Tendulkar v Inzamam TEST CRICKET ONLY

[shravi]

I'm no mod but I think this thread has come to an end. Everyone's just getting really bitter.

 

[metallics2006]

zMario I will try to give you an answer that finally makes sense to you. If I say that most of Inzy's hundreds came on batting tracks, can you statistically prove me wrong? I cant prove that Sachin scored his hundreds in difficult tracks either. You have to know the team composition of a side when they scored a hundred. For example, if Inzy scores a 100 against a West Indian side that has rested Ambrose and Walsh for a match, then it will not be that good an effort. The same applies for Sachin. If you have to check all this against every WINNING hundred scored it will take a long time. Sachin has scored hundreds in his career most times under pressure. If SRT-or any other player in the world for that matter-walks in when the team is 5/2 in a test match its always a pressure situation because the pressure of a batting collapse always looms in the horizon. Inzy is good, but Sachin is great. If you want to prove me wrong post Inzy's and SRT's hundreds along with the team composition of the opponents against whom he scored a hundred.

 

[Deleted member 9102]

Edit: Chris Gayle

 

[lightbulb]

I'm no mod but I think this thread has come to an end. Everyone's just getting really bitter.

I agree.

 

[metallics2006]

If anyone is getting bitter, its the desperate "boys" here. People who realize this is just a discussion will forget all about this if they move to another thread.

 

[KBC]

Miraculous, One fan, One dream.. meh, un-realistic, But it's amazing how this thread has gone that far..

 

[usy]

I don't agree, it's only suppose to be a cricket chat, keep it kool.

 

[Insomniac]

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?

I have given you a decent reply, prehaps you did not see it. I have given you an example of a situation where your batsman have to score, and your bowlers have to take 20 wickets.

You cannot win a test match with just bowlers taking 20 wickets, your batsmen HAVE to score in a test match in order to win it. And I'm not speaking 10, 20 runs. I speak of 50s, 100s.

It is funny that you say that I'm posting crap, yet you're talking about what it take to win a test match on a cricket forum. Very laughable.

zMario I will try to give you an answer that finally makes sense to you. If I say that most of Inzy's hundreds came on batting tracks, can you statistically prove me wrong? I cant prove that Sachin scored his hundreds in difficult tracks either. You have to know the team composition of a side when they scored a hundred. For example, if Inzy scores a 100 against a West Indian side that has rested Ambrose and Walsh for a match, then it will not be that good an effort. The same applies for Sachin. If you have to check all this against every WINNING hundred scored it will take a long time. Sachin has scored hundreds in his career most times under pressure. If SRT-or any other player in the world for that matter-walks in when the team is 5/2 in a test match its always a pressure situation because the pressure of a batting collapse always looms in the horizon. Inzy is good, but Sachin is great. If you want to prove me wrong post Inzy's and SRT's hundreds along with the team composition of the opponents against whom he scored a hundred.

Inzamam ALWAYS walked into a situation when we were 2 down. We have not had ANY good openers since well, Saeed and Sohail retired. We have discovered Butt, who has an excellent technique, and hopefully can become a great player for Pakistan, but we still don't have a second opening partner for him.

Since you want me to show team composition of opponents in wins when the batsmen score a 100, I will do that, since Inzamam has 17, and Sachin has only 13.

Sachin Tendulkar:

165 v England @ Chennai - Malcolm, Jarvis, Lewis, Tuffnell, Hick, Salisbury
104* v Sri Lanka @ Colombo - Wickramasinghe, Liyanage, Warnaweera, Gurusinha, Hathurusingha, Kalpage, Ranatunga, PA de Silva
142 v Sri Lanka @ Lucknow - Wickramasinghe, Liyanage, Anurasiri, Kalpage, Muttiah Muralitharan
155* v Australia @ Chennai - Kasprowicz, Reiffel, Robertson, Shane Warne
122 v Zimbabwe @ Delhi - Streak, BC Strang, Murphy, Olonga, PA Strang
126 v Australia @ Chennai - McGrath, Gillespie, Miller, Warne
176 v Zimbabwe @ Nagpur - Streak, Watambwa, Price, Friend, Flower
117 v West Indies @ Trinidad - Dillion, Cuffy, Sanford, Black, Carl Hooper
193 v England @ Headingley - Hoggard, Caddick, Tudor, Flintoff, Giles

Now regarding the England innings in 2002, I am not sure whether Flintoff could be classed as a "world-class" bowler at that time period. We can come back to this later.

194* v Pakistan @ Multan - Akhtar, Sami, Shabbir, Saqlain, Razzaq
248* v Bangladesh @ Dhaka - Baisya, Mortaza, Rahman, Rafique, Manjural Islam Rana
109 v Sri Lanka @ Delhi - Vaas, Fernando, Murali, Bandara
122* v Bangladesh @ Mirpur - Mortaza, Rasel, Sharif, Rafique, Shakib al Hasan

Honorable Mentions:
96 v Sri Lanka @ Bangalore - Wickramasinghe , Murali, Ranatunga, Anurasiri
91 v England @ Trent Bridge - Sidebottom, Anderson, Tremlett, Panesar, Collingwood

So, Sachin Tendulkar has faced a "world-class / excellent bowler / one who averages under 30 8 times (and scored a 100 against them in a win)

Those are Sachin's 13 100s in wins, and the bowlers he had to face. Now in bold, those are the bowlers that are considered "world-class" and "difficult to face" - you get the idea.

Inzamam 17 100s in wins:

135* v New Zealand @ Wellington - Morrison, de Groen, Doull, Hart, Thomson
100* v Sri Lanka @ Kandy - Vaas, Pushpakumara, Dharmasena, Kalpage
101 v Zimbabwe @ Harare - Streak, Brain, Strang, Whittall
148 v England @ Lord's - Cork, Brown, Mullally, Salisbury, Ealham
177 v West Indies @ Rawalpindi (just for the record, I witnessed this innings) - Walsh, Ambrose, Ian Bishop, Rose, Hooper
200* v Sri Lanka @ Dhaka (Asian Test Championship Final) - Vaas, Wickramasinghe, de Silva, Chandana, de Silva, Arnold
138 v Sri Lanka @ Karachi - Vaas, Pushpakumara, Murali, Wickramasinghe
112 v Sri Lanka @ Galle - Vaas, Pushpakumara, Herath, Murali
114 v England @ Old Trafford - Gough, Caddick, Hoggard, Cork
105* v Bangladesh @ Multan - Islam, Sharif, Hossain, Rahman, Haque
329* v New Zealand @ Lahore - Tuffey, Martin, Vettori, Walker, Harris, McMillan
112 v Zimbabwe @ Harare - Blignaut, Olonga, Mahwire, Price, and Whitall
138* v Bangladesh @ Multan (famous 1 wicket win making 120+ with tail) - Islam, Baisya, Mahmud, Rafique
118* v India @ Lahore - Pathan, Balaji, Agarkar, Kumble
117 v Sri Lanka @ Karachi - Vaas, Maharoof, Fernando, Herath, Murali
184 v India @ Bangalore - Pathan, Balaji, Kumble, Harbhajahn
117 v West Indies @ Jamaica - Powell, Best, King, Collymore, Gayle

Honorable mentions:
92 v West Indies @ Peshawar - Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop, Simmons, Lewis, Hooper
97 v England @ Lahore - Hoggard, Flintoff, Harmison, Udal
92* v South Africa @ Port Elizabeth - Nel, Pollock, Kallis, Ntini

Inzamam-ul-Haq has faced a world-class bowler 20 times (and scored a 100)

Now make up your mind

Funnily enough, Sachin struggled badly against Waqar and Wasim, and has no 100s v Pakistan in a winning game. The innings v Walsh, Ambrose, and Bishop was probably one of the best in Test cricket, because that was definitely a force to be reckoned with back in 1997. Bishop was 28, Walsh was 32, Ambrose was 30, so these bowlers were not exactly "old" when they faced Inzamam - Bishop was probably at the height of his fast bowling career, Walsh bowled 145kph+ up to the age of 35, and Ambrose bowled at least 145kph+ up to about 33.

Haha I am just going to read this thread for now - zMario, your points and arguments as to why someone is a better cricketer are flawed and stupid :laugh.

And if they are so flawed and stupid, why have you not been able to answer to any of them? Prehaps you have no response to them, and instead harass me in order to make yourself feel better about yourself?

If anyone is getting bitter, its the desperate "boys" here. People who realize this is just a discussion will forget all about this if they move to another thread.

How am I bitter? I have not let one view / comment go past, and am willing to answer most questions. I even went through your question of analyzing all the players' 100s, and have shown the opposing teams' bowling composition.

As it seems, Inzamam faced more world-class bowlers than Sachin, when it came to making 100s in wins. I have also included innings Inzamam and Sachin played and made 90+, but did not make it to the 100

Please feel free to query any of the statistics I've said above, as I could have easily made a mistake, since I am human

 

[Pakistani Army]

Nice Comprehensive list zMario - that is brilliant - it just shows that when Inzamam had to face harder bowlers more often to get his 100s in Pakistan wins, while Sachin was playing against trundlers, other than Warne. I will give it to Sachin - he handled Warne well in those 2 test wickets, however, Inzamam handled Murali better, so it's a bit of a trade-off there. However, just looking through the rest of the list, it seems as though Inzamam easily has the upper hand in this debate - especially from those statistics. Now the interesting thing will be what metallics says, because now I think the Indian fans will say it doesn't matter, it has nothing to do with it, something on those lines - especially since this is COMPREHENSIVE information. Guys, please don't say that it doesn't matter, because metallics asked for it, and Asad bhai brilliantly showed the statistics from a neutral stand-point.

 

[iZeeshan]

Wow, that is some very very comprehensive information.... Metallics asked for it, and zMario gave it to him - thats just like a hardcore rape right there. Look through those stats, theres NO DENYING now that Inzamam faced more difficult bowlers to get his 100s in those wins. Absolutely amazing stuff - if you compare Warne to Murali, it seems Inzamam has more 100s against Murali then Tendulkar does to Murali or Warne.

Well done zMario, brilliant stuff.

 

[shravi]

Nah, just because you are a facing a world class bowler doesn't mean he is world class every match. In fact, even the bowlers who you don't class as world class could well have performed above their potential in those matches. Much to your surprise, like world class batsmen, world class bowlers too, can choke.

The point is, you can break it down as much as you like, but at the end of the day, Sachin has the higher average, more runs, more centuries, more fifties, a much better first class record, and is held by pretty much every cricketing expert as one of the greatest batsmen ever.

 

[iZeeshan]

Nah, just because you are a facing a world class bowler doesn't mean he is world class every match. In fact, even the bowlers who you don't class as world class could well have performed above their potential in those matches. Much to your surprise, like world class batsmen, world class bowlers too, can choke.

The point is, you can break it down as much as you like, but at the end of the day, Sachin has the higher average, more runs, more centuries, more fifties, a much better first class record, and is held by pretty much every cricketing expert as one of the greatest batsmen ever.

Sure he has the greatest stats. But what's the point if those stats didn't bring him as many wins as they did for Inzamam. I know I'd rather have a man who performs when his team needs him, rather then someone who scores but doesn't finish it off for his team.

 

[shravi]

Look, when it says he has higher averages in matches won it does NOT mean he won the match single handedly. Cricket is a team game. Inzamam did not "win the game" for his team more often, he just provided the team with a match-winning innings. Sachin did that too and his record shows it.

 

[Insomniac]

Look, when it says he has higher averages in matches won it does NOT mean he won the match single handedly. Cricket is a team game. Inzamam did not "win the game" for his team more often, he just provided the team with a match-winning innings. Sachin did that too and his record shows it.

Dude...

You yourself are saying that Inzamam provided the team with a match-winning innings, yet you also say Sachin did it too and his record shows that.

I hate repeating myself and going in circles, but I think you're out plumb LBW now.

Look at it this way shravi - Inzamam averages 78.16 in wins, Sachin averages 62.11.

That is a difference of 16 runs per innings

Now, you say that Inzamam provided his team with match-winning innings, and also say that Sachin did that as well. That is true as well, I am not denying that.

But the record as stated above shows that Inzamam provided his team with more runs in his match-winning innings, than Tendulkar. 62.11 is very good, but unless my math is incorrect, 78.16 is better.

 

[Deleted member 9102]

Edit: Chris Gayle