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.
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.
Actually I'm more concerned about the fact that Tendulkar has not received a man of the match award for TEN YEARS, which equates to 1998.
And then I come in and use your favoured statistic and your time scale 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.
Once again, I do question your usage of 1998, and have asked for you to post the Statsguru pages for those statistics in your post before last. It is hilarious that you chose 1998 for Inzamam, instead of 2001 to 2005.
Especially since Inzamam averages 93.00 in Pakistan wins in that period, which is something you just can't refute (average of 93.00 in 4 years time... amazing?)
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 ****ing chose), Sachin has averaged more in Indian wins than Inzamam in Pakistani wins, which, apparently, according to you, means he's a better batsman.
They aren't silly statistics 
They are true and factual statistics.
Why would you measure both batsmen at the same timescale? Amazing.
Sachin's best period was between 99 and 2003. Inzamam's was 01 to 05.
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 ****ing 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.
Guess what - Inzamam averages from 1998 to 2008 in Pakistan wins 82.44, while Sachin averages 64.06. Either you do not know how to use Statsguru possibly, or you are lieing.
I will NOT chase down every statistic you speak of, because I honestly don't have the time. When engaging in a debate with my, I expect some honesty to the stats you post. Luckily, I had a good feeling you were wrong, and was correct.
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.
WRONG. Younus has 2241 runs. Saeed has 2254 runs. Dravid has 3935 runs
While yes, they are both significantly lower, when added up, they do have more runs than Dravid
I believe 2241 + 2254 is greater than 3935.
That should throw that entire section of your post out
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.
Matches are NOT won by bowlers only. Your logic is COMPLETELY incorrect.
Example: Team A is bowled out for 180 by Team B
Team B scores only 90. Team A scores 160. Team B is bowled out for 125.
As you can see, batsmen win games, especially in this modern era of post-2000.
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.
Since you've already decided to lie once, I'm afraid I cannot deal with any of your points anymore that are related to stats unless accompanied with a statsguru page.
It is completely ridiculous that you have decided to manipulate the true statistics into something completely false.
I believe you can handle Cricinfo's statsguru. You can use it, if you need it.
Shouldn't you be the one using it, seeing as you had to "make up" information?
