Tendulkar v Inzamam TEST CRICKET ONLY

[sohum]

Every thread that Sachin is VS [insert name] all Indians start coming up with defences of why he hasnt been performing.

Why don't you think about the topic before posting? This topic is not about who is performing or not because obviously that would be irrelevant since Inzy has retired and by definition is not performing any more. In fact, there are no reasons being conjured for Tendulkar's failures recently--it is more a defense of the fact that some people choose to question Tendulkar's position as one of the greatest Test cricketers on the basis of Man of the Match awards.

sohummisra added 0 Minutes and 57 Seconds later...

If they weren't fanboys, they would atleast give a reason why he is better.

There have been plenty of reasons given, but apparently these reasons are not as good as having more man of the matches in games won.

 

[Insomniac]

Pakistan W & D / L : 2.42

India W & D / L: 2.75

I have used 1992-1999 for these figures, as Inzamam made his debut in 1992, and Pal mentioned that the same timescale has to / should be used.

As you can see, India won and drew more games than Pakistan (by a ratio), but Pakistan won more games than lost.

http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru...span;team=6;team=7;template=results;type=team

 

[Insomniac]

Why don't you think about the topic before posting? This topic is not about who is performing or not because obviously that would be irrelevant since Inzy has retired and by definition is not performing any more. In fact, there are no reasons being conjured for Tendulkar's failures recently--it is more a defense of the fact that some people choose to question Tendulkar's position as one of the greatest Test cricketers on the basis of Man of the Match awards.

sohummisra added 0 Minutes and 57 Seconds later...


There have been plenty of reasons given, but apparently these reasons are not as good as having more man of the matches in games won.

That is an ADDED fact.

Inzamam if he scores a 100, has a 92% chance of taking Pakistan to a win or a draw.

Compare that to Tendulkar's 76%

Inzamam has 17 100s in wins. Sachin has 13 100s in wins.

Inzamam scores a 100, theres a 68% chance of a Pakistan win.

If Sachin scores a 100, theres only a 33% chance of an Indian win.

Allow the statistics to please speak for themselves. First of all, there is NO WAY Sachin Tendulkar in my opinion a "legend" in test match cricket.

Prehaps, and probably in the one day game, but DEFINITELY not in the test arena. There are way too many statistics against Sachin, when compared with Inzamam, as well as things beyond those statistics, which also go against Sachin.

 

[usy]

For me, TBH, Tendulkar is a better batsman, doesn't mean Inzy, sucks or anything. DUh, they both have their own class.

My book has Lara as the greatest ever batsman.

 

[metallics2006]

Someone has been "PwnZ0red"-ing himself for 40 odd pages as far as I can see.
Originally Posted by metallics2006

A lot of people have posted the same stats again and again about why Inzy is better than Sachin in tests. So we will just see what Sachin is better at than Inzy in test cricket over the complete length of their entire carrers(NO REPLIES IN BOLD PLEASE).

In All Home Tests : Sachin Better than Inzy
SRT- 5056 runs Avg-54.95
IUH- 3709 runs Avg-53.75
SRT stats page : http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru/...;type=allround

Once again, how many of Sachin's runs have come in winning situations? Besides, on India's flat decks, anyone can score runs.

One of the most careless statements someone has ever made in a debate. If ANYONE can score ask Mcgrath or Asif to score a hundred. Just because he plays in flat decks does'nt mean Akhtar will bowl to him at speeds of 60 mph. You see Indian pitches offer some or atleast slight spin in day 4 and 5 of a match and the bounce is also low or unpredictable. Anyone who saw Asia Cup 08 knows the real dead tracks are in Pakistan and not India. So Inzy has just not used his chances to score runs for his team in home tracks.

 

[Insomniac]

Someone has been "PwnZ0red"-ing himself for 40 odd pages as far as I can see.
Originally Posted by metallics2006


One of the most careless statements someone has ever made in a debate. If ANYONE can score ask Mcgrath or Asif to score a hundred. Just because he plays in flat decks does'nt mean Akhtar will bowl to him at speeds of 60 mph. You see Indian pitches offer some or atleast slight spin in day 4 and 5 of a match and the bounce is also low or unpredictable. Anyone who saw Asia Cup 08 knows the real dead tracks are in Pakistan and not India. So Inzy has just not used his chances to score runs for his team in home tracks.

Yes, you are correct, that was a careless statement. Let me tell you this then.

ALMOST anyone can score in India - Besides, to be fairly honest, every pitch will spin and have unpredictable bounce if its been played on for 5 whole days.

The Asia Cup 2008 was a one day series, and yes, the pitches were abnormally flatter than usual. The stadium, which hosted most of the Asia Cup games happened to be the location where one team lost having had a team 39-6, till one player stood out amongst the rest and scored a 100 on a GREEN WICKET.

And no, its not Inzamam. I am just saying that Pakistan have had more "bowling pitches" than India. First of all, Rawalpindi is almost always a bowling track, and then every now and then you get those pitches with just a bit of spice in them, like the one in Karachi in 2006 (ok that was extreme spice, but still )

Metallics, you keep avoiding my point on the previous page about the number of 100s each have scored in a winning situation and those %s. Maybe you don't have a decent reply for it?

 

[Deleted member 9102]

Edit: Chris Gayle

 

[metallics2006]

I avoid certain questions because they are too damn stupid to be taken seriously. The same reason why you avoid to give a reasonable answer to this question :

In All Home Tests : Sachin Better than Inzy
SRT- 5056 runs Avg-54.95
IUH- 3709 runs Avg-53.75
SRT stats page : http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru/...;type=allround

Inzy stats page : http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru/...;type=allround

In Away Tests : Sachin Is Better Than Inzy
SRT- 6821 runs Avg-53.70
IUH- 4821 runs Avg-45.91
:

 

[Insomniac]

I avoid certain questions because they are too damn stupid to be taken seriously. The same reason why you avoid to give a reasonable answer to this question :

In All Home Tests : Sachin Better than Inzy
SRT- 5056 runs Avg-54.95
IUH- 3709 runs Avg-53.75
SRT stats page : http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru/...;type=allround

Inzy stats page : http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru/...;type=allround

In Away Tests : Sachin Is Better Than Inzy
SRT- 6821 runs Avg-53.70
IUH- 4821 runs Avg-45.91
:

I've already answered that, and will answer this again. (God damn this mod preview crap, honestly people start thinking I'm avoiding answering them because they message me on MSN and harass me about it - anyway)

You really want to know the answer? It's because Sachin has scored more runs than Inzamam, there is NO DOUBT about him scoring more runs than Inzamam.

However, that is not what matters. A batsman's job is to bat to help his team win. The seconday priority of the batsman, and a last resort, is to attempt to draw the game.

There are various points to be considered. We are comparing the "cricketers" as stated by what should be Cricketman's opening post.

By cricketer, it means HOW they play the game as well.

Now let me go to Madman's post. It is HILARIOUS to note that MOST of Tendulkar's top innings come when the team has already lost or are struggling. That is a fact. Now if I have to go through all 150 of Sachin's test matches, we can resume this debate in about 2 months, if we're lucky. However, as I have watched Tendulkar bat since 1997, I have noticed this REPEATEDLY.

Once again, let me ask you this Madman. Is an innings that helps a team win, better than an innings that comes in a loss?

Let's refer to the professionals in this job, shall we. While some of you whine about how the Man of the Match award is not a definitive thing, it is quite interesting.

I am referring now to the 4th ODI between India and Pakistan. Now please do not attack me for picking an ODI, I am picking the incident that comes most recently to mind. I am sure there are many instances like this in tests as well.

India made 315-6 in 48 overs, Tendu scored 124.

Pakistan chased that, and made 319-7, in 48 overs, with Inzamam making just 60, but was not out.

Guess who got the man of the match from a panel consisting of Ramiz Raja, Ravi Shastri, Arun Lal, Aamer Sohail, and another Indian commentator, whose name escapes me. Anyway, they chose Inzamam.

Yet, by your argument, Sachin should have got the Man of the Match, because he scored "more runs"

Now once again, that is an ODI, but I am giving it as an example. This has happened many times in the game of cricket, and its funny because it contradicts EVERYTHING you are saying. And I believe the panel of commentators mentioned above are slightly higher than you when it comes to cricket.

Now going back to metallics - I answered your question, how about you have the respectability and decency to answer mine.

 

[metallics2006]

And whats your question? Because its difficult to understand what you mean by a question in your book. You might say that the word "question" might mean a different thing judging your words from your posts.

 

[Insomniac]

Out of 39 100s, only 13 have come in an Indian win.

Compared to Inzamam's 25 100s, 17 have come in a Pakistani win.

So, if Sachin scores a 100, India have a 33% chance of winning.

If Inzamam scores a 100, Pakistan have a 68% chance of winning.

Lets take that to drawn games as well.

If Sachin scores a 100, India have a 76% chance to win OR draw.

If Inzamam scores a 100, Pakistan have a 92% chance to win or draw.

Just so I'm clear, my question is, what is your reasoning behind those statistics?

Its hilarious to note that although Sachin has 39 test 100s and Inzamam has 25, Inzamam has 17 100s in wins, while Tendulkar has only 13.

Please do not give me the "Indian bowling was crap" excuse, because everyone was saying Kumble averaged in the high 30s when I just proved that Kumble actually averaged 24 from 1990 to 1996. I have been exposing many lies / misinterpretations in this thread, and possibly more have been thrown at me, which I did not bother to check.

I'd also like an answer to the fact that Tendulkar has received NO Man of the Match award since 1998 in an Indian win. Please don't tell me that it takes 20 wickets to win a game, because I bloody know that.

I'd like an answer as to why in what I believe to be 37 test matches, Sachin has only received a man of the match award in 2, and none since 1998 in a win as well as why you feel the commentators / adjudicators felt that Sachin should not have received a man of the match award.

 

[khalek]

You make such nonsensical comments which show how little insight you can provide on this topic.
I would settle for a player who scores ten 90s in a year to someone who scores 2 hundreds and then does not manage much.
That actually shows you the consistency !

And guess what your posts prove how angry/retarded you get when someone comments on your God cricketer

 

[aditya123]

No you didn't "PwnZ0red" anyone.

If someone scores a century, they have done their part, it's up to the rest of the batsmen to build on that to set a good total/chase down a total, and it's up to the bowlers to take 20 wickets. Again, the logic in your argument is completely flawed.

Pakistan were also very successful in the 90s compared to India, winning a higher percentage of their matches anyway, so an Inzamam century then was more likely to win a game because of him having a better team around him...

It is the hundredth time someone is trying to drill this thing into their brains but Iam afraid it still has not gone in.
Reopen this thread in a couple of months time.

aditya123 added 1 Minutes and 37 Seconds later...

And guess what your posts prove how angry/retarded you get when someone comments on your God cricketer

That still does not take anything away from the fact that your comment was still nonsensical.
99/100 people would settle for 10 nineties in a year.

 

[khalek]

It still does not take anything away from the fact that your comment was still nonsensical.
99/100 people would settle for 10 nineties in a year.

Definitely they will, they would rather score 99 when the team is in trouble than scoring only in the first innings and choking in the second innings

 

[sohum]

Metallics, you keep avoiding my point on the previous page about the number of 100s each have scored in a winning situation and those %s. Maybe you don't have a decent reply for it?

Just like you don't have a decent reply to the bowlers being vital to a win? Or have you been regurgitating so much of your crap that it has been lost to everyone's eyes?