Tendulkar v Inzamam TEST CRICKET ONLY

[manee]

So it is, but Indian fans have been talking about how their bowlers are so bad, and thats why most of Sachin's good scores come in losses.

They make it sound like it should be 50+ when it shouldn't be.

A batsman averaging 50+ in losses over a career is unreasonable.

 

[pal]

Ok, I have 5 minutes left, before I have to leave. I will be as conscise as I can be in my responses. First, you have to measure both batsmen on the same timescale for consistency. Second, in my haste, I did forget to make note of the match result box. I did not manipulate any information. You can see for yourself. If you calculate the averages for both players from 01 Jan 1998 to the end of their careers, the results are what I said they were. If you want to consider my mistake to be a devious one, so be it. Third, I was referring to their overall career scores as an example of the statistical error you're making. My point still stands. If, once again, you wish to extrapolate something about my character based on that error, you can use a calculator. Dravid, alone, (ignoring Azhar, Laxman, and Ganguly) averaged 71 something in matches won and scored 3935 runs, specifically, as you've said. Younis and Saeed combined scored 4495 in those specific matches, while averaging 66 and 67 something, respectively. How can you add those two averages, while not giving equivalent statistical weight (based on runs) to Dravid's average? Once again, if you disagree with that point, check on a calculator. The point still applies. Fourth, almost always, matches are won by teams who take 20 wickets. Matches in which one batsman singlehandedly accounts for the opposing score are too much of aberrations to be the norm. But, that was a side point. You can't judge the batting ability of a player based on the winning percentage of the team. Not all of the player's innings in won matches directly cause the final result. This is one of the reasons you make the mistake of ignoring the batting averages of players in lost/drawn matches, because those are better representative of situations in which it comes down to a single batsman to resuce his team. In lost/drawn matches, Sachin does average 51 to Inzamam's 35. If you are to judge the batting ability of a player based on the winning percentage of a team, then every single Australian player in the past decade ranks as the greatest of all time. That is not proper logic. Sixth, if you wish to perceive my initial mistake as a devious and calculated one, so be it. It was one committed in haste and unintentionally, similar to your earlier statement about Sachin winning two MOMs in his career. I did misstate my point and for that, I apologize. But, that does not detract from the larger points. Seventh, this is not an argument that will be resolved. I assume this thread will, once again, have grown by quite a few pages when I come back on today or tomorrow. I will try to get to any relevant points whenever I can. Eighth, good bye. Have a nice day.

 

[Insomniac]

A batsman averaging 50+ in losses over a career is unreasonable.

So it is, but Mohammad Yousuf averages 38.34 in losses out of the top batsmen in the world.

I haven't checked everybody, so he's not the highest or anything.

Can somebody read my post on page 41?

zMario added 3 Minutes and 7 Seconds later...

So it is, but Indian fans have been talking about how their bowlers are so bad, and thats why most of Sachin's good scores come in losses.

They make it sound like it should be 50+ when it shouldn't be.

Anyway, where is this discussion headed?

I'm willing to end this on this note:

Sachin Tendulkar may have made more runs in his career, however it turns out more of Inzamam's knocks and runs were match-winning and contributed more to his team's victory and success.

It seems that we will never settle on an agreement, due to different definitions of a "batsman" and "cricketer"

If a Sachin supporter or somebody else wishes to agree to the point above, then go ahead and lock the thread.

Any agreements? Yes/no?

 

[nightprowler10]

Anyway, where is this discussion headed?

I'm willing to end this on this note:

Sachin Tendulkar may have made more runs in his career, however it turns out more of Inzamam's knocks and runs were match-winning and contributed more to his team's victory and success.

I pretty much said that 30-odd pages ago.

 

[King Pietersen]

I'd agree with that, we're getting nowhere. I'm yet to see a stat that has even remotely changed my opinion, all the stats the cricketers are judged on say Tendulkar is the better player, yet you've jumbled something together and formed your argument around that. The only thing you've produced so far has been regarding Inzamam's "better contribution" in won matches, which apparently makes him better than Richards, Lara and Ponting as well as Sachin. You're not going to back down, we're not going to back down. /End thread.

 

[Insomniac]

Ok, I have 5 minutes left, before I have to leave. I will be as conscise as I can be in my responses. First, you have to measure both batsmen on the same timescale for consistency.

The timescale of age or actual timeperiod? I really don't think thats possible because in one timescale Inzamam will lead, and the other, Sachin will lead. Very difficult to do

Second, in my haste, I did forget to make note of the match result box. I did not manipulate any information. You can see for yourself. If you calculate the averages for both players from 01 Jan 1998 to the end of their careers, the results are what I said they were. If you want to consider my mistake to be a devious one, so be it.

I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on this

Third, I was referring to their overall career scores as an example of the statistical error you're making. My point still stands. If, once again, you wish to extrapolate something about my character based on that error, you can use a calculator. Dravid, alone, (ignoring Azhar, Laxman, and Ganguly) averaged 71 something in matches won and scored 3935 runs, specifically, as you've said. Younis and Saeed combined scored 4495 in those specific matches, while averaging 66 and 67 something, respectively.

Forgetting Yousuf and Miandad, I see

How can you add those two averages, while not giving equivalent statistical weight (based on runs) to Dravid's average? Once again, if you disagree with that point, check on a calculator. The point still applies.

You are forgetting, that Pakistan have always been shuffling their middle order since late 2004, when we had Younus, Yousuf, and Inzy. However, the batsmen that have played for Pakistan for so many years averaged atleast a decent 45, 46 in wins.

Fourth, almost always, matches are won by teams who take 20 wickets.

Matches are also won by teams that score atleast 200 runs an innings.

Matches in which one batsman singlehandedly accounts for the opposing score are too much of aberrations to be the norm. But, that was a side point. You can't judge the batting ability of a player based on the winning percentage of the team. Not all of the player's innings in won matches directly cause the final result. This is one of the reasons you make the mistake of ignoring the batting averages of players in lost/drawn matches, because those are better representative of situations in which it comes down to a single batsman to resuce his team.

If he "rescued" his team, then he wouldn't have lost.

Just because Sachin has a higher average in lost games is the only reason you are using that argument. There have been so many great test matches that have been won by pressure-cooker innings, something Sachin hasn't played enough of (compared to Inzamam)



In lost/drawn matches, Sachin does average 51 to Inzamam's 35. If you are to judge the batting ability of a player based on the winning percentage of a team, then every single Australian player in the past decade ranks as the greatest of all time.

Once again, I provided those statistics on request.

That is not proper logic. Sixth, if you wish to perceive my initial mistake as a devious and calculated one, so be it. It was one committed in haste and unintentionally, similar to your earlier statement about Sachin winning two MOMs in his career. I did misstate my point and for that, I apologize. But, that does not detract from the larger points. Seventh, this is not an argument that will be resolved. I assume this thread will, once again, have grown by quite a few pages when I come back on today or tomorrow. I will try to get to any relevant points whenever I can. Eighth, good bye. Have a nice day.

Well, I clarified that statement, because it is true Sachin has not received a man of the match award for 10 years in a winning situation.

Replies in bold.

zMario added 1 Minutes and 22 Seconds later...

I'd agree with that, we're getting nowhere. I'm yet to see a stat that has even remotely changed my opinion, all the stats the cricketers are judged on say Tendulkar is the better player, yet you've jumbled something together and formed your argument around that. The only thing you've produced so far has been regarding Inzamam's "better contribution" in won matches, which apparently makes him better than Richards, Lara and Ponting as well as Sachin. You're not going to back down, we're not going to back down. /End thread.

Once again, I am willing to end this thread on the following note:

Sachin Tendulkar may have made more runs in his career, however it turns out more of Inzamam's knocks and runs were match-winning and contributed more to his team's victory and success.

 

[sohum]

Are you mentally retarded?

And later....

Tendulkar cannot POSSIBLY be referred to as a legend in test match cricket. He has only HEAVILY decided 2 test matches in 34 tests (wins).

Seriously, who is the mentally retarded one in this case?

Besides, I see you have nothing to say about my very valid point that bowlers take wickets. And that 20 wickets must be taken to win a game.

 

[evertonfan]

Gonna chip in with my own summary here. As a neautral, I judge my cricketers on who is the best to watch and in my time watching cricket there's no one (other than Ponting) that I like to watch bat more than Sachin Tendulkar. He is total quality. I don't care if he doesn't win games because I don't care if India win or not. What I do care about is when i'm watching a game of cricket I want entertainment and there are few better than Sachin Tendulkar, and I would not bracket Inzamam in that select few. Not to take anything away from Inzi as a batsman as he's quality, but I will never believe in any way that he is a better batsman than Tendulkar. Never has been, never will be.

 

[Insomniac]

And later....


Seriously, who is the mentally retarded one in this case?

Besides, I see you have nothing to say about my very valid point that bowlers take wickets. And that 20 wickets must be taken to win a game.

Wow, I rest my case.

Do you honestly think that you can win a game without quality batsmen?

It just doesn't happen, bowlers are as important as batsmen as they are important as wicket-keepers.

Once again, same example.

Your bowlers bowl a team out for 150.

Your team's batsmen make 110.

Your bowlers again bowl the opposing team out for 130

Your batsmen make 110 all out

As you can now see, in such a game, its the batsmen who are going to win you this type of game, not the bowlers. (You could imagine this game took place on a green pitch)

Also Matt, everyone will have their own opinions, as you do. But remember, when India require someone to take them to victory, it is highly unlikely Tendulkar will be there.

I see nobody is willing to agree on this and end this thread, but I will once again repeat myself:

Both batsmen are and will always be great batsmen of the modern era.

Sachin Tendulkar may have made more runs in his career, however it turns out more of Inzamam's knocks and runs were match-winning and contributed more to his team's victories and successes.

 

[sohum]

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.

Interesting how the opposition doesn't matter now. :

 

[Insomniac]

Interesting how the opposition doesn't matter now. :

Erm.

If you want to play that game Sohum,

Inzamam has 7 Man of the Match awards, and 3 Man of the Series
Tendulkar still only has 2 Man of the Match awards.

http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru...=1;template=results;type=allround;view=awards

So basically, you've just increased the number of Man of the Matches that Inzamam has.

Tendu is on page 3.

And those are in wins, thats the only factor. I was saving face for Tendulkar, but I guess you wanted to expose him.

So while Inzamam has had 7 man of the matches, and 3 man of the series, Tendulkar has only had 2, and NONE since 1998 in a win.

And that statistic includes ALL teams.

I will now take this moment to LAUGH at Sohum

HA!

 

[sohum]

Wow, I rest my case.

Do you honestly think that you can win a game without quality batsmen?

It just doesn't happen, bowlers are as important as batsmen as they are important as wicket-keepers.

Once again, same example.

Your bowlers bowl a team out for 150.

Your team's batsmen make 110.

Your bowlers again bowl the opposing team out for 130

Your batsmen make 110 all out

As you can now see, in such a game, its the batsmen who are going to win you this type of game, not the bowlers. (You could imagine this game took place on a green pitch)

Instead of delving into the dark ruins of your imagination, why don't we go with pure logic. Please tell me whether a team can win a test match without taking 20 wickets given that their opposition team has no one injured (or their opposition forfeits the game).

You can conjure up as many situations as you want. My point is that Tendulkar's performances in losing/drawn games should not be disregarded as simply an inability for him to take his team to wins. Of course, that helps your argument, so you will ignore this post and repeat, as a silly parrot can, your little catch-phrase about 2 MoM's and what not.

sohummisra added 2 Minutes and 16 Seconds later...

Erm.

If you want to play that game Sohum,

Inzamam has 7 Man of the Match awards, and 3 Man of the Series
Tendulkar still only has 2 Man of the Match awards.

http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru...=1;template=results;type=allround;view=awards

So basically, you've just increased the number of Man of the Matches that Inzamam has.

Tendu is on page 3.

And those are in wins, thats the only factor. I was saving face for Tendulkar, but I guess you wanted to expose him.

So while Inzamam has had 7 man of the matches, and 3 man of the series, Tendulkar has only had 2, and NONE since 1998 in a win.

And that statistic includes ALL teams.

I will now take this moment to LAUGH at Sohum

HA!

Then why, of all the examples you could post, did you single out that Bangladesh game?

Besides, in Test cricket, saving a game is as important as winning a game. Ask Sunil Gavaskar. When playing outside India our spinners became somewhat negligible, so the ability to save a game was much-respected. Of course, in today's Twenty20 culture that is an oft-forgotten fact.

 

[Insomniac]

Instead of delving into the dark ruins of your imagination, why don't we go with pure logic. Please tell me whether a team can win a test match without taking 20 wickets given that their opposition team has no one injured (or their opposition forfeits the game).

You can conjure up as many situations as you want. My point is that Tendulkar's performances in losing/drawn games should not be disregarded as simply an inability for him to take his team to wins. Of course, that helps your argument, so you will ignore this post and repeat, as a silly parrot can, your little catch-phrase about 2 MoM's and what not.

sohummisra added 2 Minutes and 16 Seconds later...


Then why, of all the examples you could post, did you single out that Bangladesh game?

Besides, in Test cricket, saving a game is as important as winning a game. Ask Sunil Gavaskar. When playing outside India our spinners became somewhat negligible, so the ability to save a game was much-respected. Of course, in today's Twenty20 culture that is an oft-forgotten fact.

No, a team cannot win a test match without taking 20 wickets, but a team cannot win a test match without making a decent sized amount of runs either.

I singled out the Bangladesh game because I felt it was the first one that came to mind, to be fairly honest. The reason I said to forget the opposition was some people would say that oh, its only Bangladesh.

Thats true, but to get 140 runs with only 3 wickets in hand and marshalling the tail the way Inzamam did was just... impressive.

Saving a game is as important as winning one, but winning a game is better than saving it

 

[SaiSrini]

Saving a game is as important as winning one, but winning a game is better than saving it

zMario, are you drunk?

Seriously, this thread was going on with good debates (I agree I didnt add much to it coz I posted a lot with my opinions against zMario's so called statistics) but now, the thread is turning out to be a laughing stock. Wish this is closed to spare the mockery.

IF AGREEING TO YOUR POINT MEANS CLOSING THE THREAD, I agree with you, zMario on whatever you have argued.

 

[sohum]

No, a team cannot win a test match without taking 20 wickets, but a team cannot win a test match without making a decent sized amount of runs either.

See, this is where you are wrong. You can win a low-scoring match where your batsmen fail because of your bowlers. But you cannot win a high-scoring match where your batsmen succeed because your bowlers fail.