Tendulkar v Inzamam TEST CRICKET ONLY

[Insomniac]

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?

You're acting as if this is your sole form of entertainment

 

[metallics2006]

I did not say you said it. Go back two pages and search for Bond using ctrl+f. Someone said it.

The point is Sachin did get the award and Inzy MISSED OUT.

 

[aditya123]

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?

Iam afraid, none !
Check out my previous 3/4 posts because Iave given it all that I had while you were away.
Keep soldiering on but I know the outcome.Most arguments in the world are like this,neither side willing to accept that the other one is right although we all know that this one should be a no-brainer.

 

[Insomniac]

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

Regarding point 2, King Pietersen said World Cricket, so I assume he was talking about ODIs and tests - I was merely pointing out we've achieved alot more in World Cricket than England - although yes, you are right.

Point 1 - I never started this thread. This was Cricketman who started it. I know my post is the first in this thread, but that is due to manee's moderating skills

I am not willing to change my opinion, because there is nothing that you have told me that should change it. If anything, this thread has caused me to research beyond the basic stats, and enhance my opinion that Inzamam was better than Tendulkar.

I have already shown you MANY statistics which show Inzamam was a better cricketer than Teendu.

 

[metallics2006]

If he is going to count out points from posts then th thread will be reduced to 7 pages because of his own posts.

 

[Insomniac]

I did not say you said it. Go back two pages and search for Bond using ctrl+f. Someone said it.

The point is Sachin did get the award and Inzy MISSED OUT.

Yet Wisden apologized, because they themselves do not know why he did not receive it, and admit he should have.

Fact: There is no 100% statistic for pressure. If there was, Inzamam would be right up there, or higher than Tendulkar anyway.

Look, these are the various things that have not been disputed by Tendu supporters.

Tendulkar has not received a test match Man of the Match in an Indian win since 1998 in matches that were not against Bangladesh or Zimbabwe.

Thats 10 years. Also, you cannot use that bloody excuse that Indian's bowling resources were poor, Kumble was there since 1990.

Secondly, Inzamam averages more in wins, while Tendulkar doesn't. I have shown that over the years Inzamam's (with whoever he has batted with) peers average more than the Indians in test match wins, so therefore it would be Inzamam struggling to make those runs competing with his team-mates, yet he does it so well

Thirdly, I have shown this:

India have lost 43 tests with Tendulkar in the team and won 47 tests

Pakistan have lost 38 tests with Inzamam in the team and won 49 tests

Inzamam has drawn 33 tests, Sachin has drawn 60

Sachin has played 150 tests, Inzamam has played 120.

Inzamam Win% 41% 31.3% Sachin Win%
Inzamam Draw% 28% 40.0% Sachin Draw%
Inzamam Loss% 31.7% 28.7% Sachin Loss%

Now THAT tells a story. Inzamam takes Pakistan to a win more than Sachin takes India to a win, or a draw.

Now combine that with their win averages and you can understand what I speak of.

 

[aditya123]

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.

I trapped you plumb in front there!That is a point I was making all this while !
So,it does help to have a great bowling attack to support you! Tendulkar did not have that in the 90s.Had he received the support of a reasonable bowling attack or an attack even similar to the current one in the 90s, at least 10 more of his hundreds would ahve ended up on the winning side and hence drastically changing the winning hundreds/average scenario.
Kumble was not as big a threat overseas as he was at home. Nor was Srinath.
Do a statsguru search of them overseas and you`ll know why India could not win test matches with their attack and why Tendulkar`s hundreds ended up on losing sides !

My fellow Indian members, please respond to this post and march forth ! I think I`ve trapped him here,thanks to KingPietersen.

 

[Deleted member 9102]

Edit: Chris Gayle

 

[Insomniac]

I trapped you plumb in front there!That is a point I was making all this while !
So,it does help to have a great bowling attack to support you! Tendulkar did not have that in the 90s.Had he received the support of a reasonable bowling attack or an attack even similar to the current one in the 90s, at least 10 more of his hundreds would ahve ended up on the winning side and hence drastically changing the winning hundreds/average scenario.
Kumble was not as big a threat overseas as he was at home. Nor was Srinath.
Do a statsguru search of them overseas and you`ll know why India could not win test matches with their attack and why Tendulkar`s hundreds ended up on losing sides !

My fellow Indian members, please respond to this post and march forth ! I think I`ve trapped him here,thanks to KingPietersen.

What are you on about? Inzamam didn't play much between 92 and 96,.

If Wasim and Waqar were not there between 92 and 96, then Akhtar would have come in earlier, along with Mushy and Saqlain, and both Razzaq and Mahmood would have debuted and played earlier, and if you saw the WC 99 as well as the tests they played, it would be quite a handful.

I have a question for you - if Kumble was never a threat, then why is he the 4th highest wicket-taker in Test match cricket?

What the hell is this? You've trapped me in front? I trapped shan111 in front with his statistic about the hard-ships of playing in front of a home ground against India (or Pakistan), yet no talk about that.

Shall we go back to that?

I'll like to see the Review system implemented during a India-Pakistan Test series. Then we will be able to see who are the whiner actually.

Any way, performing in front of the home crowd in a India-Pakistan clash is one of the most hard pressure situation that one can play under. The following will show how Sachin and Inzamam have faired in their respective countries against each other.

Inzamam's series average against India in Pakistan:
http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru...n=6;template=results;type=batting;view=series

Sachin's average against Pakistan in India:
http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru...n=7;template=results;type=batting;view=series

this again tells the story.

India have lost 43 tests with Tendulkar in the team and won 47 tests

Pakistan have lost 38 tests with Inzamam in the team and won 49 tests

Inzamam has drawn 33 tests, Sachin has drawn 60

Sachin has played 150 tests, Inzamam has played 120.

Inzamam Win% 41% 31.3% Sachin Win%
Inzamam Draw% 28% 40.0% Sachin Draw%
Inzamam Loss% 31.7% 28.7% Sachin Loss%

These are very interesting figures, I must say shravi. It confirms my theory that Inzamam helps his team more often, and if he scores can take Pakistan to victory, while with Sachin, you are likely to just end up with a draw.

It seems to me that it confirms my theory of this:

Shan, your stats tell Inzi averages 48 where Sachin averages 44 so who's better?

khalek added 1 Minutes and 38 Seconds later...

Take the crappy poll out now, every stats Mario and you tendy fans have provided prove that Inzi is better, except the overall career stats of Tendy

Your stats show that Inzamam's the better batsman while playing at home against India.

Inzamam averages 48.42 at home vs India
Sachin averages 44.15 at home vs Pakistan

Inzamam averages 54.88 away in India
Sachin averages 40.25 away in Pakistan.

Your stats just showed Inzamam's better since I agree, performing at home in front of an India-Pakistan crowd is one of the hardest situations there are.

zMario added 0 Minutes and 53 Seconds later...


And the overall career stats aren't always everything, as proven by me, because if you just look closer, you find out that Inzamam is indeed the better player.

Hahahahaha why did he post those stats, pure ownage Mario well done...

zMario added 3 Minutes and 3 Seconds later...

I don't get how this "hundreds in matches won" statistic goes in favour of Inzamam.

Take this situation - Team A gets 500 in the first innings, Team B collapses to 150 and are asked to follow on (Player A from Team B makes 70*), in their second innings, they make 400, with Player A from Team B making 200*, this however leads to an easy 10 wicket win for Team A because they only need 51 to win. Player A wins man of the match for his superb batting performances in both innings.

Does this mean that Player A doesn't have proper match winning ability because he didn't single-handedly win the match from an impossible position? That would also mean that according to you, his fifty, hundred and man of the match award would mean nothing too because they came in a lost match.

I never said Sachin didn't have a proper match winning ability BASED on ONE game.

But Sachin has played ONE HUNDRED and FIFTY tests. India has won 47 tests, (when Sachin has played). Don't you think after India wins 47 tests, if Sachin was able to do that in a losing cause, he could do it in a winning cause?

Also, if the Indian bowling was so bad that Sachin always had to play in a losing situation, why is his average 36? If Sachin was so good, and the Indian bowling was so bad, shouldn't he be averaging around at least 45?

 

[aditya123]

I have a question for you - if Kumble was never a threat, then why is he the 4th highest wicket-taker in Test match cricket?

Again,you conveniently seem to miss some parts of the argument.Kumble was never a threat overseas.His averages outside India were woeful till around 2002.It is only in the past 4 years that his overseas averages have improved but he is still not as menacing overseas as he is on Indian tracks.

Wasim/Waqar of the 90s were far more menacing , home and away than Kumble.

 

[metallics2006]

For your information akram and waqar averaged from 20 - 25 in tests while Kumble averages 29-30 though he has over 600 wickets. He is a great bowler but not a legendary bowler.(Minus the 10/74 against-oh wait,i dont remember, ah I have now got it-PAKISTAN).

 

[Insomniac]

Again,you conveniently seem to miss some parts of the argument.Kumble was never a threat overseas.His averages outside India were woeful till around 2002.It is only in the past 4 years that his overseas averages have improved but he is still not as menacing overseas as he is on Indian tracks.

Wasim/Waqar of the 90s were far more menacing , home and away than Kumble.

Whats your point? We had better bowlers than you, hip hip hooray.

Again, if Tendulkar was so great, and India's bowlers were so bad, should Tendulkar's average be higher in losses?

Honestly... wheres Kung-Fu Panda

 

[aditya123]

I don't get how this "hundreds in matches won" statistic goes in favour of Inzamam.

Take this situation - Team A gets 500 in the first innings, Team B collapses to 150 and are asked to follow on (Player A from Team B makes 70*), in their second innings, they make 400, with Player A from Team B making 200*, this however leads to an easy 10 wicket win for Team A because they only need 51 to win. Player A wins man of the match for his superb batting performances in both innings.

Does this mean that Player A doesn't have proper match winning ability because he didn't single-handedly win the match from an impossible position? That would also mean that according to you, his fifty, hundred and man of the match award would mean nothing too because they came in a lost match.

Iam afraid, you just cannot get him to agree on this even if Inzy himself said so.
I do not wish to carry on and on as I have other stuff to do.I know that his next response will be how we have all bowed down to his sheer brilliance and use of statistics but I would ignore any such comments.

See, you would even find people on this forum who feel Afridi is the best since Bradman ! Seriously !

 

[Insomniac]

Iam afraid, you just cannot get him to agree on this even if Inzy himself said so.
I do not wish to carry on and on as I have other stuff to do.I know that his next response will be how we have all bowed down to his sheer brilliance and use of statistics but I would ignore any such comments.

See, you would even find people on this forum who feel Afridi is the best since Bradman ! Seriously !

I have already responded to that post aditya for your kind and very small brain

It is very sad that nearly every Indian fan has Tendulkar as their signature or avatar as if he's some God when he can barely take India to a victory like Inzamam did.

And you don't see Pakistanis having Inzy in their signature and avatar like you guys do it.

Sheer overratedness.

 

[aditya123]

Whats your point? We had better bowlers than you, hip hip hooray.

Yes,Pakistan did have a far better attack in the 90s than India.Not now though.

I would like to conclude this now.There are factors which go into making an innings a matchwinning one.No inning can be a matchwinning unless supported by other efforts.