I will, once again, apologize if I came across as being antagonistic in that last post. I have nothing against you, zmario, except goodwill. I have to leave for work soon, anyways. I have enjoyed debating with you.
pal added 5 Minutes and 23 Seconds later...
Since that last post has been deleted, I will post it again.
So why are we using 1998-2004? That certainly wasn't Inzamam's prime time. How about we try 2001-2005, which was indeed Inzamam's prime time. He averaged 93.00 in Pakistan wins in that time period.
Are you kidding me? You randomly chose the year 1998 and you harped for the past 40 pages, that Sachin hadn't won MOMs in Indian wins since that year.
And then I come in and use your favoured statistic and your proposed year and you turn around and ask me where the year 1998 came from? This is ridiculous. If this is the quality of your debating skills, I have had enough.
In every one of my responses, I have played by your silly games and used your silly statistics. You were the one who wanted to use the year 1998. You were the one who wanted to use that statistic about averages in wins. And using your own silly statistic, I showed that since the year (you chose), Sachin has averaged more in Indian wins than Inzamam in Pakistani wins, which, apparently, according to you, means he's a better batsman. I said you could stop at 2004, because that was when Sachin first went down with his tennis elbow problem that still plagues him. If you want to include that, he still averages more than Inzamam from that point. What do you do in return? Not only do you take the luxury of choosing the year 1998, but you don't want to measure Inzamam on the same timescale, no, you squirrel around and you say that you want to measure Inzamam from 2001-2005, while you want to measure Sachin from 1998-2008. This is not the type of debate I want to engage in, not if you want to squirrel around and skip from point to point like a monkey.
What's your point? Fair enough, yes, Dravid did do that. I have already given Dravid the tag of a match-winner, alongside with Inzamam. The thing is, Sehwag, Ganguly, and Laxman averaged only 49 to 50 in Indian wins, while Younus and Saeed averaged 67 and 66, and Yousuf 59. If you were to add all of them up, as I did several pages back, then it is actually Inzamam who has to compete for runs, and not Tendulkar (compared to Inzy)
What is my point? My point is that you cannot look at averages alone. You have to look at them with the number of runs over which those averages were attained. What you did was you added up the averages for Younis Khan and Saeed Anwar (68 and 66) and you completely ignored the fact that Dravid alone scored more than those two combined (more than 10,000 runs compared to their 9,000 runs combined. How is that statistically correct? Dravid scored more runs than both of those batsman and he averaged more than those batsmen (71) and yet you provided more statistical value to those two averages, incorrectly. That's my point.
Did you just read my post? Probably not, since you were probably forming this one - Kumble averaged just over 24 in 1996, so I really don't know why these excuses of Kumble being a crap bowler are coming out.
The winning% was asked by shravi, which I kindly provided to him. Its funny that he's understood that Inzamam has had the ability to win more games for his country than Tendulkar, yet you don't.
You've got to be kidding. I will not speak for Shravi. But, if that's what he 'understood', then he is incorrect. The winning % of a team says nothing about the batting ability of one particular player in those teams. Inzamam winning more matches, because of his team, does not mean he had more ability to win matches. That is absolutely incorrect logic. Matches are won by bowlers, who take 20 wickets, not batsmen. If I were to use your logic, then every single Australian batsman in the past decade trumps Inzamam, because of their matches won, especially Ponting.
If this is the type of debating you want to engage in, I've had enough. I've done nothing but bend to your silly statistics, your silly logic, I've afforded you the luxury of choosing time intervals, years, and you have responded by squirreling around, ignoring relevant points, skipping points that render your arguments useless.
I believe you can handle Cricinfo's statsguru. You can use it, if you need it.
I apologize for using those starred words. I don't want to put anything against you personally. But, frankly, I was stirred by the fact that you turned around and asked me where the year 1998 came from, when you were the one who have been using it for the past 40 pages.
