reluctant as I doubt you'll find anything that will remotely sway my view on that.

 

[Insomniac]

But a misleading and pretty irrelevant one; discrediting you significently.

Scion_sid brought it up.

I quoted Gul, and he decided to insult him

So I decided to make his heart sink with a fact, which could be slightly misleading

Can we get back on topic?

 

[SciD]

Well enough to take Pakistan to victory.

54 run 10th wicket partnership with Mushtaq Ahmed in 1994 to take Pakistan home, something Tendulkar can't do

zMario added 1 Minutes and 30 Seconds later...

Oh wow am I missing a player from India's middle order.

Mohammad Azharuddin.

You're telling me a batting line-up of Dravid, Tendulkar, Azharuddin, Ganguly, and Laxman is BAD?

Seriously, just shut up now you guys. That is SHAMEFUL if you are calling Dravid, Azharuddin, Ganguly, and Laxman bad batsmen in the Indian batting order, and how everyone had to depend on Tendulkar.

First go to a nice cricket site and do your homework. Dravid, Ganguly and LAxman became backbone of Indian midle order after 1997.

And that Azhar was like other Indian batsman tiger at home and pussy abroad. And going by your posts it seems batsman should get out at zero because thay cannot win match for the team.

 

[Insomniac]

Hmm, I wonder why the Inzamam fan doesn't want to discuss ODi cricket. Must be some reasoning behind it..........

I feel that the Test Match comparison has been discussed enough, we're just going round in circles, Tendulkar fans showing faith in the basic statistics, with you claiming that Inzamam is better because of a few hundreds in winning situations. I feel it's now time to move onto ODi cricket, although I'm sure you'll be reluctant as I doubt you'll find anything that will remotely sway my view on that.

This thread's intentions were for test cricket only, and will remain as test cricket only, till there is a change.

I have proven that Inzamam is a better batsman than Sachin Tendulkar in the test arena, and I am waiting for you to dispute the facts, and I will respond to them.

So far, all you can go on and on about is Tendulkar and ODI cricket.

 

[SciD]

Hmm, I wonder why the Inzamam fan doesn't want to discuss ODi cricket. Must be some reasoning behind it..........

Except Ponting noone even comes close to Tendulkar in ODIs. He will be greatest ODI batsman ever.

 

[metallics2006]

zMario just avoids questions when the numbers clearly show that his point has been beaten comprehensively. And when you told me I avoided your story, I was gathering the stats when you typed it out. And this is my reply, if he had not hit a four and had attempted a single when the ball was within the circle, he would have been run out (more like a WALKOUT since its Inzy we are speakin' about). Sachin might have had a 25% chance of success if he was in that position. Its not worth replying to your posts. So enjoy the stats(some of which you obviously cant see) and good luck when someone else comes along to prove you wrong.

 

[King Pietersen]

No, you just choose to ignore the basic statistics that are used throughout the world to decipher who the best player is. Tendulkar's average is better, he has more runs, more centuries, has a better record in the 3 hardest places for a foreign batsman to bat, being Australia, England and Sri Lanka, Tendulkar's also been under way more pressure throughout his career. He's seen as the messiah in India, and is therefore under amazing pressure everytime he goes out to bat. I've seen nothing so far that in anyway changes my view on the matter.

 

[Insomniac]

First go to a nice cricket site and do your homework. Dravid, Ganguly and LAxman became backbone of Indian midle order after 1997.

And that Azhar was like other Indian batsman tiger at home and pussy abroad. And going by your posts it seems batsman should get out at zero because thay cannot win match for the team.

When Sachin Tendulkar, Sourav Ganguly, VVS Laxman, and Rahul Dravid play together in a test, India have a greater than 50% chance of losing the test.

Interesting.

 

[Karachi Xpress]

zMario just avoids questions when the numbers clearly show that his point has been beaten comprehensively. And when you told me I avoided your story, I was gathering the stats when you typed it out. And this is my reply, if he had not hit a four and had attempted a single when the ball was within the circle, he would have been run out (more like a WALKOUT since its Inzy we are speakin' about). Sachin might have had a 25% chance of success if he was in that position. Its not worth replying to your posts. So enjoy the stats(some of which you obviously cant see) and good luck when someone else comes along to prove you wrong.

Well that was actually a dumb reply. If he hadn't hit a four. But too bad he did.

There is no point in arguing about who is better in ODIs since Tendulkar actually is.

 

[SciD]

When Sachin Tendulkar, Sourav Ganguly, VVS Laxman, and Rahul Dravid play together in a test, India have a greater than 50% chance of losing the test.

Interesting.

Only player India need to win Test matches is Dravid. Rest all are stroke players who will score runs but not be catalyst around which victory is achieved. That is why you will find Dravid name in wins more than Tendulkar.

 

[Insomniac]

Except Ponting noone even comes close to Tendulkar in ODIs. He will be greatest ODI batsman ever.

Get this in your head. We are not talking about ODIs

zMario just avoids questions when the numbers clearly show that his point has been beaten comprehensively. And when you told me I avoided your story, I was gathering the stats when you typed it out. And this is my reply, if he had not hit a four and had attempted a single when the ball was within the circle, he would have been run out . Sachin might have had a 25% chance of success if he was in that position. Its not worth replying to your posts. So enjoy the stats(some of which you obviously cant see) and good luck when someone else comes along to prove you wrong.

Where have I avoided a question? Show me . I am waiting. Why is it that khalek (neutral) and Pakistani Army are saying that I have owned YOU.

We can talk about IFS all you want, but the fact is Inzamam won the game for Pakistan on the last ball. How he did it, is not up for debate.

I have shown you the stats where Inzamam averages 93.00 between 2001-2005. I have shown you where Sachin Tendulkar is YET to get a man of the match award since 1998 in test cricket.

It is YOU who has decided not to respond to them BECAUSE YOU CAN'T. You are FULLY aware that Sachin Tendulkar is NOT up to Inzamam's level in test match cricket

No, you just choose to ignore the basic statistics that are used throughout the world to decipher who the best player is. Tendulkar's average is better, he has more runs, more centuries, has a better record in the 3 hardest places for a foreign batsman to bat, being Australia, England and Sri Lanka, Tendulkar's also been under way more pressure throughout his career. He's seen as the messiah in India, and is therefore under amazing pressure everytime he goes out to bat. I've seen nothing so far that in anyway changes my view on the matter.

Are you on drugs? New Zealand is a difficult place to bat, but I see you've decided to kindly avoid that.

Inzamam averages 59.58 in NZ against Sachin's 41.50.

Inzamam averages MORE in Sachin's home than Sachin averages in his own home ground.

Inzamam averages 57.67 in the West Indies, and he played them when they had Walsh, Ambrose, and Ian Bishop in 1993.

Sachin Tendulkar averages 47.69, and he started playing them in 1997...

I'd say that WI in 1993 were alot harder to beat than Australia of 2008, but thats debatable.

Also, what do you think Inzamam faces? He was the captain of the side since 2003 to 2007, and we depended on him till Younus Khan became a better batsman.

And what the hell are you on about? Dravid, Ganguly, Laxman?

All the pressure wasn't on him, you have 3 great batsmen, 2 who are world-class.

zMario added 0 Minutes and 46 Seconds later...

Only player India need to win Test matches is Dravid. Rest all are stroke players who will score runs but not be catalyst around which victory is achieved. That is why you will find Dravid name in wins more than Tendulkar.

Dravid contibutes and helps the team win in Test Cricket, as his average in tests shows in India wins.

Tendulkar doesn't

 

[SciD]

Get this in your head. We are not talking about ODIs

I have been talking Test all the while. It was just for KP to tell you guys that if you discussed ODIs you have nothing to argue.

scion_sid added 2 Minutes and 13 Seconds later...

Dravid contibutes and helps the team win in Test Cricket, as his average in tests shows in India wins.

Tendulkar doesn't

That doesnt mean he is ass of batsman that you think he is.

 

[Insomniac]

I have been talking Test all the while. It was just for KP to tell you guys that if you discussed ODIs you have nothing to argue.

scion_sid added 2 Minutes and 13 Seconds later...



That doesnt mean he is ass of batsman that you think he is.

To be fair, you can't compare the two.

One is an opener, the other is a #4 and #5 batsman

Now, one of my moments in the past thing.

Pakistan touring the WI, in 2000.

Pakistan collapse (unsurprisingly) to 39/5 on day 1, thanks to Walsh and Ambrose.

Inzamam-ul-Haq is at the crease, with Abdul Razzaq.

Inzamam-ul-Haq scores 135, and takes Pakistan to 288.

If Sachin Tendulkar was in a situation where the score was 39/5, Sachin would have gifted his wicket to the opposition due to the pressue required to make a big score.

And thus, India would have been 39/6, and probably 70 all out if India were in this situation and Tendulkar was batting.

 

[King Pietersen]

Are you on drugs? New Zealand is a difficult place to bat, but I see you've decided to kindly avoid that.

Inzamam averages 59.58 in NZ against Sachin's 41.50.

Ha, you're joking right. New Zealand isn't a tough place to bat, the boundaries are tiny, the outfields are fast, the ball doesn't swing a huge amount all the time either.

Inzamam averages MORE in Sachin's home than Sachin averages in his own home ground.

Ever thought that it might be due to sheer amount of games played at the said place. Sachins played far more games in India than Inzamam.

Inzamam averages 57.67 in the West Indies, and he played them when they had Walsh, Ambrose, and Ian Bishop in 1993.

Sachin Tendulkar averages 47.69, and he started playing them in 1997...

West Indies is a pretty easy place to bat though, St Johns is a real batting track, hence Lara's 400* there. I consider England, Sri Lanka and Australia far harder places to play and score a heap of runs.

Also, what do you think Inzamam faces? He was the captain of the side since 2003 to 2007, and we depended on him till Younus Khan became a better batsman.

And what the hell are you on about? Dravid, Ganguly, Laxman?

All the pressure wasn't on him, you have 3 great batsmen, 2 who are world-class.

You obviously have no knowledge regarding the sheer pressure that Tendulkar faces from the crowds and media. As soon as he has 1 failure, or a poor series he is announced past it. He is under constant pressure to perform and under far, far more pressure than Inzamam ever was. Just because Sachin had the backing of Dravid, Ganguly and Laxman doesn't make his job easier and provide him with less pressure, the crowds see Sachin as God and expect him to make a score at almost every occassion.

Your comments are in bold.