Tendulkar v Inzamam TEST CRICKET ONLY

[Dare]

I cant believe that this thread has gone to 42 pages in such a short time.

The only people that Tendulkar can be compared to are Lara and Ponting.

Inzi was good and so far the best out of Pakistan and he was a solid middle order batsman but the accomplishments of Lara, Tendulkar and Ponting outshine Inzis.

 

[Deleted member 9102]

Edit: Chris Gayle

 

[Jit]

even pakistan knows its true even people form there know that expect z mario he just wanna aruge then go no one is going to stop u man. Look at poll results it tells u the story plus the stats too

 

[Chetan0304]

Votes says it all Tendulkar best ever Batsmen.

 

[Dare]

Votes says it all Tendulkar best ever Batsmen.

huh? best ever?

this is comparing Inzi and Tendulkar. Dont get too far ahead of your self.

 

[Chetan0304]

Yeah Compared to Inzi Bhai Said because he(Zamrio) said Sachin is a choker : he is Not!!

 

[angryangy]

I cant believe that this thread has gone to 42 pages in such a short time.

The only people that Tendulkar can be compared to are Lara and Ponting.

Inzi was good and so far the best out of Pakistan and he was a solid middle order batsman but the accomplishments of Lara, Tendulkar and Ponting outshine Inzis.

The difference is that Lara and Tendulkar have mostly only managed statistical achievements, while Inzi was a key part of a team that found a fair bit of success, including a World Cup. I think Tendulkar would ditch a lot of records to have thrashed Australia in 2003. I'd definitely say Inzamam was a player you could describe as a talisman and even though I've seen heaps more of Tendulkar, it is hard to say he often rallies his team or inspires a win. It isn't worth going any further as it is a completely silly comparison, the only reason it has come about is because of where they are from.

As to what this thread is really about,
http://www.google.com/search?q=population+of+pakistan
http://www.google.com/search?q=population+of+india
I think the poll results are remarkably close.

 

[khalek]

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

Yes because only 2 of those Tendy's MOM awards was after 1998

for 10 years a so called legend or God is not performing according to situation and he is still playing cricket with injuries

khalek added 1 Minutes and 27 Seconds later...

Votes says it all Tendulkar best ever Batsmen.

Damn these people still going by the poll... :

such a one sided fanboy poll and you guys are so proud of it

 

[aditya123]

Yes because only 2 of those Tendy's MOM awards was after 1998

for 10 years a so called legend or God is performing according to situation and he is still playing cricket with injuries

khalek added 1 Minutes and 27 Seconds later...



Damn these people still going by the poll... :

such a one sided fanboy poll and you guys are so proud of it

You accuse others of being fanboys while you are one as well !
Can you come up with some valid insightful points of your own than just play the role of saying `Zmario pawned all`, `Well Done`,`Absolutely`!

Tendulkar`s average in the ridiculous winning games stats since 2003 is far better than the corresponding averages in the 90s.
The reason, our bowlers started doing better and some of Tendulkar`s hundreds that would ahve ended up in losing/drawn causes in the 90s then started becoming matchwinning ones.
Headingley 2002,Multan 2004,Perth 2008 would have all ended up as draws had the bowlers not chipped in.
I do not wish to argue anymore because I believe that you are only looking at the stupid match-winning average stat quantitatively and fail to look at it with an analytical perspective taking other factors into account.When we do give you counter-arguments you bring up another stupid MoM stat like a parrot.
You are surely intelligent enough to realize that it is more difficult to win MoM awards in a drawn cause because there would be other good efforts that you are competing against and even more difficult to win an MoM in alosing cause.You only win MoM awards after finishing on the losing side or in a drawn cause with some special efforts.
No innings is a matchwinning one by itself.There are other factors that help make an inning a matchwinning one.
For example, Tendulkar`s 136 at Chennai which ended up on the losing side would have been a matchwinning one had Mongia,Joshi or others finished it off by getting the last 15 runs.
Or For example Tendulkar`s matchwinning 194 at Headingley would not have been a matchwinning one had the bowlers not taken 20 wickets.Incidentally that 194 against England at Headingley did not earn him an MoM eventhough it was by far the highest score of the match and ended up on the winning side.
This also explains why the MoM stat cannot be trusted.

Read this article and see if you can understand it.
http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/135830.html

 

[metallics2006]

Yeah lets say if Sachin gets 150 and Kumble gets 15 wickets in a test match, Kumble will be given the MoM award. So you cant say Sachin is a bad player when India wins because of your MoM stats which are laughable at best by people who see the thread.

 

[khalek]

You accuse others of being fanboys while you are one as well !
Can you come up with some valid insightful points of your own than just play the role of saying `Zmario pawned all`, `Well Done`,`Absolutely`!

Tendulkar`s average in the ridiculous winning games stats since 2003 is far better than the corresponding averages in the 90s.
The reason, our bowlers started doing better and some of Tendulkar`s hundreds that would ahve ended up in losing/drawn causes in the 90s then started becoming matchwinning ones.
Headingley 2002,Multan 2004,Perth 2008 would have all ended up as draws had the bowlers not chipped in.
I do not wish to argue anymore because I believe that you are only looking at the stupid match-winning average stat quantitatively and fail to look at it with an analytical perspective taking other factors into account.When we do give you counter-arguments you bring up another stupid MoM stat like a parrot.
You are surely intelligent enough to realize that it is more difficult to win MoM awards in a drawn cause because there would be other good efforts that you are competing against and even more difficult to win an MoM in alosing cause.You only win MoM awards after finishing on the losing side or in a drawn cause with some special efforts.
No innings is a matchwinning one by itself.There are other factors that help make an inning a matchwinning one.
For example, Tendulkar`s 136 at Chennai which ended up on the losing side would have been a matchwinning one had Mongia,Joshi or others finished it off by getting the last 15 runs.
Or For example Tendulkar`s matchwinning 194 at Headingley would not have been a matchwinning one had the bowlers not taken 20 wickets.Incidentally that 194 against England at Headingley did not earn him an MoM eventhough it was by far the highest score of the match and ended up on the winning side.
This also explains why the MoM stat cannot be trusted.

Read this article and see if you can understand it.
http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/135830.html

Yeah exactly, i never said MOM is important, shan was the one showing those stats

for me what matters is the average of the player when the team wins, that will prove if he is a choker or not

 

[shan111]

Looks like khalek took the bait of MoM table...
I knew he would read the table and come up with masterpiece like 'Sachin has'nt won more than 2 MoM since '98 so Sachin's a choker and Inzi owns sachin.'
:cool:

 

[khalek]

Looks like khalek took the bait of MoM table...
I knew he would read the table and come up with masterpiece like 'Sachin has'nt won more than 2 MoM since '98 so Sachin's a choker and Inzi owns sachin.'
:-P

So you can see this thread is a merry go round

 

[aditya123]

So you can see this thread is a merry go round

Or that three or four of us trapped you with the MoM stat.
You brought the `only 2 MoMs since 1998` point up and we have shown why it does not work that way.

 

[khalek]

Or that three or four of us trapped you with the MoM stat.
You brought the `only 2 MoMs since 1998` point up and we have shown why it does not work that way.

Not 3 or 4, only you and shan but later you guys realized that MOM doesn't even matter