Tendulkar v Inzamam TEST CRICKET ONLY

[khalek]

Now you're getting my point.
The debut match is just one of the many pressure situation one batsman has to go through. Some pass it with flying colours, some dont.
Likewise, in some pressure matches, a particular batsman score runs, sometimes he does'nt; but another batsman scores.
This is the way the game is.

In the debut match, you get to prove yourself, when you are matured, your team really needs you when they are in trouble. Inzi stood up whenever that happened but Tendy choked badly so now you see who handles the pressure the better way

 

[shan111]

In the debut match, you get to prove yourself, when you are matured, your team really needs you when they are in trouble. Inzi stood up whenever that happened but Tendy choked badly so now you see who handles the pressure the better way

Wow! You're telling that Inzi scored a ton whenever the team was in trouble and Sachin Scored a duck whenver the the team was in trouble.:

Have a look at this:
http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/content/records/283704.html

 

[manee]

Besides, Viv Richards averages only 52.43 in games WI has won - 63 matches won. Only 19 lost, 39 drawn.

Matches involving the great West Indies bowling attack tended to be low scoring contests, the fact that Viv often got 'bored' and got himself out trying some audacious shot mean nothing? You can't just take obscure statistics and quote them on their own as the gospel toward a batsmen without explanation or understanding.

 

[aditya123]

Okay, let me have one more attempt at this.
I now would like to call upon 2 batsmen who most of you would agree were/are superb under pressure in TEST CRICKET------> Shiv Chanderpaul and Andy Flower.
Both of these batsmen have always played well under pressure but very seldom have their hundreds or pressure knocks resulted in wins.
Similar was Tendulkar`s case in the 90s where his innings could win us games due to lack of a good bowling attack.

 

[Insomniac]

Oh.My.God. I've seen some biased bullshit in my time, but this takes the biscuit. Inzamam Ul-Haq a better player than Brian Lara, Sir Vivian Richards and Ricky Ponting, you must be mental. They are 3 players who will be remembered forever. Lara and Richards are the 2 greatest West Indian batsmen of all-time, closely followed by Sir Garfield Sobers of course. There is no way that Inzamam is better than both of them. Then you have Ponting, who played in the same era, has again scored more runs, more hundreds, is a better ODi player, a better fielder and a better captain. Some of you Pakistani's need to take the green tinted glasses off before you make even further fools of yourselves.

When it comes to winning matches for his country, King Pietersen, which is the batsman's job, then YES.

 

[metallics2006]

What about this idea? We Indians and you Pakistanis shut the hell up for a moment and we will let the neutral people from other countries vote on a poll and decide who is better.

 

[aditya123]

What about this idea? We Indians and you Pakistanis shut the hell up for a moment and we will let the neutral people from other countries vote on a poll and decide who is better.

You know what, we even have the most senior Pakistani member of this forum voting for Tendulkar.
I would like to listen from him on this argument.

 

[Insomniac]

Yeah, you have got to blame Sachin for that !:
You fail to look beyond the basic stats like `Inzy scores and it leads to a Pakistani win` or `Sachin scores only when India loses` !

Now tell me, when are you under more pressure, when your teammates are failing to perform or when the team is winning ?
Sachin has a great average of 51 in losing tests and the reason was lack of bowling firepower and as you stress so much on test cricket, you would know that you need to take 20 wickets to win tests.
Let us now leave Tendulkar and Inzy out for a moment and assume we have 2 players `A` and `B`.

Player A and B have both played 10 tests. `A ` scored 8 hundreds and B scored 3.
All of `B`s hundreds came in winning causes while only 4 of `A`s hundreds came in winning causes !
Hey we`ve got some percentages here! When `A` scored a hundred, his team won only 50% of the times whereas when B scored a hundred, his team won 100% of the times.

Iam sure, it is only your bind attempt at proving that Inzy is way better that is coming in the way of you realizing that Tendulkar has played pressure knocks as well and many of them.You keep giving us 3 or 4 examples and make it look like that was the norm when Inzy batted. Yet, when we pointed out instances where Inzamam failed in situations where he was expected to rescue Pakistan, you come up with points like`he was not even set in those games and hence does not count as choking`.

I`m sure most Indians here would agree that Inzy was great under pressure but we would not agree to the fact that Tendulkar is utter crap under presure and way inferior to Inzy in that aspect.We all know how Sachin performed in the 90s when he was under pressure everytime he batted due to a poor bowling attack whih conceded 400+ runs each time even in helpful bowling tracks.
Hence many of his hundreds would not ahve resulted in an Indian win.
You only have to look up to the last India-AUS series to find three examples of Sachin performing under pressure.

Aditya, NO Teendu support is yet to reply to this post.

You guys bring in the BS excuses of Sachin's average in losses as being pressure innings.

Let me tell you something, do you remember THIS game? http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64045.html

Forget the opposition for one second.

Think about the mindset of Inzamam, chasing 261 to win.

Pakistan 132/6, Bangladesh need 4 wickets to have their first test match victory.

Inzamam-ul-Haq and the tail, have to get to 261. And guess what?

They won, by one wicket. There are 2 points to be made from this match. One is that most Excellent pressure innings form the game into wins. Sachin has not done that very often. For example, WHO on God's earth would give India a chance vs Australia in 2001? Look what VVS Laxman did. That's a pressure knock.

The second point to be made here is that because of Inzamam's brilliant innings in that match, the game was actually a win, and not an embarassing loss. Can you please tell me, has Sachin Tendulkar ever been close to marshalling a win like this one - http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64045.html

Or has he ever batted with the #11 batsman and produced 54 runs to take his team home to victory against Australia?

Also, regarding your analogy. I'd rather have Player A, because it seems that more of Player A's 100s came in winning matches anyway (this does not compare with the same situation of Tendulkar v Inzamam as the numbers are not even close to each other, as Inzamam has more match-winning 100s than Tendulkar by % and by #)

Now lets change that analogy a bit.

Lets say after 150 tests, Player A scored 39 100s, and only 13 of those 100s were match-winning

And the other player played 120 tests, and scored 25 100s, and 17 of them were match-winning.

Now in this case, I would want Player B

zMario added 1 Minutes and 39 Seconds later...

What about this idea? We Indians and you Pakistanis shut the hell up for a moment and we will let the neutral people from other countries vote on a poll and decide who is better.

Why should a poll decide this?

First of all metallics, you agreed that you would stop posting in this thread if equally or more knowledgable people said that Inzamam was better. As shown by the Ten Sports programme AND Wisden, which is a company of SO MANY people, Inzamam and Steve Waugh were the highest rated when it came to winning games for their team and those important pressure knocks.

However, I won't make you stop - If you feel that you have a point to make, please make it. Else be on your mery way.

 

[aditya123]

Aditya, NO Teendu support is yet to reply to this post.

You guys bring in the BS excuses of Sachin's average in losses as being pressure innings.

Let me tell you something, do you remember THIS game? http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64045.html

Forget the opposition for one second.

Think about the mindset of Inzamam, chasing 261 to win.

Pakistan 132/6, Bangladesh need 4 wickets to have their first test match victory.

Inzamam-ul-Haq and the tail, have to get to 261. And guess what?

They won, by one wicket. There are 2 points to be made from this match. One is that most Excellent pressure innings form the game into wins. Sachin has not done that very often. For example, WHO on God's earth would give India a chance vs Australia in 2001? Look what VVS Laxman did. That's a pressure knock.

The second point to be made here is that because of Inzamam's brilliant innings in that match, the game was actually a win, and not an embarassing loss. Can you please tell me, has Sachin Tendulkar ever been close to marshalling a win like this one - http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64045.html

Or has he ever batted with the #11 batsman and produced 54 runs to take his team home to victory against Australia?

Also, regarding your analogy. I'd rather have Player A, because it seems that more of Player A's 100s came in winning matches anyway (this does not compare with the same situation of Tendulkar v Inzamam as the numbers are not even close to each other, as Inzamam has more match-winning 100s than Tendulkar by % and by #)

Now lets change that analogy a bit.

Lets say after 150 tests, Player A scored 39 100s, and only 13 of those 100s were match-winning

And the other player played 120 tests, and scored 25 100s, and 17 of them were match-winning.

Now in this case, I would want Player B

zMario added 1 Minutes and 39 Seconds later...


Why should a poll decide this?

First of all metallics, you agreed that you would stop posting in this thread if equally or more knowledgable people said that Inzamam was better. As shown by the Ten Sports programme AND Wisden, which is a company of SO MANY people, Inzamam and Steve Waugh were the highest rated when it came to winning games for their team and those important pressure knocks.

However, I won't make you stop - If you feel that you have a point to make, please make it. Else be on your mery way.

See, you seem to conveniently forget the fact that Cricket is a team game from time to time and you are making use of one instance to make a huge conclusion.
We use the norm to extrapolate values/make conclusions and not the exception or an aberration.
If you use this one scenario to make a point of Tendulkar being inferior.

I can easily give you another scenario,Tendulkar`s best knocks have come against Australia.
1.) 155 against Australia on a crumbling Chennai wicket against Warne with India conceding a first innings lead of 95.
Result : India won
2.) 128 against Australia at Chennai in 2001 in the series decider in what would be a matchwinning knock.What is interesting to note that without Bhajji`s bowling heroics, the game could not have been won which again reiterates the fact that bowlers win test matches and that a potentially `match-winning` inning could easily become a one which ended in a losing/drawn cause if not supported by other players.

Let me just keep it to two for the moment. Inzamam could never do it against the best side in the world!
Pakistan lost their last 10 tests against Australia with Inzamam in their side.Where did those pressure knocks go because as far as pressure performance goes it is tested most against the World Champions!
If matchwinning knocks by Inzamam under pressure were so much the norm as you seem to suggest, he could easily have won at least one of those games for Australia which he did not.I have used a fairly large sample size of 10 tests here.Why did those heroic and all-so common matchwinning knocks vanish in those tests!
See, this is where your argument fails.You just cannot use a handful of instances to make big points.

 

[Insomniac]

Okay, let me have one more attempt at this.
I now would like to call upon 2 batsmen who most of you would agree were/are superb under pressure in TEST CRICKET------> Shiv Chanderpaul and Andy Flower.
Both of these batsmen have always played well under pressure but very seldom have their hundreds or pressure knocks resulted in wins.
Similar was Tendulkar`s case in the 90s where his innings could win us games due to lack of a good bowling attack.

Interesting point to make. If these batsmen were "so good", then why does Shiv average only 56.26 when WI do happen to win - 26 tests.

And Andy Flower it is difficult to say, because yes, he certainly was unfortunate to play with Zimbabwe, but was a great batsman. He is an EXCEPTION.

The other batsmen named in this thread have been in so many tests where their team has won.

zMario added 0 Minutes and 55 Seconds later...

See, you seem to conveniently forget the fact that Cricket is a team game from time to time.

And I have shown you the statistics which show that more people scored runs around Inzamam than they did Tendulkar.

If Tendulkar was able to SINGLE-HANDEDLY take games away from the opposition, should his average not be higher in games won?

Hmm?

zMario added 4 Minutes and 20 Seconds later...

Nice of you to edit your post, let me respond to the rest :

I am giving you the Pakistan v Bangladesh game to show that PRESSURE innings, like VVS Laxman's 281, and Inzamam's innings v Bangladesh have lead to MATCH WINS.

You guys are saying that all pressure innings come in draws or losses. Completely not true. Most of them can and usually do come in wins.

It just seems to be most of Tendulkar's pressure knocks come in losses and draws.

Still, nobody is yet to properly explain to me why Tendulkar only has NO Man of the Match awards since 1998 in an Indian win not counting Bangladesh or Zimbabwe?

Especially since you've had Kumble since 1990 or so, I think its quite amazing. Prehaps he doesn't contribute much to wins? Or as much as Inzamam anyway.

zMario added 6 Minutes and 23 Seconds later...

You know what, we even have the most senior Pakistani member of this forum voting for Tendulkar.
I would like to listen from him on this argument.

That was before I showed and displayed all the statistics

 

[King Pietersen]

When it comes to winning matches for his country, King Pietersen, which is the batsman's job, then YES.

You're ridiculous, there is no chance in hell that Inzamam Ul-Haq is a better player than Sir Vivian Richards, Ricky Ponting or Brian Lara. Richards was the star batsman in a massively dominating West Indies team. Inzamam is a top batsman from a country thats never been close to dominating world cricket, and without Waqar and Wasim would have probably struggled in the 90's. Ponting's the best player of the generation, far superior to Inzamam. Lara's one of the best players in Test cricket history, match saving innings, amazing concentration, huge scores and he did it all with a swagger and in an aggressive manner. Ponting, Tendulkar, Lara and Richards are in a different league.

 

[metallics2006]

1.Sachin has been awarded the Wisden Player Of The Year Award (Yes TEST Cricket) by the same WISDEN that you mentioned in the year 1997 while Inzy never got it in his entire (TEST) career. (Source : Wikipedia.org) You told me to make my point and thats my point.
2.Some one said that Shane Bond should not be considered since he is,well, GONE.
3. Warnie(World's Best Leg Spinner) is GONE.
4.Mcgrath is GONE.
5.Pollock is GONE.
So, if you are going to leave out players that retired then you are strange because you included these guys when comparing tend and inzy.

 

[Insomniac]

You're ridiculous, there is no chance in hell that Inzamam Ul-Haq is a better player than Sir Vivian Richards, Ricky Ponting or Brian Lara. Richards was the star batsman in a massively dominating West Indies team. Inzamam is a top batsman from a country thats never been close to dominating world cricket, and without Waqar and Wasim would have probably struggled in the 90's. Ponting's the best player of the generation, far superior to Inzamam. Lara's one of the best players in Test cricket history, match saving innings, amazing concentration, huge scores and he did it all with a swagger and in an aggressive manner. Ponting, Tendulkar, Lara and Richards are in a different league.

You're stubborn. Before you even came in this thread, you have had your mind set on Tendulkar being better, and are not willing to change it. Respond to those stats - can you do it? No, and do you know why? They are absolutely spot on, and you know it.

Inzamam-ul-Haq averages more in wins for his country than Richards, Ponting, and Lara, as well as Tendulkar (as I've already shown).

What are you on about King Pietersen? A country that's never been close to dominating world cricket? Who won the WC of 92? Also, what the hell have England acheived? Beating Australia in the Ashes of 2005, yeah guess what, that Ashes team was THRASHED by Pakistan right after the Ashes.

Without Wasim and Waqar from 92 to 96 would be a difficult period. But don't forget, we also had Akhtar, Mushy, and Saqlain as well as a certain Abdul Razzaq and Azhar Mahmood whose bowling would get them to any side at that moment.

Sorry, but almost all of your posts in this thread have been a load of crap.

zMario added 3 Minutes and 20 Seconds later...

1.Sachin has been awarded the Wisden Player Of The Year Award (Yes TEST Cricket) by the same WISDEN that you mentioned in the year 1997 whili Inzy never got it in his entire career. (Source : Wikipedia.org) You told me to make my point and thats my point.
2.Some one said that Shane Bond should not be considered since he is,well, GONE.
3. Warnie(World's Best Leg Spinner) is GONE.
4.Mcgrath is GONE.
5.Pollock is GONE.
So, if you are going to leave out players that retired then you are strange because you included these guys.

Wisden has since, amended their decision by this:

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.

Point #1 is gone

Point #2 - Shane Bond cannot be considered because Inzamam never played him in a test.

Point #3 - I never said retired players can't be considered? But, Inzamam averages only 3 under Tendulkar for his average vs Warne. And Inzamam's strength is fast bowling, while Tendulkar's is spin.

Point #4 - Inzamam averages higher than Tendulkar v McGrath, although both struggled.

Point #5 - Tendulkar averages 8.25 v Pollock, while Inzamam averages in the high 20s.

I dont get what you're saying - we can't consider retired players?

 

[pal]

I have awoken and I am ready to argue again for two hours before I leave for work. What are the new points of debate that have come up since I last left the thread?

 

[aditya123]

You're stubborn. Before you even came in this thread, you have had your mind set on Tendulkar being better, and are not willing to change it.

Who won the WC of 92?

1.) You're stubborn. Before you even came in this thread, you have had your mind set on Inzamam being better, and are not willing to change it.

2.) NO ODIS PLEASE !:happy