Another statistical comparison involving Inzamam
Mike Holmans
3 years in Tests 3 years in Tests
AC Gilchrist 59 39
Inzamam 48 66
Yet people will happily talk of Gilchrist as a potential ATG but hum
and ha about Inzamam.
The thing is that we all remember how brilliant Gilchrist was, and
when he occasionally does it we say he's back to his old form, whereas
with Inzy we remember him being inconsistent for years, thus
establishing his reputation which no amount of superb consistence over
the last few years will erase, or only gradually.
The moral of the story is: get your achievements in good and early.
Impress everyone before you're 26 and you can coast along for the next
ten years contributing the odd century here and there and people will
still think you're majestic. But if you just get the odd century here
and there for several years and then spend five years batting like a
god, no-one will rate you highly because they've already made up their
minds about you and decided that you've been wasating your taelnt and
so on.
Cheers,
Mike
razar...@my-deja.com
Mike Holmans wrote:
<clippety>
*** None of the avgs listed are bad. Isn't it really about the context
in which the runs are scored? Gillu has got the Bastards out of gaol
more than once. Pound for pound, I think Inzi is more important to
Pakistan, far more than Gillu is to the Bastards. More important than
Freddy Flintstone is to Pomfactory - probably. More important than
Agarkar or Ganguly are to India - maybe. (Obligatory India mention,
resistance is futile.)
Mike Holmans
keyboard and brought forth:
I don't think it's that. There's a sense in which we are ill-equipped
to cope with a player whose performance goes up a couple of levels in
what looks as though it ought to be the autumn of his career.
We get used to what a player is like, and when he suddenly starts
being a far, far better player, we spend some time discounting it
because it's out of character and we don't believe it will continue.
And then it does continue, in the cases of people like Graveney, Gooch
and Inzamam (and no doubt plenty of others), but we are still
reluctant to reconsider a judgement we have come to after several
years.
Cheers,
Mike
jawa...@gmail.com
Inzi likes to be weighed in Kilograms.
Mike has a good point. I would add:
1. Inzi is an All Time Great in my book, and the books of all
reasonable fans. Infact recognizing Inzi's ATG status in the key to
entering Club Resoanble Fans Worldwide.
2. In addition to early success, it helps to have a relentless hype
machine behind you, they way Indians and Australians have. I remember
when Vinod Kambli was already the next Donald Bradman.
3. Many greats would be happy to have Inzi's low and inconsistant
average of 48 from the bad days.
4. A bad Inzi is still nine points above a bad AG, and a good Inzi is
a whole 7 points above a good AG.
Sampath
Worlds BEST TEAM Australia
Mat Runs HS BatAv 100 50 W BB BowlAv 5w Ct St
Inzy 14 785 118 31.40 1 6 - - - - 9 0
Lara 31 2856 277 51.00 9 11 0 - - 0 34 0
Tend 21 1859 241* 53.11 7 7 11 3/31 47.27 0 12 0
Dravd 19 1503 233 48.48 2 8 - - - - 33 0
Human beings in general are IMMATURE SPECIES. Once they form an opinion they
will try to impose their opinion on others REGARDLESS of the ACTUAL FACTS.
"Mike Holmans" <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c9vsb2pse2joqdkme...@4ax.com...
Tony Foster
> The moral of the story is: get your achievements in good and early.
> Impress everyone before you're 26 and you can coast along for the next
> ten years contributing the odd century here and there and people will
> still think you're majestic. But if you just get the odd century here
> and there for several years and then spend five years batting like a
> god, no-one will rate you highly because they've already made up their
> minds about you and decided that you've been wasating your taelnt and
> so on.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
You're right, Botham's first 51 Tests and last 51 Tests break down like
this.
Tests 1-51 51 2833 208 38.80 11 10 231 8/34 23.06 19 59 0
Tests 52-102 51 2367 138 28.86 3 12 152 8/103 36.50 8 61 0
And his last 25 tests, 25 821 138 23.45 1 2 50 5/41 42.00 2
32 0
Sampath
<jawa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153345574....@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> razar...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> more than once. Pound for pound, I think Inzi is more important to
>
> Inzi likes to be weighed in Kilograms.
>
> Mike has a good point. I would add:
>
> 1. Inzi is an All Time Great in my book, and the books of all
> reasonable fans. Infact recognizing Inzi's ATG status in the key to
> entering Club Resoanble Fans Worldwide.
Inzy is GREAT but he is not in the league of Lara, Sachin and Dravid.
> 2. In addition to early success, it helps to have a relentless hype
> machine behind you, they way Indians and Australians have. I remember
> when Vinod Kambli was already the next Donald Bradman.
Dude, its not restricted to India and Australia. Human beings are IMMATURE
and JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS everywhere in the world. How many pak players were
hyped in their early days like Shahid Afridi, Salman Butt, Imran Farhat,
Mohammad Akram, Umar Gul, Shabbir Ahmed etc.
Sampath
You psycho-analysing others is very funny and utterly hypocritic to put it
mildly.
Remember you ran away like a typical immature human being from this thread
because FACTS PROVED you wrong.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/118aefbc0363e8ef?hl=en&
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/d86e6b22205661a1?hl=en&
Mike Holmans
and brought forth:
>
>razar...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> more than once. Pound for pound, I think Inzi is more important to
>
>Inzi likes to be weighed in Kilograms.
>
>Mike has a good point. I would add:
>
>1. Inzi is an All Time Great in my book,
Good for you.
>and the books of all
>reasonable fans. Infact recognizing Inzi's ATG status in the key to
>entering Club Resoanble Fans Worldwide.
I don't entirely agree, although I am extremely near to recognising
Inzi as an ATG. Let me see what he does at Headingley.
>2. In addition to early success, it helps to have a relentless hype
>machine behind you, they way Indians and Australians have. I remember
>when Vinod Kambli was already the next Donald Bradman.
>3. Many greats would be happy to have Inzi's low and inconsistant
>average of 48 from the bad days.
>4. A bad Inzi is still nine points above a bad AG,
Not necessarily. The three year period from the beginning of 1996 to
the end of 1998 saw Inzi averaging 38.
> and a good Inzi is
>a whole 7 points above a good AG.
Again, one can find a three year period in which Gilchrist averaged
65.
My point is that in purely statistical terms there is not all that
much difference between Gilchrist and Inzamam, except in terms of
whether they had their purplest patches at the beginning or end of
their careers. Whether they make it to the pages of anyone's personal
book is neither here nor there.
Cheers,
Mike
Fred
> The moral of the story is: get your achievements in good and early.
True. The flip is that fans who start watching half way through a
player's career can be surprised that there's ever been doubt about a
player's ability. I only saw Gooch play in the 90s so have no problem
thinking of him as a world class talent (albeit not an ATG)...
As for Inzi, as an England fan I have no problem thinking of him as
being one of the very finest of his generation. He might not have had
many chances to play against England, but discounting his first series,
in 1992 (just 66 runs at 13.20), he's averaged 74.26 against England
with 5 centuries in his 21 innings and a run now of 9 scores of 50+ in
a row since 2001. And statistics aside, he's made those runs in a
pretty awesome fashion, Inzi is brilliant. I wish he was English. Or
failing that, one of Middlesex's overseas players...
max.it
If you get the name of an early riser, then you can lie in bed all
day, and everyone will still think you get up early.
razar...@my-deja.com
Mike Holmans wrote:
> On 19 Jul 2006 13:37:28 -0700, razar...@my-deja.com tapped the
> keyboard and brought forth:
>
> >
> >Mike Holmans wrote:
> ><clippety>
> >
<cloppety>
> I don't think it's that. There's a sense in which we are ill-equipped
> to cope with a player whose performance goes up a couple of levels in
> what looks as though it ought to be the autumn of his career.
>
<pluckety>
*** Touche. It's rarer to see players get better in the twilight. I
guess that's why they call it the Twilight Zone. Not unlike the Bruce
Lee and Brandon Lee story, there is a parallel with the demon stalking
first Javed Miandad, and now Inzamam. JM was struck by back trouble
late in his career, also during a purple patch. Inzi has also had back
problems. Bruce Lee's greatness was never in question, JM was a legend
in his own time. While farther along than Brandon, Inzi still has more
to prove.
Imran Khan persisted in calling Inzi better than SRT. Finally, it's
true, and it's not just a matter of a broken clock being right twice a
day. In his younger days, Inzi batted like an puppy grown too quickly.
He's more composed and better knows his role in the side, as of course
he should, he's played it for at least the past 5 years. His strength
is that he's fit in with the side, well really, the side is custom fit
around him, isn't it. Tendulkar's weakness is that the side has grown
larger than him, and he's just another soldier.
All that aside, Pakistan have looked unconvincing. They have looked
confused at their "space" in this tour. Happily, and yeah I do mean
pharmaceutically speaking, England have looked almost as stoned.
Hopefully, the reintroduction of some of the regulars will spark the
series. Old Trafford is supposed to be pacy and bouncy. Can Pakistan
handle it? Can England handle 3 wrist spinners? This could get
interesting yet.
dechucka
> Average over first Average over last
> 3 years in Tests 3 years in Tests
> AC Gilchrist 59 39
> Inzamam 48 66
>
> Yet people will happily talk of Gilchrist as a potential ATG but hum
> and ha about Inzamam.
Inzaman sucks even more than Gilchrist as a keeper
Gafoor
> 1. Inzi is an All Time Great in my book, and the books of all
> reasonable fans. Infact recognizing Inzi's ATG status in the key to
> entering Club Resoanble Fans Worldwide.
100's of players have entered the ATG status based on their
performance in the current decade - maybe that shows
something about the current decade, rather than the
players themselves.
Inzi vs Australia
14 matches - 785 runs at 31.40 - 1 100
Inzi vs RSA
9 matches - 495 runs at 33.00 - ZERO 100's.
in Aus
8 matches - 494 runs @ 30.87
in RSA
5 matches - 247 runs @ 27.44
Paji
Mike Holmans wrote:
> Average over first Average over last
> 3 years in Tests 3 years in Tests
> AC Gilchrist 59 39
> Inzamam 48 66
>
> Yet people will happily talk of Gilchrist as a potential ATG but hum
> and ha about Inzamam.
People hum and ha about Inzy because he has done great only against Eng
if you take his last few series. He was good against India but others
in the team did much more than him.
I guess English fans get a skewed view because of his exploits against
Flintoff and co.
Andrew Dunford
> 3 years in Tests 3 years in Tests
> AC Gilchrist 59 39
> Inzamam 48 66
>
> Yet people will happily talk of Gilchrist as a potential ATG but hum
> and ha about Inzamam.
I'm not convinced such a comparison is entirely fair given that it seems to
me much of Gilchrist's claim revolves around him being a wicket-keeper with
outstanding batting figures, whatever one may think of his ability with the
gloves.
<snip>
Andrew
Sampath
"max.it" <m...@teatime.co.uk> wrote in message
news:44bebf45...@news.btopenworld.com...
Hahahahaha.........good one.
kenh...@hotmail.com
Surely the moral is to forget about averages and rely more on what you
see the batsman do.
Since when did you become such a StatRat, Mike?
Higgs
Andrew Dunford
<kenh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153367915.7...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Alvey is away from rsc for a while and re-emerges from hibernation on 19
July. Higgsy is away for a while and comes out of his cave on 20 July.
Hmm...
<snip>
Andrew
kenh...@hotmail.com
Whilst it's true I haven't posted here much of late, i did reply (to
one of your posts) just last week. Perhaps I'm in your killfile too.
Oh, ok. I confess.
Bang to rights. I am Alvey
Sidecast
eusebius
Inzamam has always in my view been an excellent player. There does
remain a certain je ne sais quoi that holds Inzamam back from true
ATGness-in earlier times, I never sensed Inzi's true commitment to the
success of his side. He was more selfish than Selfish. He didn't bother
about his fitness, for example. In pure batting ability, Inzi is second
perhaps only to SRT of current players. His record against Australia is
poor, but that was in his earlier period for the most part since
Australia hasn't played Pakistan much for some time, and not in
Pakistan for close to a decade. Dravid and SRT have played at home and
in Australia in batsmen friendly conditions. You could argue that Inzi
has never had that, and has played against McWarne at their peak when
playing Australia, for the most part.
Had Inzamam maintained the same level of scoring throughout his career,
I would have no hesitation in labelling him an ATG. On the other hand,
it seems that in regard to the artist formerly known as Yousuf Youhana,
stats really do lie. A good and improving player, but never an ATG.
Mad Hamish
wrote:
>jawa...@gmail.com wrote:
>> 1. Inzi is an All Time Great in my book, and the books of all
>> reasonable fans. Infact recognizing Inzi's ATG status in the key to
>> entering Club Resoanble Fans Worldwide.
>
>
>100's of players have entered the ATG status based on their
>performance in the current decade
What names would you suggest as all-time greats from the last decade?
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
newsunsp...@iinet.unspamme.net.au
Mad Hamish
<mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Average over first Average over last
> 3 years in Tests 3 years in Tests
>AC Gilchrist 59 39
>Inzamam 48 66
>
>Yet people will happily talk of Gilchrist as a potential ATG but hum
>and ha about Inzamam.
Quibbling over details
I don't think there's been anything like the talk about Gilchrist as
an all-time great over the last year as there was before hand.
There's also a bit of a question mark about Inzi with an average of
31.40 against Aus and 33 against RSA.
Gilchrist averages 29.95 against India and 35.11 against Sri Lanka but
I think iffy performance against spin are judged less harshly than
failures against pace.
>
>The thing is that we all remember how brilliant Gilchrist was, and
>when he occasionally does it we say he's back to his old form, whereas
>with Inzy we remember him being inconsistent for years, thus
>establishing his reputation which no amount of superb consistence over
>the last few years will erase, or only gradually.
>
>The moral of the story is: get your achievements in good and early.
>Impress everyone before you're 26 and you can coast along for the next
>ten years contributing the odd century here and there and people will
>still think you're majestic. But if you just get the odd century here
>and there for several years and then spend five years batting like a
>god, no-one will rate you highly because they've already made up their
>minds about you and decided that you've been wasating your taelnt and
>so on.
I agree with you in general
I think it hurt quite a few players who got a run early on when they
weren't really ready
Laker probably being a good example, he got carted in 48 and it cost
him a fair few matches.
Botham is an example the other way...
Kallis and Steve Waugh would seem to be counter examples
eusebius
Mad Hamish wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 19:51:39 +0100, Mike Holmans
> <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Average over first Average over last
> > 3 years in Tests 3 years in Tests
> >AC Gilchrist 59 39
> >Inzamam 48 66
> >
> >Yet people will happily talk of Gilchrist as a potential ATG but hum
> >and ha about Inzamam.
>
> Quibbling over details
> I don't think there's been anything like the talk about Gilchrist as
> an all-time great over the last year as there was before hand.
Good point. I think that there may be room for a critical re-evaluation
of Gilly, especially if he continues to decline with the bat. If he
finishes with an average c.40, he won't be remembered as highly by a
lot of fans, I'm sure.
Sears Tower
> 3 years in Tests 3 years in Tests
> AC Gilchrist 59 39
> Inzamam 48 66
>
> Yet people will happily talk of Gilchrist as a potential ATG but hum
> and ha about Inzamam.
can be decent-to-good Test players and have reasonable averages. But
they rarely win matches for you - they just make it difficult for the
other side to win.
The huge argument I have with the statrats is that they *never* look
at those specials which say what *could* happen. The statrats take the
boring percentage line which ends up in picking the least worst rather
than taking the risk of trying to find the best - the players who can
turn matches on their own and who risk having their achievements
ascribed to divine intervention.
shariq...@yahoo.com
Sampath wrote:
> Another statistical comparison of Inzamam, Lara, Dravid and Tendulkar vs the
> Worlds BEST TEAM Australia
>
> Mat Runs HS BatAv 100 50 W BB BowlAv 5w Ct St
>
> Inzy 14 785 118 31.40 1 6 - - - - 9 0
>
> Lara 31 2856 277 51.00 9 11 0 - - 0 34 0
>
> Tend 21 1859 241* 53.11 7 7 11 3/31 47.27 0 12 0
>
> Dravd 19 1503 233 48.48 2 8 - - - - 33 0
>
>
>
>
> Human beings in general are IMMATURE SPECIES. Once they form an opinion they
> will try to impose their opinion on others REGARDLESS of the ACTUAL FACTS.
>
Since you want to be microscopic and are talking about their records
against the best team in the world, you need to take the 2003/2004
series against Australia out of the mix because McGrath and Warne did
not play. What you get is the Wall averaging 34 and Tendulkar averaging
49.2 against Australia. Infact take Tendulkar has averaged less than 43
in matches in which he has faced McGrath
shariq...@yahoo.com
Sachin's best performances against Australia have come against
Australian bowling lineups missing McGrath. Lara has the best head to
head with mcGrath and averages 45.XX against him
VJ
> Since you want to be microscopic and are talking about their records
> against the best team in the world, you need to take the 2003/2004
> series against Australia out of the mix because McGrath and Warne did
> not play. What you get is the Wall averaging 34 and Tendulkar averaging
> 49.2 against Australia. Infact take Tendulkar has averaged less than 43
> in matches in which he has faced McGrath
Shariq you make some good points but any way you cut and dice it, Inzi
has some serious holes in his resume when you consider his performance
in SA and Aus. If he is the phenomenal player of pace as Imran seems to
believe so strongly, his record does not seem to justify that belief.
I have watched some of Inzi's innings and enjoyed them thoroughly. When
on song, it seems that there is no way to get him out but via some
stupid error or distraction. But he has done little of note against two
of the best test teams in their backyard. 1 century against Aus and
none against SA can be justified only so much.
Forget that SRT or Dravid even exist. Doesnt Inzi's record against SA
and Aus in away series at least put some sort of question mark on his
claim to ATG status?
VJ
> Sachin's best performances against Australia have come against
> Australian bowling lineups missing McGrath. Lara has the best head to
> head with mcGrath and averages 45.XX against him
What does Inzi average against McGrath? And what about his performances
against SA - who was missing when others were making more runs against
them?
shariq...@yahoo.com
Certainly Inzamam has performed poorly against South Africa and
Australia. There is no excuse for that really. So much for the so
called talent against fast bowlers. I reckon though that Imran was
talking of his potential rather than what he achieved early on in his
career
Anyways, I rank Inzamam lower than Dravid and Tendulkar in the last of
all time greats. Now if Inzamam is able to mantain his purple patch for
the next 2-3 years and Sachin continues to falter only then would he
have a chance to draw level. Likewise if Dravid goes into a 2-3 year
slump and Inzi mantains his form then he will have a chance to draw
level with the Wall
shariq...@yahoo.com
Playing for Pakistan against Australia with Glenn McGrath in the
opposition Inzi has made 770 runs at an average of 36.67. Playing for
ICC against Australia last year he made 0 and 1 and including that
brings his average against McGrath down to 33.52
Shariq
Mike Holmans
<newsunsp...@iinet.unspamme.net.au> tapped the keyboard and
brought forth:
>On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 19:51:39 +0100, Mike Holmans
><mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Average over first Average over last
>> 3 years in Tests 3 years in Tests
>>AC Gilchrist 59 39
>>Inzamam 48 66
>>
>>Yet people will happily talk of Gilchrist as a potential ATG but hum
>>and ha about Inzamam.
>
>Quibbling over details
>I don't think there's been anything like the talk about Gilchrist as
>an all-time great over the last year as there was before hand.
>
>There's also a bit of a question mark about Inzi with an average of
>31.40 against Aus and 33 against RSA.
>
>Gilchrist averages 29.95 against India and 35.11 against Sri Lanka but
>I think iffy performance against spin are judged less harshly than
>failures against pace.
I used Gilchrist as my comparison because he used to be a shoo-in in
many people's minds but is now borderline at best while, as your
quibbles make clear, Inzamam is also borderline whatever he may have
been up to recently.
>>
>>The thing is that we all remember how brilliant Gilchrist was, and
>>when he occasionally does it we say he's back to his old form, whereas
>>with Inzy we remember him being inconsistent for years, thus
>>establishing his reputation which no amount of superb consistence over
>>the last few years will erase, or only gradually.
>>
>>The moral of the story is: get your achievements in good and early.
>>Impress everyone before you're 26 and you can coast along for the next
>>ten years contributing the odd century here and there and people will
>>still think you're majestic. But if you just get the odd century here
>>and there for several years and then spend five years batting like a
>>god, no-one will rate you highly because they've already made up their
>>minds about you and decided that you've been wasating your taelnt and
>>so on.
>
>I agree with you in general
>I think it hurt quite a few players who got a run early on when they
>weren't really ready
>Laker probably being a good example, he got carted in 48 and it cost
>him a fair few matches.
>Botham is an example the other way...
>
>Kallis and Steve Waugh would seem to be counter examples
I'm not entirely clear what you mean by saying that Swaugh and Kallis
are counter-examples, but that may be because it wasn't clear what I
meant. Which is certainly possible, in that I'm not exactly sure what
I meant either.
Kallis is mostly a counter-example to good cricket, in my book, but I
doubt that was your point. But I never held the opinion that Swaugh
had been an inconsistent talent-waster until his last few years, for
instance. Just the opposite - at least after 1989, from which point he
was quite the most aggravatingly consistent accumulator around. That
the esteem in which he was held rose considerably from his early days
was similarly accumulative, though, wasn't it? Swaugh's claim to
greatness has never been that he was particularly brilliant: his is
the aggregate claim that he did the business time and time again, and
regularly when his side was in early trouble.
It's effectively the same one that Dravid's career makes: it's not
blindingly obvious that Dravid is batting miles better now than he was
six or seven years ago - any improvement in the last few years has
really been the natural accretion of experience, wisdom and know-how
that any player who realises that you never stop learning about
cricket will pick up - but there are lots more people mentioning him
as a modern great than there were six or seven years ago.
But you could spot them. You could see them gradually clocking up the
milestones and the match-saving innings and the dig out of a hole and
set up a win innings, and you'd be thinking that if he keeps this up
for another few years, he'll be a very significant cricketer indeed,
and eventually there came a point where you realised that he had in
fact become one.
Cheers,
Mike
Mike Holmans
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>Inzamam has always in my view been an excellent player. There does
>remain a certain je ne sais quoi that holds Inzamam back from true
>ATGness-in earlier times, I never sensed Inzi's true commitment to the
>success of his side. He was more selfish than Selfish. He didn't bother
>about his fitness, for example.
His captaincy of the side today suggests to me a reason for that. He
is clearly a peaceable man who does not relish enmities. He wants his
boys, as he calls them, to enjoy playing cricket for Pakistan
together.
During his early Test career, though, the Pakistan team seemed to
exist purely in order to have faction fights: the opposition served
merely as the excuse for the next round in the internal battles. One
can see why Inzamam found it all highly distasteful and just did what
satisfied him while trying to stay aloof from the rest.
> In pure batting ability, Inzi is second
>perhaps only to SRT of current players. His record against Australia is
>poor, but that was in his earlier period for the most part since
>Australia hasn't played Pakistan much for some time, and not in
>Pakistan for close to a decade. Dravid and SRT have played at home and
>in Australia in batsmen friendly conditions. You could argue that Inzi
>has never had that, and has played against McWarne at their peak when
>playing Australia, for the most part.
>Had Inzamam maintained the same level of scoring throughout his career,
>I would have no hesitation in labelling him an ATG.
I'm not going to make any definite statement now. After all, I'm in
the middle of watching a Test series featuring him, with one live Test
still to attend as well as two on TV, and you are well aware of my
view that one gains so much more information about a player by
watching him from the stands.
But my suspicion is that I won't reach a final view on Inzamam until
some time after he has retired. I think Inzamam's significance goes
beyond his runs in a way which, say, Zaheer Abbas's doesn't. It's
fairly hard to make an ATG claim for Kapil Dev based on his stats, but
when you consider his overall impact there can be no question. Inzamam
may be another whose stats don't quite get him there but the rest of
the impression he made on the cricket world might tip him over - and
it may not be clear for some time what the totality of his
contribution has been, since there is quite a lot about what went on
in the Pakistan team during the 90s which has not yet been revealed.
>On the other hand,
>it seems that in regard to the artist formerly known as Yousuf Youhana,
>stats really do lie. A good and improving player, but never an ATG.
That's certainly my instinct but Shariq, who was in transports of
delight following his Lord's innings, might disagree.
He has recently embarked on a run of form of very impressive
proportions and if it carries on for much longer we may have to revise
the odd opinion here and there, but at present I'm inclined to view
him in the same light as Damien Martyn, in that he's obviously a very
good batsman but his batting lacks soul and has no magic. Batsmen like
that are the ones who really are only as good as their last innings.
Cheers,
Mike
Mike Holmans
<newsunsp...@iinet.unspamme.net.au> tapped the keyboard and
brought forth:
>On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 05:53:35 +0530, "Gafoor" <rro...@bigfoot.com>
>wrote:
>
>>jawa...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> 1. Inzi is an All Time Great in my book, and the books of all
>>> reasonable fans. Infact recognizing Inzi's ATG status in the key to
>>> entering Club Resoanble Fans Worldwide.
>>
>>
>>100's of players have entered the ATG status based on their
>>performance in the current decade
>
>What names would you suggest as all-time greats from the last decade?
Lara, Swaugh, McGrath, Warne, Ponting, Murali, Donald, Dravid,
Bradburn.
Possibles:
Hayden, Gilchrist, Inzamam, Tendulkar, Pollock, Kumble, Flintoff,
Kallis, Agarkar.
Maybe in time:
Sehwag, Bravo, Pietersen, Kaneria, Afridi, Kaif.
Cheers,
Mike
shariq...@yahoo.com
Mike Holmans wrote:
> That's certainly my instinct but Shariq, who was in transports of
> delight following his Lord's innings, might disagree.
>
> He has recently embarked on a run of form of very impressive
> proportions and if it carries on for much longer we may have to revise
> the odd opinion here and there, but at present I'm inclined to view
> him in the same light as Damien Martyn, in that he's obviously a very
> good batsman but his batting lacks soul and has no magic. Batsmen like
> that are the ones who really are only as good as their last innings.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
Mike,
No way does Yousuf qualify as an ATG if his career were to end up
tomorrow. He has really had one brilliant year and needs at least
another couple of them to be in consideration for the list. While I
thought Yousuf's Lords innings was gorgeous and quite memorable, IMHO
it does not qualify as an ATG innings. The Gooch 147 not out against a
West Indian attack on a difficult track was something along those lines
Shariq
Mike Holmans
<adun...@artifax.net> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
Neither am I. Convinced that it's entirely fair, that is. It wasn't
really meant to be; Gilchrist's was simply the first name that popped
into my head when casting about for someone who had been talked of in
ATG terms quite seriously but not so much these days and had probably
exhibited the sort of statistical contrast which would make the point.
When the numbers panned out, there seemed little need to rack my
brains for a precisely apt comparison.
But in Gilchrist's batting pomp there were certainly some people who
felt that his keeping was entirely irrelevant, although I'd grant that
some of the Sydneysiders and Sandgropers amongst them were a few overs
short of a full session.
Cheers,
Mike
Gafoor
> Certainly Inzamam has performed poorly against South Africa and
> Australia. There is no excuse for that really. So much for the so
> called talent against fast bowlers. I reckon though that Imran was
> talking of his potential rather than what he achieved early on in his
> career
>
> Anyways, I rank Inzamam lower than Dravid and Tendulkar in the last of
> all time greats. Now if Inzamam is able to mantain his purple patch
> for the next 2-3 years and Sachin continues to falter only then would
> he have a chance to draw level. Likewise if Dravid goes into a 2-3
> year slump and Inzi mantains his form then he will have a chance to
> draw level with the Wall
What's your explanation for the fact that Inzi's best patch has come
at a time when world bowling has been at a low.
Also, considering solely quality of the innings, what 100's scored by
Inzmamam outside the sub-continent would rank with these innings
by SRT
- 114 at Perth
- 111 at Johannesburg
- 116 at Melbourne
- 169 at Cape Town
Mike Holmans
keyboard and brought forth:
>
>Mike Holmans wrote:
>
>> That's certainly my instinct but Shariq, who was in transports of
>> delight following his Lord's innings, might disagree.
>>
>> He has recently embarked on a run of form of very impressive
>> proportions and if it carries on for much longer we may have to revise
>> the odd opinion here and there, but at present I'm inclined to view
>> him in the same light as Damien Martyn, in that he's obviously a very
>> good batsman but his batting lacks soul and has no magic. Batsmen like
>> that are the ones who really are only as good as their last innings.
>
>No way does Yousuf qualify as an ATG if his career were to end up
>tomorrow. He has really had one brilliant year and needs at least
>another couple of them to be in consideration for the list.
I wasn't suggesting that you thought he already was an ATG. But you
clearly think he could be, whereas Creevey and I appear to agree that
we're going to take an awful lot of convincing and that three more
years of piling up runs isn't really going to do it for us.
For you he has "it", whatever "it" actually is, whereas for me he
doesn't. As I said earlier, I'm not trying to say that one of us is
right and the other wrong because this isn't a matter of objective
fact but subjective taste and when you have a player on the edge of
greatness, taste matters as it does not when the scale of achievement
is too vast to ignore.
Cheers,
Mike
Andrew Dunford
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 13:08:59 +1200, "Andrew Dunford"
> <adun...@artifax.net> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
> >
> >"Mike Holmans" <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:c9vsb2pse2joqdkme...@4ax.com...
> >> Average over first Average over last
> >> 3 years in Tests 3 years in Tests
> >> AC Gilchrist 59 39
> >> Inzamam 48 66
> >>
> >> Yet people will happily talk of Gilchrist as a potential ATG but hum
> >> and ha about Inzamam.
> >
> >I'm not convinced such a comparison is entirely fair given that it seems
to
> >me much of Gilchrist's claim revolves around him being a wicket-keeper
with
> >outstanding batting figures, whatever one may think of his ability with
the
> >gloves.
>
> Neither am I. Convinced that it's entirely fair, that is. It wasn't
> really meant to be; Gilchrist's was simply the first name that popped
> into my head when casting about for someone who had been talked of in
> ATG terms quite seriously but not so much these days and had probably
> exhibited the sort of statistical contrast which would make the point.
> When the numbers panned out, there seemed little need to rack my
> brains for a precisely apt comparison.
Apart from the moral of the story you described (make an early impact in
order to be glorified), there is also another tale within, which involves
the judging of a player's relative greatness based on only a slice of his
career. It is of course perfectly normally for a player's career to taper
off as they get older, but too often the mid-career current player is
compared favourably with some bloke from the past's entire career, when the
latter's final figures don't fully illustrate how good he was at his peak.
Not that comparing figures across generations is especially meaningful in
the first place.
<snip>
Andrew
binac...@gmail.com
Gafoor wrote:
>
> Also, considering solely quality of the innings, what 100's scored by
> Inzmamam outside the sub-continent would rank with these innings
> by SRT
>
> - 114 at Perth
Not a single bowler has a strike rate below 55. Yet this is supposedly
a great attack, whereas the current English attack which has
compararble stats, is a weak attack. The bowler who bowled the best at
Perth had a strike rate of 68 or thereabouts with average of 34.
Hey Jude
Mike Holmans wrote:
>
> During his early Test career, though, the Pakistan team seemed to
> exist purely in order to have faction fights: the opposition served
> merely as the excuse for the next round in the internal battles. One
> can see why Inzamam found it all highly distasteful and just did what
> satisfied him while trying to stay aloof from the rest.
He was very much part of the match fixing investigations - and there
were no indications that he was separate from the rest. In fact he was
fined by the match fixing commission for his total refusal to cooperate
- a charge/fine he did not contest, as you would expect any innocent
person would.
The Pakistan manager at that time testified that Rasid Latif, Amir
Shail and Aqib Javed were the only three he was sure of that were not
involved in match fixing.
These are not things one would attribute to someone who stayed aloof
from the rest.
As a side note, I have been reading your posts for a while now, and I
find much to appreciate in them - both in content and writing style
dp
<snip>
> Inzamam
> may be another whose stats don't quite get him there but the rest of
> the impression he made on the cricket world might tip him over - and
> it may not be clear for some time what the totality of his
> contribution has been, since there is quite a lot about what went on
> in the Pakistan team during the 90s which has not yet been revealed.
Including Inzamam's own role in those goings on as one of their senior
players and star batsman.
dp
Hey Jude
he said about Inzamam:
INZAMAM-UL-HAQ, AKRAM RAZA
Rashid Latif has deposed that these two were among the four players who
were present when Salim Malik made him an offer to throw the 5th One
Day match at Christchurch against New Zealand. The implication is that
they were involved to some extent in match-fixing.
While a place a lot of weight can be placed on Rashid Latif's
testimony, in the absence of any other evidence and in light of denials
from the co-accused, it is not possible to find them guilty of
match-fixing. However, it is recommended that these players be warned,
kept under observation and their finances be investigated.
Furthermore, when asked about the Christchurch match, the partial
amnesia that these players seem to have developed was distressing. It
is understandable that these players have played too many games (except
for Akram Raza and Basit Ali) to recall all of them. Nevertheless,
there have not been that many matches about which allegations of
match-fixing have been made. It was interesting to see one of them
remembered the weather of the match, but did not recall any other
details. This commission believes that these players probably knew more
than they revealed. For not being forthcoming, these players too should
be fined Rs. 1 lac each and they be kept under observation.
Gafoor
> Gafoor wrote:
>>
>> Also, considering solely quality of the innings, what 100's scored by
>> Inzmamam outside the sub-continent would rank with these innings
>> by SRT
>>
>> - 114 at Perth
>
> Not a single bowler has a strike rate below 55. Yet this is supposedly
> a great attack,
Who said it's a great attack?
Gilly's Danda
Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 20:14:38 +1000, Mad Hamish
> <newsunsp...@iinet.unspamme.net.au> tapped the keyboard and
> brought forth:
>
> >On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 05:53:35 +0530, "Gafoor" <rro...@bigfoot.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>jawa...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> 1. Inzi is an All Time Great in my book, and the books of all
> >>> reasonable fans. Infact recognizing Inzi's ATG status in the key to
> >>> entering Club Resoanble Fans Worldwide.
> >>
> >>
> >>100's of players have entered the ATG status based on their
> >>performance in the current decade
> >
> >What names would you suggest as all-time greats from the last decade?
>
> Lara, Swaugh, McGrath, Warne, Ponting, Murali, Donald, Dravid,
Ouch!
> Bradburn.
>
> Possibles:
>
> Hayden, Gilchrist, Inzamam, Tendulkar,
Double ouch!
> Pollock, Kumble,
Yeah, don't stop there, get a man when he's down.
> Flintoff,
> Kallis, Agarkar.
>
> Maybe in time:
>
> Sehwag, Bravo, Pietersen, Kaneria, Afridi, Kaif.
Yup, that's the king hit.
A [ ATGs: Warne, McGrath, Dravid, Tendulkar, Lara, SWaugh, Murali,
Donald, Laxman. ]
shariq...@yahoo.com
Sure Inzamam has some memorable knocks against Ambrose and Company
including a superb 123, his first century IIRC. He had a majestic 148
at Lords in 1996, a test that Pakistan won. He had an excellent 118 at
Hobart in a game that Langer and Gilly stole away from Pakistan. he had
a stunning 135 against Ambrose and company out of a total of 288 after
Pakistan was down to 39-5 at one stage. Only Razzaq with 87, Akram with
16 and Waqar with 13 got into double figures. And last but not least a
beautiful and speakling 114 off just 153 balls at Old Trafford in 2001
against Gough, Caddick, Hoggard and Cork - a game that Pakistan won
Pakistan has nowehere near the hype machine for Pakistani players as
does India. Take for example the Sachin Perth knock - it is truly a
celebrated knock and it very well should be. However, there was another
century scored in Perth against an attack led by McGrath but it has
been buried under the mountain of statistics generated by the volume of
international cricket. The guy who scored this century played some of
the most rasping drives, violent cuts, muderous pulls and thunderous
hooks one can ever imagine. Like Sachin's innings it had 16 fours, 1
more run, faced 1 less ball, and was 2 minutes longer. The team scored
276 in comparison to India's 272. Can you guess who this player is?
It's none other than Ijaz Ahmed, also commonly referred to as The
Axeman. I was a big fan of Ijaz but after this innings my admiration
for this fellow grew exponentially. You could see fire in his eyes and
a spirit that refused to let go. Check this
http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1999-2000/PAK_IN_AUS/SCORECARDS/PAK_AUS_T3_26-30NOV1999.html
Sachin's innings can be found here
http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1991-92/IND_IN_AUS/IND_AUS_T5_01-05FEB1992.html
I reckon a 100 such as Ijaz's would become stuff that legends had he
played for India, England or Australia. A supreme innings in every
sense of the word
Ijaz has 3 100s in Australia and each was a ferocious knock. The first
one was scored (1989-90) when Pakistan was casing 420 to win. They
ended with 336. The second one (1995-96) resulted in a 72 run win for
Pakistan and third one was when Pakistan were attempting to avoid an
innings defeat. They fell 20 runs despite a tigerish performance by
Axeman
Shariq
shariq...@yahoo.com
Gafoor wrote:
> binac...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Gafoor wrote:
> >>
> >> Also, considering solely quality of the innings, what 100's scored by
> >> Inzmamam outside the sub-continent would rank with these innings
> >> by SRT
> >>
> >> - 114 at Perth
> >
> > Not a single bowler has a strike rate below 55. Yet this is supposedly
> > a great attack,
>
> Who said it's a great attack?
>
played against great bowlers?
dp
> Justice Qayyum enquiry was more or less a show. Even so, this is what
> he said about Inzamam:
>
> INZAMAM-UL-HAQ, AKRAM RAZA
<snip>
Thanks. I don't know if this Qayyum farce was before or after '99 wc,
but Inzamam's innings against India in that world cup was very, very
suspicious, to put it mildly.
dp
Gafoor
"Mad Hamish" <newsunsp...@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote in message
news:eqlub2di390u6idb7...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 05:53:35 +0530, "Gafoor" <rro...@bigfoot.com>
> wrote:
>
>>jawa...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> 1. Inzi is an All Time Great in my book, and the books of all
>>> reasonable fans. Infact recognizing Inzi's ATG status in the key to
>>> entering Club Resoanble Fans Worldwide.
>>
>>
>>100's of players have entered the ATG status based on their
>>performance in the current decade
>
> What names would you suggest as all-time greats from the last decade?
I have you statrats kill-filed. Hence, I don't see your questions & won't
be able to answer them. Sorry about that.
Gafoor
> Gafoor wrote:
>> binac...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Gafoor wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Also, considering solely quality of the innings, what 100's scored
>>>> by Inzmamam outside the sub-continent would rank with these innings
>>>> by SRT
>>>>
>>>> - 114 at Perth
>>>
>>> Not a single bowler has a strike rate below 55. Yet this is
>>> supposedly a great attack,
>>
>> Who said it's a great attack?
>>
> You did!
No, I didn't.
> I mean you did say it was a great knock - I mean are those
> not played against great bowlers?
Not neccessarily.
Sampath
<shariq...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153420118.0...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
I am not being microscopic. Tendulkars 42+ is still ok excluding Mcgrath. I
didnt check if Inzy played Aus without Mcgrath.
I like Inzy and I think he is a GREAT player but he is not in the league of
Sachin.
Sachin is a COMPLETE PACKAGE with his bowling and excellent fielding too.
Sampath
<shariq...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153420843....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
How many times was Inzy out to McGrath ? If the answer is not too many then
the point is moot.
But Sachin still mastered the worlds best spinner Warne and came out with
flying colours.
Sampath
<shariq...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153453447.1...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Shariq,
Izaz Ahmeds hundreds are not remembered that much because his overall career
average is under 37+
If those hundreds you mentioned by Izaz are scored by Inzy then I am sure
everybody will be singing hosannas to Inzy and Inzy will be bracketed in the
league of Lara, Sachin, Ponting and Dravid.
eusebius
Yes, there is a cloud over some of Inzamam's performances. Does this
mean that he is a better player than his stats indicate, because from
time to time he may have been dismissed earlier than he ought, or does
this count against his status because he may have played unfairly? Or
both?
eusebius
snip
Larry Gomes.
eusebius
Mike Holmans wrote:
> During his early Test career, though, the Pakistan team seemed to
> exist purely in order to have faction fights: the opposition served
> merely as the excuse for the next round in the internal battles. One
> can see why Inzamam found it all highly distasteful and just did what
> satisfied him while trying to stay aloof from the rest.
This certainly isn't an environment conducive to nurturing great
talent. And of course there were other issues which hardly built team
spirit.
Inzamam is still a work in progress, he isn't 'there' like I think
Ponting is. Perhaps Inzamam's stats are affected by extra-curricular
activities which no longer affect his batting. And as you point out,
the captaincy has made him a changed man, as it nearly did for Hoops.
Hoops and Inzi I think are comparable, although I feel that Inzi has
nearly always made more of his talent than Hoops ever did. In terms of
pure batting ability, in the 90s there weren't too many players more
blessed in that respect than Inzi and Hoops.
> >On the other hand,
> >it seems that in regard to the artist formerly known as Yousuf Youhana,
> >stats really do lie. A good and improving player, but never an ATG.
>
> That's certainly my instinct but Shariq, who was in transports of
> delight following his Lord's innings, might disagree.
>
> He has recently embarked on a run of form of very impressive
> proportions and if it carries on for much longer we may have to revise
> the odd opinion here and there, but at present I'm inclined to view
> him in the same light as Damien Martyn, in that he's obviously a very
> good batsman but his batting lacks soul and has no magic. Batsmen like
> that are the ones who really are only as good as their last innings.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
I have seen Martyn play with soul and elegance, but since his 1st
reinstatement, it is true to say that his play has been soulless and
even emasculated. Still elegant, but no passion. Yousuf since his
conversion has started to play with a hitherto unwonted consistency,
but as you say his play is nothing that draws people to the ground or
even creates much interest. I always felt that Younis Khan was the
better player. And in any case, as Shariq himself points out, he has
only had one year of statistically phenomenal achievement. As you say
above, and as you grant in respect of Inzi, these opinions aren't
immutable. If he continues averaging 90 he will be the new Bradman. Or
SRT. Or even Agarkar. The batting equivalent thereof.
binac...@gmail.com
Gafoor wrote:
> binac...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Gafoor wrote:
> >>
> >> Also, considering solely quality of the innings, what 100's scored by
> >> Inzmamam outside the sub-continent would rank with these innings
> >> by SRT
> >>
> >> - 114 at Perth
> >
> > Not a single bowler has a strike rate below 55. Yet this is supposedly
> > a great attack,
>
> Who said it's a great attack?
You said Inzamam's scores have come against weak ones(not so strong
ones) and then post Perth 1992 and J'burg 1992 to contrast, when they
are no strong attacks themselves. Exactly what are you implying? That a
6 months experienced Donald with bunch of pie chuckers with strike rate
of above 75 form some deadly combo that batting against them becomes
more creditable achievement, than against messers Hoggard and Harmison?
In fact, both in Perth and J'Burg tests Indian attack was just as good
as its opponents that, batting of Dean Jones, Tom Moody, McMillan etc.
are hard to ignore. If you want to make a case against Inzi, do it by
all means. But, cite some better attacks to show the contrast. Or else,
someone in response can cite Inzi's 100 vs Bangladesh to prove Inzi's
superiority.
shariq...@yahoo.com
Sampath wrote:
> I am not being microscopic. Tendulkars 42+ is still ok excluding Mcgrath. I
> didnt check if Inzy played Aus without Mcgrath.
>
> I like Inzy and I think he is a GREAT player but he is not in the league of
> Sachin.
>
> Sachin is a COMPLETE PACKAGE with his bowling and excellent fielding too.
If you followed this thread you would see I never claimed Inzi was
better than either Dravid and Tendulkar in test cricket. He has been in
rasping form but I still see him below both Tendulkar and Dravid
amongst ATGs. However, if he continues his treak for another 2-3 years
and Sachin continues to falter then IMHO Inzamam could potentially draw
level
In ODIs there is no contest. Tendulkar is far and ahead of the pack and
neither Inzi nor Dravid are in the same league as him. FWIW Inzi is a
better ODI playerthan Rahul
Shariq
shariq...@yahoo.com
Gafoor wrote:
> > I mean you did say it was a great knock - I mean are those
> > not played against great bowlers?
>
> Not neccessarily.
So how can you really argue that Inzamam's knocks have come against not
so strong attacks....
Andrew Dunford
"Gafoor" <rro...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:4ib5e9F...@individual.net...
<snip>
> I have you statrats kill-filed. Hence, I don't see your questions & won't
> be able to answer them. Sorry about that.
*plonk*
Andrew
Gafoor
Those were 2 separate points in my post
- Inzamam's best phase has come in when bowling has been weak.
- Quality of knocks.
shariq...@yahoo.com
But has this not been true for Dravid as well? The guy's been in the
form of his life in the past 3-4 years and has been particularly good
when key bowlers from the other side are missing. Australia with
McGrath and Warne out. West Indies with Fidel Edwards out. England with
Simon Jones and Ashley Giles out. Pakistan with Shoaib Akhtar out.
> - Quality of knocks.
I listed a number of quality knocks Inzamam played away from the
subcontinent against bowlers of quality. As I said it just so happens
that Pakistani cricket does not quite have the media coverage that
India, England and Australia have. So it's not common for performances
by Pakistani players to be as hyped. For example Ajit Agarkar's test
match century was more heard of than far better efforts by Pakistani
batsmen in overseas tests. Hence it is little wonder that Inzamam's
superior knocks in overseas tests are almost unheard of
Gafoor
> Gafoor wrote:
>> shariq...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> Gafoor wrote:
>>>>> I mean you did say it was a great knock - I mean are those
>>>>> not played against great bowlers?
>>>>
>>>> Not neccessarily.
>>>
>>> So how can you really argue that Inzamam's knocks have come against
>>> not so strong attacks....
>>
>> Those were 2 separate points in my post
>> - Inzamam's best phase has come in when bowling has been weak.
>
> But has this not been true for Dravid as well? The guy's been in the
> form of his life in the past 3-4 years and has been particularly good
> when key bowlers from the other side are missing.
Now that you say it, maybe it's true about Dravid too. You
raise a good point here.
> Australia with
> McGrath and Warne out. West Indies with Fidel Edwards out. England
> with Simon Jones and Ashley Giles out. Pakistan with Shoaib Akhtar
> out.
>
>> - Quality of knocks.
>
> I listed a number of quality knocks Inzamam played away from the
> subcontinent against bowlers of quality.
> As I said it just so happens
> that Pakistani cricket does not quite have the media coverage that
> India, England and Australia have. So it's not common for performances
> by Pakistani players to be as hyped.
> For example Ajit Agarkar's test
> match century was more heard of than far better efforts by Pakistani
> batsmen in overseas tests.
Will answer other stuff later, but this is sole because he had scored
5 0's.
Mike Holmans
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
>Mike Holmans wrote:
>
>> During his early Test career, though, the Pakistan team seemed to
>> exist purely in order to have faction fights: the opposition served
>> merely as the excuse for the next round in the internal battles. One
>> can see why Inzamam found it all highly distasteful and just did what
>> satisfied him while trying to stay aloof from the rest.
>
>This certainly isn't an environment conducive to nurturing great
>talent. And of course there were other issues which hardly built team
>spirit.
I thought it was fairly well-established that most of the match-fixing
stuff was to do with meaningless odos in places like Sharjah, Toronto,
Ulan Bator and Reykjavik and that Test cricket was only really
involved when Cronje declared early enough for there to be a result
rather than a draw.
It doesn't seem to have been alleged that Inzamam was a ringleader
(I'm not entirely sure where Hey Jude gets the "senior player" bit
because at the height of match-fixing he was still a relative newbie),
and while he was fined, that's all the punishment he got so it seems
his involvement was pretty small potatoes (unlike Inzy himself).
But certainly the atmosphere was not conducive. In assessing Inzamam's
career, one might wish to make some allowance for that, according to
taste and moral certitude.
>> But my suspicion is that I won't reach a final view on Inzamam until
>> some time after he has retired. I think Inzamam's significance goes
>> beyond his runs in a way which, say, Zaheer Abbas's doesn't. It's
>> fairly hard to make an ATG claim for Kapil Dev based on his stats, but
>> when you consider his overall impact there can be no question. Inzamam
>> may be another whose stats don't quite get him there but the rest of
>> the impression he made on the cricket world might tip him over - and
>> it may not be clear for some time what the totality of his
>> contribution has been, since there is quite a lot about what went on
>> in the Pakistan team during the 90s which has not yet been revealed.
>
>Inzamam is still a work in progress, he isn't 'there' like I think
>Ponting is. Perhaps Inzamam's stats are affected by extra-curricular
>activities which no longer affect his batting. And as you point out,
>the captaincy has made him a changed man, as it nearly did for Hoops.
>Hoops and Inzi I think are comparable, although I feel that Inzi has
>nearly always made more of his talent than Hoops ever did. In terms of
>pure batting ability, in the 90s there weren't too many players more
>blessed in that respect than Inzi and Hoops.
He certainly did more with his talent than Hooper did. But I'd also
agree that I want to see the whole Book of Inzamam including the two
or three chapters which are yet to be written, as well as some more
fleshing-out of what are really only draft paragraphs and notes about
the shenanigans in the 90s Pak dressing room.
Even if the finished work isn't quite a great book, it will still be a
very good one.
>> >On the other hand,
>> >it seems that in regard to the artist formerly known as Yousuf Youhana,
>> >stats really do lie. A good and improving player, but never an ATG.
>> He has recently embarked on a run of form of very impressive
>> proportions and if it carries on for much longer we may have to revise
>> the odd opinion here and there, but at present I'm inclined to view
>> him in the same light as Damien Martyn, in that he's obviously a very
>> good batsman but his batting lacks soul and has no magic. Batsmen like
>> that are the ones who really are only as good as their last innings.
>I have seen Martyn play with soul and elegance, but since his 1st
>reinstatement, it is true to say that his play has been soulless and
>even emasculated. Still elegant, but no passion. Yousuf since his
>conversion has started to play with a hitherto unwonted consistency,
>but as you say his play is nothing that draws people to the ground or
>even creates much interest.
You seem to be even less impressed by Yusuf than I am by Kallis. I
think I probably hold the former Cat Stevens-Youhana in slightly
higher esteem than you do, although I wouldn't go as far as saying I
ever liked his horrible records such as "My Bat Has Broken" or "Majid
and Son". There was also one about being put off by David Boon's
shadow, wasn't there?
A few years ago I rather liked what I saw of Yusuf, but I thought he
would develop a bit more and I don't think he has. He is a very good
batsman, but somehow it isn't quite enough. Ah well.
Cheers,
Mike
binac...@gmail.com
shariq...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Gafoor wrote:
> > shariq...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > Gafoor wrote:
> > >>> I mean you did say it was a great knock - I mean are those
> > >>> not played against great bowlers?
> > >>
> > >> Not neccessarily.
> > >
> > > So how can you really argue that Inzamam's knocks have come against
> > > not so strong attacks....
> >
> > Those were 2 separate points in my post
> > - Inzamam's best phase has come in when bowling has been weak.
>
> But has this not been true for Dravid as well? The guy's been in the
> form of his life in the past 3-4 years and has been particularly good
> when key bowlers from the other side are missing. Australia with
> McGrath and Warne out. West Indies with Fidel Edwards out. England with
> Simon Jones and Ashley Giles out. Pakistan with Shoaib Akhtar out.
Bunch of ridiculous claims to make. Dravid has 3 100s(including one big
double 100), vs Akhtar in the 6 tests that he has played. All in
Pakistan Fidel Edwards with a bowling avg og 44 is probably not the 5th
best west Indian bowler, if you include Gayle. Dravid did play one test
against him and score 49 and 65 in that game. Not that Jones has done
anything better than Hoggard, Flintofff and Harmison haven't, as he
looks to be going the Dean Headley way at this rate. Simon Jones played
one test vs Dravid and Dravid has scores of 46 and 64. Dravid made tons
of runs vs Giles in 2002.
Gafoor
Let me reply with SRT's 92 against Ambrose & company
http://ind.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1996-97/IND_IN_WI/IND_WI_T3_27-31MAR1997.html
in a match where
> He had a majestic 148
> at Lords in 1996, a test that Pakistan won.
SRT's 122 & 177 at Edgbaston & Trent Bridge a few months
later.
> He had an excellent 118 at
> Hobart in a game that Langer and Gilly stole away from Pakistan. he
> had a stunning 135 against Ambrose and company out of a total of 288
> after Pakistan was down to 39-5 at one stage. Only Razzaq with 87,
> Akram with 16 and Waqar with 13 got into double figures.
SRT's 169 at Cape Town, 113 at Wellington, 155 at Bloemfontein.
> And last but
> not least a beautiful and speakling 114 off just 153 balls at Old
> Trafford in 2001 against Gough, Caddick, Hoggard and Cork - a game
> that Pakistan won
119* at Manchester.
And we would have won a lot more matches if we had Waqar &
Wasim playing for us.
Gafoor
> Pakistan has nowehere near the hype machine for Pakistani players as
> does India.
The Perth or Joh'sburg knock have hardly ever been written about
in the Indian media. They write more about the Sharjah knocks.
the WC knocks, & in tests, maybe the 136 or the 155*.
What does that have to with Inzamam?
shariq...@yahoo.com
Gafoor wrote:
> shariq...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Pakistan has nowehere near the hype machine for Pakistani players as
> > does India.
>
> The Perth or Joh'sburg knock have hardly ever been written about
> in the Indian media. They write more about the Sharjah knocks.
> the WC knocks, & in tests, maybe the 136 or the 155*.
>
Hardly ever written? Are you kidding me? I have seen so many articles
about how, with India looking down the barrell, as a man-child
Tendulkar "destroyed" a "FEARSOME" Australian attack on the fasest
wicket in the world
>
> What does that have to with Inzamam?
You honestly have to ask? Well if you must know then consider the above
example. I must have come across about a couple of dozen articles about
Sachin's Perth knock in the 15 years since it has been played. Yet Ijaz
who played an almost identical knock against what I believe was a
better pace bowling side had his knock reported only the day after the
game and NEVER again. Australia had crushing wins in both games but
Ijaz's knock will be lost forever from the cricketing memories of the
mainstream.That just shows the discepancy in coverage. Not that I am
complaining, but a lot of Inzamam's brilliant knocks are never really
covered adequately and hence not recognized. As a result, a
knowledgeable cricket fan such as you (and I am not being facetious or
sarcastic) ends up asking which memorable knock Inzi has played
Shariq
shariq...@yahoo.com
Gafoor wrote:
> > Sure Inzamam has some memorable knocks against Ambrose and Company
> > including a superb 123, his first century IIRC.
>
> Let me reply with SRT's 92 against Ambrose & company
> http://ind.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1996-97/IND_IN_WI/IND_WI_T3_27-31MAR1997.html
> in a match where
>
> > He had a majestic 148
> > at Lords in 1996, a test that Pakistan won.
>
> SRT's 122 & 177 at Edgbaston & Trent Bridge a few months
> later.
>
> > He had an excellent 118 at
> > Hobart in a game that Langer and Gilly stole away from Pakistan. he
> > had a stunning 135 against Ambrose and company out of a total of 288
> > after Pakistan was down to 39-5 at one stage. Only Razzaq with 87,
> > Akram with 16 and Waqar with 13 got into double figures.
>
> SRT's 169 at Cape Town, 113 at Wellington, 155 at Bloemfontein.
>
> > And last but
> > not least a beautiful and speakling 114 off just 153 balls at Old
> > Trafford in 2001 against Gough, Caddick, Hoggard and Cork - a game
> > that Pakistan won
>
> 119* at Manchester.
You asked which memorable knocks Inzamam played away from subcontinent
and I listed them out. Yet you feel the urge to compare every one of
them with what Sachin has done. I have acknowledged that Sachin is
higher up on the list of all time greats so you don't need to compare
their respective great knocks to make your point
>
> And we would have won a lot more matches if we had Waqar &
> Wasim playing for us.
>
You would have won a lot more matches if you have a finisher like
Inzamam in your team :-)
Shariq
shariq...@yahoo.com
binac...@gmail.com wrote:
> Bunch of ridiculous claims to make. Dravid has 3 100s(including one big
> double 100), vs Akhtar in the 6 tests that he has played. All in
> Pakistan Fidel Edwards with a bowling avg og 44 is probably not the 5th
> best west Indian bowler, if you include Gayle. Dravid did play one test
> against him and score 49 and 65 in that game. Not that Jones has done
> anything better than Hoggard, Flintofff and Harmison haven't, as he
> looks to be going the Dean Headley way at this rate. Simon Jones played
> one test vs Dravid and Dravid has scores of 46 and 64. Dravid made tons
> of runs vs Giles in 2002.
2 100s on flat wickets on which Afridi had centuries too. The third one
was made when Akhtar went off the field with a ribcage injury after
taking 3/47 off 21 overs. Edwards too went off the field after 5 overs
after tearing his hamstring in the inning that Dravid ended up making
65. FWIW Dravid has a head to head average against McGrath of 34 but
without McGrath he averages close to 120 against Australia. And you are
telling me that Jones, the destroyer against Australia, is not a better
bowler than Liam Plunkett, England's fourth seamer against India.
Mike Holmans
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
>Mike Holmans wrote:
>>
>> During his early Test career, though, the Pakistan team seemed to
>> exist purely in order to have faction fights: the opposition served
>> merely as the excuse for the next round in the internal battles. One
>> can see why Inzamam found it all highly distasteful and just did what
>> satisfied him while trying to stay aloof from the rest.
>
>He was very much part of the match fixing investigations - and there
>were no indications that he was separate from the rest. In fact he was
>fined by the match fixing commission for his total refusal to cooperate
>- a charge/fine he did not contest, as you would expect any innocent
>person would.
>
>The Pakistan manager at that time testified that Rasid Latif, Amir
>Shail and Aqib Javed were the only three he was sure of that were not
>involved in match fixing.
>
>These are not things one would attribute to someone who stayed aloof
>from the rest.
I am not privy to how the match-fixing was actually done, although I
would expect it to have been more along the lines of one-to-one
private conversations than team meetings.
Not that it really matters. I was alluding more to the way in which
various players would give interviews giving their ostentatious
backing to whoever was captain that week and to their various mates.
Inzamam didn't do that sort of interview and was rarely mentioned in
them, from which I conclude that he took very little part in the
in-fighting - probably because he was obviously good enough not to be
dropped and therefore didn't really need to lick anyone's nether
regions.
>
>As a side note, I have been reading your posts for a while now, and I
>find much to appreciate in them - both in content and writing style
Thank you, on both counts.
Cheers,
Mike
Gilly's Danda
shariq...@yahoo.com wrote:
> But has this not been true for Dravid as well? The guy's been in the
> form of his life in the past 3-4 years and has been particularly good
> when key bowlers from the other side are missing. Australia with
> McGrath and Warne out. West Indies with Fidel Edwards out. England with
> Simon Jones and Ashley Giles out. Pakistan with Shoaib Akhtar out.
God, how obtuse are you? The only reason Gafool harps on current
batsmen is because Dravid has done better than his God, SRT, in recent
times. So he'll follow it up with "You raise a good point", when his
whole so-called thrust is about hating Dravid and the loss of face he's
suffered in recent times.
A [ Yup, Warne and McGrath in Kolkata, Donald and Pollock in 1996,
Caddick and co at Headingley, and Doull and Nash are all big-time
jokes. ]
PS When Pakistani Cricket was interesting, it had plenty of coverage -
i.e. when Imran, Zaheer Abbas and Javed were playing. Recent times,
your poster-boys are a two-bit slogger and a lumbering oaf who seems to
be able to bat well regardless. No wonder there's less coverage.
PPS Zaheer Abbas turns 59 on Monday. Mike Holmans turns 48.
Mike Holmans
<finally...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>PPS Zaheer Abbas turns 59 on Monday. Mike Holmans turns 48.
I am a mainframe systems programmer. I shall be 30 on Monday.
Cheers,
Mike
Hey Jude
Mike Holmans wrote:
> (I'm not entirely sure where Hey Jude gets the "senior player" bit
> because at the height of match-fixing he was still a relative newbie),
I have made two posts in this thread. Please feel free to point out
where I have used the word "senior player", and if you can't find it,
please feel free to retract the above. Cheers
Gafoor
> Gafoor wrote:
>> shariq...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> Pakistan has nowehere near the hype machine for Pakistani players as
>>> does India.
>>
>> The Perth or Joh'sburg knock have hardly ever been written about
>> in the Indian media. They write more about the Sharjah knocks.
>> the WC knocks, & in tests, maybe the 136 or the 155*.
>>
>
> Hardly ever written? Are you kidding me? I have seen so many articles
> about how, with India looking down the barrell, as a man-child
> Tendulkar "destroyed" a "FEARSOME" Australian attack on the fasest
> wicket in the world
Maybe you read the same article over & over again - or maybe you
saw it Cricinfo or something.
>> What does that have to with Inzamam?
>
> You honestly have to ask? Well if you must know then consider the
> above example. I must have come across about a couple of dozen
> articles about Sachin's Perth knock in the 15 years since it has been
> played.
Must be on RSC or web-media. I doubt if newspaper writers cover this
to even 10% of the Sharjah knock, the WC knock against Pak, the
190 against Pak.
> Yet Ijaz who played an almost identical knock against what I
> believe was a better pace bowling side had his knock reported only
> the day after the game and NEVER again.
I don't see why the Indian media should keep writiing reports about
Inzamam. And I don't understand why you need to read Indian media
so much - that's mainly meant for Indians & Dunford.
Every country does this to it's own players - that's how they sell
newspapers & magazines. What do Pak newspapers write about -
Dhoni & Pathan?
> Australia had crushing wins
> in both games but Ijaz's knock will be lost forever from the
> cricketing memories of the mainstream.That just shows the discepancy
> in coverage.
I think you need to stop concentrating on Indian media & starting
reading some Pak media for a change.
> Not that I am complaining, but a lot of Inzamam's
> brilliant knocks are never really covered adequately and hence not
> recognized. As a result, a knowledgeable cricket fan such as you (and
> I am not being facetious or sarcastic) ends up asking which memorable
> knock Inzi has played
I know most of Inzamam's knock - and I asked after looking them up
again on CI - I still believe they aren't in the SWaugh or Tendulkar's - and
not just in terms of media coverage.
And I didn't ask which memorable knocks he played. I am sure he
has played lot of memorable knocks.
Mike Holmans
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
I obviously got your post confused with someone else's. Sorry.
Cheers,
Mike
Hey Jude
Mike Holmans wrote:
> them, from which I conclude that he took very little part in the
> in-fighting - probably because he was obviously good enough not to be
> dropped and therefore didn't really need to lick anyone's nether
> regions.
Yes, that is right. He was one of the few ones who wasn't really part
of any "faction". He, unlike many others, was not a political animal.
Recently though, when after the drubbing by India in the one day series
(4-1), PCB wanted to replace him as the ODI side captain (there was
even an off the record comment from Woolmer about certain players being
a burden on the side, a comment which made Inzi very displeased). He
threatened to quit all cricket if such a thing was done - right in the
middle of the series. It worked and he basically able to blackmail the
PCB. How that would affect Pakistan in the WC remains to be seen.
So he isn't totally above politics - but yes, as compared to others
before him, he is nowhere near as bad
dp
> >This certainly isn't an environment conducive to nurturing great
> >talent. And of course there were other issues which hardly built team
> >spirit.
>
> I thought it was fairly well-established that most of the match-fixing
> stuff was to do with meaningless odos in places like Sharjah, Toronto,
> Ulan Bator and Reykjavik and that Test cricket was only really
> involved when Cronje declared early enough for there to be a result
> rather than a draw.
The series when Cronje got caught by Delhi Police was not in Sharjah or
Toronto, it was in India. The Christchurch match that Qayyum report
referred to was a Test match. Pak lost to Bangladesh in a *world cup*
in England. Again not in Reykjavik or Ulan Bator. Same world cup, a
bookie claimed that he had 10 out of 11 Pak players in his pocket
before the match against India. I think it is height of naivete to
believe that match-fixing happened only in meaningless odos played in
Sharjah or such places. That was just a convenient escape route the
cricket administrators came up with to convince the fans that only a
handful of matches are tainted and rest are pure as snow. Why anyone
with half a braincell should fall for it, I have no idea.
> It doesn't seem to have been alleged that Inzamam was a ringleader
> (I'm not entirely sure where Hey Jude gets the "senior player" bit
> because at the height of match-fixing he was still a relative newbie),
That was me. Height of match-fixing was late 90s culminating in 2000,
even if we believe ICC's story. Inzamam made his debut in '92. Someone
with 7-8 years experience can hardly be called a newbie. Looking up
that India-Pakistan '99 wc match as a random sample, I see only Akram,
Malik and Ijaz really senior to him. And remember, you may have
discovered Inzamam now, but he was always a star in Pakistan team right
from his debut. Imran compared him to Sachin Tendulkar after the '92
world cup. Some of us who have been wasting our time here for a really
long time remember this "Phule <some place> wich" series that a poster
used to post here (Jawad? dsqa?) tracking Inzamam's early progress in
various away tours. So, a star player like him obviously goes up faster
in seniority (perception wise) than an ordinary player.
dp
India Fan
Gafoor wrote:
> shariq...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Gafoor wrote:
> >> shariq...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> Gafoor wrote:
> >>>>> I mean you did say it was a great knock - I mean are those
> >>>>> not played against great bowlers?
> >>>>
> >>>> Not neccessarily.
> >>>
> >>> So how can you really argue that Inzamam's knocks have come against
> >>> not so strong attacks....
> >>
> >> Those were 2 separate points in my post
> >> - Inzamam's best phase has come in when bowling has been weak.
> >
> > But has this not been true for Dravid as well? The guy's been in the
> > form of his life in the past 3-4 years and has been particularly good
> > when key bowlers from the other side are missing.
>
> Now that you say it, maybe it's true about Dravid too. You
> raise a good point here.
That's quite classy to accept other's view point :-)
I'm surprised that Shariq hasn't read the reams you've written
precisely trying to make
that very point about Dravid.
binac...@gmail.com
shariq...@yahoo.com wrote:
> binac...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Bunch of ridiculous claims to make. Dravid has 3 100s(including one big
> > double 100), vs Akhtar in the 6 tests that he has played. All in
> > Pakistan Fidel Edwards with a bowling avg og 44 is probably not the 5th
> > best west Indian bowler, if you include Gayle. Dravid did play one test
> > against him and score 49 and 65 in that game. Not that Jones has done
> > anything better than Hoggard, Flintofff and Harmison haven't, as he
> > looks to be going the Dean Headley way at this rate. Simon Jones played
> > one test vs Dravid and Dravid has scores of 46 and 64. Dravid made tons
> > of runs vs Giles in 2002.
>
> 2 100s on flat wickets on which Afridi had centuries too.
Flat wickets alright. Pakistan prepared to suit its needs. When it
backfires, grapes turn sour? Learn to give credit when a visiting
batsman comes and performs. Oh, Afridi is a decent bat with avg of 38.
These aren't the only 100s he has.
> The third one
> was made when Akhtar went off the field with a ribcage injury after
> taking 3/47 off 21 overs.
By which time Dravid had got to his 100. Why supress that bit eh? No
one takes Akhtar's injury seriously. Not even Pak team management.
While People like Akhtar routinely chicken out citing mysterious
injuries, we have batsmen like Dravid and Gilchrist at the other end of
the spectrum, who play every game without bitching about difficult
schedule, claiming illness/injuries and avg 10+ tests an year. Does
that count for something?
> Edwards too went off the field after 5 overs
> after tearing his hamstring in the inning that Dravid ended up making
> 65.
As I said, Edwards has avg of 43.5 over a career of 24 tests. He is not
even 4th best bowler in the current line up. If you really think he is
some threat to a batsman who averaged 70+ against Ambrose, Bishop and
Walsh in his first year of international career, then it is not worth
debating anything with you. Do you sincerely believe a guy with 40+ avg
is a threat to anyone but his own team? This when there are 5 others
with avgs good 10-15 points below?
> FWIW Dravid has a head to head average against McGrath of 34 but
> without McGrath he averages close to 120 against Australia.
That is still more than Inzamam. Sachin for instance has failed against
full Pak attack and RSA as well. Inzi avgs about 45 outside
subcontinent. Solid 20 behind Dravid. You can slice and dice only so
much. Beyond that, it is upto you to convince yourself or claim stats
are lying.
> And you are
> telling me that Jones, the destroyer against Australia, is not a better
> bowler than Liam Plunkett, England's fourth seamer against India.
Jones hasn't done anything really as opposed to Flintoff, Hoggard and
Harmison haven't. Jones as it stands, is like Dean Headley who did have
couple of good series vs Aus, but never was really was available
otherwise. That is why,Cork, Gough, Caddick would count as better
achievers. Same holds for Flintoff, Hoggard and Harmison. Let's see if
Jones ends up like Headley or does something in the next 3-4 years. The
guy is not even available for 330 days a year. How does anyone take him
seriously? And, I wouldn't discount Plunkett as yet.
sdavmor
> shariq...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> binac...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Bunch of ridiculous claims to make. Dravid has 3 100s(including one big
>>> double 100), vs Akhtar in the 6 tests that he has played. All in
>>> Pakistan Fidel Edwards with a bowling avg og 44 is probably not the 5th
>>> best west Indian bowler, if you include Gayle. Dravid did play one test
>>> against him and score 49 and 65 in that game. Not that Jones has done
>>> anything better than Hoggard, Flintofff and Harmison haven't, as he
>>> looks to be going the Dean Headley way at this rate. Simon Jones played
>>> one test vs Dravid and Dravid has scores of 46 and 64. Dravid made tons
>>> of runs vs Giles in 2002.
>> 2 100s on flat wickets on which Afridi had centuries too.
>
> Flat wickets alright. Pakistan prepared to suit its needs. When it
> backfires, grapes turn sour? Learn to give credit when a visiting
> batsman comes and performs. Oh, Afridi is a decent bat with avg of 38.
> These aren't the only 100s he has.
Gillespie's 201* vs Bangladesh must make him the ultimate flat track
bully.
>> The third one
>> was made when Akhtar went off the field with a ribcage injury after
>> taking 3/47 off 21 overs.
>
> By which time Dravid had got to his 100. Why supress that bit eh? No
> one takes Akhtar's injury seriously. Not even Pak team management.
> While People like Akhtar routinely chicken out citing mysterious
> injuries, we have batsmen like Dravid and Gilchrist at the other end of
> the spectrum, who play every game without bitching about difficult
> schedule, claiming illness/injuries and avg 10+ tests an year. Does
> that count for something?
>
>> Edwards too went off the field after 5 overs
>> after tearing his hamstring in the inning that Dravid ended up making
>> 65.
>
> As I said, Edwards has avg of 43.5 over a career of 24 tests. He is not
> even 4th best bowler in the current line up. If you really think he is
> some threat to a batsman who averaged 70+ against Ambrose, Bishop and
> Walsh in his first year of international career, then it is not worth
> debating anything with you. Do you sincerely believe a guy with 40+ avg
> is a threat to anyone but his own team? This when there are 5 others
> with avgs good 10-15 points below?
>
>> FWIW Dravid has a head to head average against McGrath of 34 but
>> without McGrath he averages close to 120 against Australia.
McGrath is robopacer. One of those x-factor players that can change a
game in a hurry. (Lord's 2005, T1). As Mick Jagger said last year,
"That Glenn McGrath...what a bastard!"
> That is still more than Inzamam. Sachin for instance has failed against
> full Pak attack and RSA as well. Inzi avgs about 45 outside
> subcontinent. Solid 20 behind Dravid. You can slice and dice only so
> much. Beyond that, it is upto you to convince yourself or claim stats
> are lying.
>
>> And you are
>> telling me that Jones, the destroyer against Australia, is not a better
>> bowler than Liam Plunkett, England's fourth seamer against India.
Jones is a much better bowler than Plunkett, though comparing someone
with substantial test experience to a mere lad of 21 who has just
played in his 6th test, and wouldn't be in the squad if Jones were
healthy, seems a bit like apples and oranges. In fact Jones has 18
tests vs Plunkett's entire first class career of 39 matches. And let's
not forget that Jones has the reverse swing thing nailed (witness the
number of Aussie's bowled last year by him shouldering arms to their
embarassment) whereas Plunkett is very much a novice in that area.
> Jones hasn't done anything really as opposed to Flintoff, Hoggard and
> Harmison haven't. Jones as it stands, is like Dean Headley who did have
> couple of good series vs Aus, but never was really was available
> otherwise. That is why,Cork, Gough, Caddick would count as better
> achievers. Same holds for Flintoff, Hoggard and Harmison. Let's see if
> Jones ends up like Headley or does something in the next 3-4 years. The
> guy is not even available for 330 days a year. How does anyone take him
> seriously? And, I wouldn't discount Plunkett as yet.
I appreciate what you're saying about Jones' injury issues. For all we
know he may be done. We'll see. But he's been to see one of the best
repair guys in the USA, who has worked on numerous American sportsmen
with potentially career-ending injuries. If he comes back, which I
think he will, even if he loses a yard of pace, he'll still be a
bastard to deal with because of his ability to deliver all modes of
new and old ball swing with the same freaking action. And that's gold.
--
Cheers,
SDM -- a 21st century schizoid man
Systems Theory internet music project links:
soundclick <www.soundclick.com/systemstheory>
garageband <http://www.garageband.com/artist/systemstheory>
"Soundtracks For Imaginary Movies" CD released Dec 2004
"Codetalkers" CD coming very soon in 2006
NP: nothing
Gafoor
Define "finisher" & then let us know how & what exactly Inzi finished
in Lord's 96 & Old Trafford 2001?
Gilly's Danda
Gafoor wrote:
> > You would have won a lot more matches if you have a finisher like
> > Inzamam in your team :-)
>
> Define "finisher"
With pleasure. Definition of "finisher": what Dravid did at Adelaide in
the second innings.
Warm regards,
A
ramap...@gmail.com
>
> Anyways, I rank Inzamam lower than Dravid and Tendulkar in the last of
> all time greats.
In my rankings, Inzy would only be about a percentage point or so below
SRT, with Dravid two daylights away. You need to have a certain
something special to be an ATG, a la Lara or SRT; being a Dravid is
good but not quite ATG material in my book. An Indian ATG Dravid maybe,
but not a world-class ATG.
Inzy has had one great advantage in that he's often been in a side with
attacks potent enough to win Tests - and let's face it, it's the
bowlers who'll most often win you matches, rarely the batters, so his
efforts are always likely to culminate well. Look at SRT in that light
and you'll see how unfortunate he's been. I still can't get over that
'99 Chennai Test when he came in with 10 on the board and left with
under 20 to get, and the ten teammates of his couldn't still deliver.
If you view his career dispassionately, you'll see that SRT has often
gotten bad press most undeservedly.
Ramapriya
ramap...@gmail.com
>
> Also, considering solely quality of the innings, what 100's scored by
> Inzmamam outside the sub-continent would rank with these innings by SRT
>
> - 114 at Perth
> - 111 at Johannesburg
> - 116 at Melbourne
> - 169 at Cape Town
May I ask why this infatuation for (a) 100s and (b) scores made on pacy
tracks? Are they all that matter to be a good or great batsman?
The objective of every cricketer is in helping his team win. Little
else should really matter for too much.
Ramapriya
ramap...@gmail.com
> Gafoor wrote:
> >
> > - 114 at Perth
>
> Not a single bowler has a strike rate below 55.
Since you're evaluating a WACA innings, you should also only consider
the bowlers' SRs at the WACA ;))
Ramapriya
PS: An SR of up to 70 is basically enough to win Tests that aren't
weather-interrupted. Of course, you'd need your spearheads with lower
SRs since it's very unlikely that each of the bowlers would have SRs <=
70.
ramap...@gmail.com
>
> PPS Zaheer Abbas turns 59 on Monday. Mike Holmans turns 48.
And my younger son all of 3 :)
Gafoor
> Gafoor wrote:
>>
>> Also, considering solely quality of the innings, what 100's scored by
>> Inzmamam outside the sub-continent would rank with these innings by
>> SRT
>>
>> - 114 at Perth
>> - 111 at Johannesburg
>> - 116 at Melbourne
>> - 169 at Cape Town
>
>
> May I ask why this infatuation for (a) 100s and (b) scores made on
> pacy tracks?
Because Inzi is supposed to be a great player of pace. Some have
even said he has so much time to play fast bowling, that he sometimes
"finishes" a plate of chips between the time, the bowler bowls & the
ball reaches him. Sadly his avg in RSA & Aus don't reflect it.
But if you looking for innings against spin, no need to go beyond
the 155* which is one of the best innings played against spin.
> Are they all that matter to be a good or great batsman?
>
> The objective of every cricketer is in helping his team win.
> Little else should really matter for too much.
Except when we want to judge players we like - then classy,
caliber etc come into the picture.
ramap...@gmail.com
> >
> > May I ask why this infatuation for (a) 100s and (b) scores made on pacy tracks?
>
> Because Inzi is supposed to be a great player of pace. Some have
> even said he has so much time to play fast bowling, that he sometimes
> "finishes" a plate of chips between the time, the bowler bowls & the
> ball reaches him. Sadly his avg in RSA & Aus don't reflect it.
> But if you looking for innings against spin, no need to go beyond
> the 155* which is one of the best innings played against spin.
Is it always necessary to rail one of Inzi and SRT to be able to better
appreciate or praise the other? :) I've seen that this has been the
case ever since Imran opined that he rates Inzy higher... so what if he
does? How does my rating IVAR higher than Sobers diminish the latter?
> > The objective of every cricketer is in helping his team win.
> > Little else should really matter for too much.
>
> Except when we want to judge players we like - then classy, > caliber etc come into the picture.
Even there, in team sport, the side's objective is above all else. That
said, most humans tend to pick their favorites among sportsmen for
reasons that don't necessarily begin and end with sporting abilities
alone. There was a certain something about McEnroe that endeared him to
me more than Edberg although they had roughly the same ability; ditto
with Sampras over Federer. I can't put a finger on why I prefer Nehra
over Zaheer/Balaji/RP Singh either, but it's a fact that I do :)
Ramapriya
Gafoor
> Gafoor wrote:
>>>
>>> May I ask why this infatuation for (a) 100s and (b) scores made on
>>> pacy tracks?
>>
>> Because Inzi is supposed to be a great player of pace. Some have
>> even said he has so much time to play fast bowling, that he sometimes
>> "finishes" a plate of chips between the time, the bowler bowls & the
>> ball reaches him. Sadly his avg in RSA & Aus don't reflect it.
>> But if you looking for innings against spin, no need to go beyond
>> the 155* which is one of the best innings played against spin.
>
>
> Is it always necessary to rail one of Inzi and SRT to be able to
> better appreciate or praise the other?
What are you on about? Nobody is praising one or railing the other.
I am just saying that they both aren't in the same class.
> :) I've seen that this has
> been the case ever since Imran opined that he rates Inzy higher... so
> what if he does? How does my rating IVAR higher than Sobers diminish
> the latter?
I don't know the answer to that question - sorry about that.
>>> The objective of every cricketer is in helping his team win.
>>> Little else should really matter for too much.
>>
>> Except when we want to judge players we like - then classy, >
>> caliber etc come into the picture.
>
>
> Even there, in team sport, the side's objective is above all else.
> That said, most humans tend to pick their favorites among sportsmen
> for reasons that don't necessarily begin and end with sporting
> abilities alone. There was a certain something about McEnroe that
> endeared him to me more than Edberg although they had roughly the
> same ability; ditto with Sampras over Federer. I can't put a finger
> on why I prefer Nehra over Zaheer/Balaji/RP Singh either, but it's a
> fact that I do :)
You do it your way & I will do it mine :-)
ramap...@gmail.com
>
> In ODIs there is no contest. Tendulkar is far and ahead of the pack and neither Inzi nor
> Dravid are in the same league as him. FWIW Inzi is a better ODI playerthan Rahul
Although SRT is very dominant in ODIs, you aren't comparing similar
animals. A batsman at # 4 is very different from an opener, especially
so after Feb 94 when SRT consistently started showing how an
initial-overs assault could be waged.
Since even SRT at # 4 wouldn't obviously be able to play as he would as
an opener, it's quite unfair to compare Inzy with him. That said, Inzy
has scored mountains at # 4, and pretty quickly too. Definitely an ODI
middle-order ATG. But how can you even bring someone like Dravid into
an ODI thread, unless he doubles as a 'keeper?
Ramapriya
Gafoor
If the current Dravid can't find a place in the Indian ODI team,
then I think the Indian team will consist only of SRT & nobody
else. Maybe Agarkar also, but no one else.
ramap...@gmail.com
>
> If the current Dravid can't find a place in the Indian ODI team,
> then I think the Indian team will consist only of SRT & nobody
> else. Maybe Agarkar also, but no one else.
It must only be stats, which are your staple diet, that made you ignore
Sehwag, because he's mostly failed lately :)
dekhte raho, Sehwag will turn the tide sooner than you think :)
Ramapriya
Gafoor
> Gafoor wrote:
>>
>> If the current Dravid can't find a place in the Indian ODI team,
>> then I think the Indian team will consist only of SRT & nobody
>> else. Maybe Agarkar also, but no one else.
>
>
> It must only be stats, which are your staple diet, that made you
> ignore Sehwag, because he's mostly failed lately :)
Dravid is batting far better than Sehwag in the ODI's last
year or so.
But that's more about Dravid than Sehwag. Sehwag has
never been in the SRT class in ODI's, he is far far below,
even ignoring recent failures.
Reverse Swing
news:1153551445.1...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Welcome back, Nikhil. :-) :-) :-)
Gafoor
> <ramap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1153551445.1...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Gafoor wrote:
>>>
>>> If the current Dravid can't find a place in the Indian ODI team,
Very uncannily, I was thinking :-)
>>> then I think the Indian team will consist only of SRT & nobody
>>> else. Maybe Agarkar also, but no one else.
the same thing :-)
>> It must only be stats, which are your staple diet, that made you
>> ignore Sehwag, because he's mostly failed lately :)
>>
>> dekhte raho, Sehwag will turn the tide sooner than you think :)
>
> Welcome back, Nikhil. :-) :-) :-)
1/2 hour back, actually :-)
ramap...@gmail.com
> >
> Dravid is batting far better than Sehwag in the ODI's last year or so.
>
> But that's more about Dravid than Sehwag. Sehwag has never been in the SRT class in
> ODI's, he is far far below, even ignoring recent failures.
Of course not in the SRT class! But he's gotten way too much of stick
from those who seem to buy figures in exchange for proven mettle.
Although a failure over, say, 15 consecutive matches is a significant
aberration, calling for a proven player's head based on that is a bit
too stern. Most of the best have suffered a barren run at times, but
you don't go around dropping them.
Ramapriya
Gilly's Danda
Another 24 July birth? Brilliant. He's in very good company.
A
ramap...@gmail.com
>
> Another 24 July birth? Brilliant. He's in very good company.
Just like SMG is, except that he wasn't as good a bat as I was :p
Ramapriya
Gilly's Danda
Yes, I was often compared favourably to Zaheer Abbas (especially when I
played innings like the one described at
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/2ecea6ff533e3c0c).
I told modern-day pundits not to be too critical - after all, without
Zaheer Abbas, they wouldn't have had anyone to compare me to.
A