How good an ODI batsman was Inzamam?

[haroon510]

Yeah, that's your opinion regarding what's entertaining and what's not. Personally, I disagree with all of it, but hey, you can think that if you wish - cricketing taste is seperate from cricketing understanding.

But even though you may enjoy Afridi as a player, you do have to realise that he's vastly inferior to the likes of Dravid, regardless of how entertaining you find him.

What really gets my goat though, is the comment "they have conterbuted more to cricket than kallis and Dravid ever would." That comment is just completely wrong IMO, and that's what "makes my cry" as I said.

again that is my point of view and the way i see it. that doesn't mean it is true or not. i can give u some example to prove it why i think this way. i am from afghanistan and afghans don't like cricket. they say when they watch cricket they never see any batsman hiting the ball. when these people watch players like shahid afridi, Dohni, Gilgrist, lara and other big stroke player players, they get intersested in cricket game and start watching the game. at least that is how i start watching cricket. well maybe i am overstating the meaning of conterbution here. what i meant by conterbution to cricket here was that they are making people who aren't cricket fans, interested in the game of cricket. that is what i mean by conterbuting when i say players like afrid conterbutes to the cricket game.

 

[Prince EWS]

again that is my point of view and the way i see it. that doesn't mean it is true or not. i can give u some example to prove it why i think this way. i am from afghanistan and afghans don't like cricket. they say when they watch cricket they never see any batsman hiting the ball. when these people watch players like shahid afridi, Dohni, Gilgrist, lara and other big stroke player players, they get intersested in cricket game and start watching the game. at least that is how i start watching cricket. well maybe i am overstating the meaning of conterbution here. what i meant by conterbution to cricket here was that they are making people who aren't cricket fans, interested in the game of cricket. that is what i mean by conterbuting when i say players like afrid conterbutes to the cricket game.

Getting people interested in the game doesn't make you a better player though. It's also highly debatable anyway. I probably wouldn't follow cricket if the international scene was filled up with Jayasuriyas, Dhonis and Afridis. Cricket won't succeed in trying to be what its not - it should work its strengths and try to utilise them, rather than ending up a half-measured game that no-one will follow at all.

Anyway, I'm getting dragged in and going off the point. Having a big fan base does not make you a better player so it how exciting you think a certain player is has little bearing on how good he is.

 

[shortpitched713]

I probably wouldn't follow cricket if the international scene was filled up with Jayasuriyas.

So quck scoring=bad even if it is of such a classy nature? I find that a very baffling opinion to hold.

 

[Richard]

TBH, Jayasuriya's not the prettiest. Him and Atapattu are a study in style vs speed.

 

[PhoenixFire]

What's wrong with Jayasuriya? He doesn't slog and pretty much always plays proper cuts and pulls and drives and stuff.

 

[silentstriker]

So quck scoring=bad even if it is of such a classy nature? I find that a very baffling opinion to hold.

No, quick scoring doesn't = bad. Slogging = not fun for me (and Prince EWS) to watch. We'd much rather watch classical batsmen exhibiting proper technique because that's what we love. It has very little to do with speed: Tendulkar (in his prime) scored fast but was classically correct. Symonds can decide to score slow and he'd still make me want to puke.

I love watching how Kallis can play certain defensive shots and keep the type of balls out which would own Afridi 10/10 times. That's our preference, yours may vary. We are not insulting you for liking something, we are questioning your statement regarding contribution. It of course is a completely separate issue from 'who I like', but my criteria is how much they help their team win. If you think Afridi wins more matches for Pakistan than Dravid/Kallis do for India and SA, then I am not sure what anyone can say to change your mind.

 

[silentstriker]

And as for Chopra, he has one shot: the leave. And that's exactly how I like my openers TBH. Does that mean he was more effective than Hayden? No, but no one is saying that.

EDIT: I also hate Dhoni, Afridi, etc, just like Prince.

 

[Richard]

Haha, I like any batsman of mine to have more than the leave in his repetoire.

And TBH, I have many I prefer to watch than Chopra. He's certainly not the worst, but well... Hussain, Atapattu, Mark Waugh, Sangakkara... just a few.

 

[Prince EWS]

So quck scoring=bad even if it is of such a classy nature? I find that a very baffling opinion to hold.

Personally, I don't care how quickly or slowly someone scores - I like to see shots executed with classical technique and minimal risk. If you can manage to do that and score at a strike rate of 120, then I'll still enjoy it - but against quality attacks, I've rarely if ever seen it occur.

That's purely a matter of opinion though - I'm not saying anyone else must think the same.

 

[shortpitched713]

We are not insulting you for liking something, we are questioning your statement regarding contribution. If you think Afridi wins more matches for Pakistan than Dravid/Kallis do for India and SA, then I am not sure what anyone can say to change your mind.

Actually, I never made such statements. Of course I agree that Dravid and Kallis win more matches for their team than a batsman like Afridi, and I agree that they are just generally better batsmen. However the value of Afridi is that he will bring many more fans to a stadium than either Dravid or Kallis.

Also I do have a beef when players are simply slagged for being unorthodox like Jayasuria. After all Bradman didn't have the most orthodox of techniques either.

 

[shortpitched713]

I like to see shots executed with classic technique with minimal risk.

Thats the difference between you and I then I guess. Of course I'd like to see shots executed with minimal risk but I don't put much stock in the importance of following conventional coaching manuals. I could care less if a batsman played a stroke one handed with the wrong side of the bat as long as he can score using that stroke consistently and with minimal risk.

 

[shortpitched713]

And as for Chopra, he has one shot: the leave.

Unless he made the stumps magnetically repulsive to the ball when he came to the crease I find that very hard to believe.

 

[silentstriker]

Actually, I never made such statements. Of course I agree that Dravid and Kallis win more matches for their team than a batsman like Afridi, and I agree that they are just generally better batsmen.

Also I do have a beef when players are simply slagged for being unorthodox like Jayasuria. After all Bradman didn't have the most orthodox of techniques either.

But both Prince EWS and I admitted that those with unorthodix techniques (Gilly, Hayden) are better players than those with more orthodox. You are confusing the issue.

We like watching proper technique, and while it always helps, it does not necessarily by itself make you a better player. Lara does not have orthodox technique, and yet he is as effective as just about anyone in the history of the game.

 

[silentstriker]

However the value of Afridi is that he will bring many more fans to a stadium than either Dravid or Kallis.

ODIs perhaps, but then I don't consider them proper cricket so the point is moot. As for test cricket, I am not sure that's true, considering the fact that I would doubt someone who was not interested in the finer points of the game would spend all day watching the game to see Afridi come out to bat for 10 minutes.

 

[Prince EWS]

Unless he made the stumps magnetically repulsive to the ball when he came to the crease I find that very hard to believe.

Nah, he'd just pad up and get out plumb lbw.

 

[silentstriker]

He'd be confused at the ball coming on full length, thinking in his head 'a proper opening bowler is supposed to pitch it short, or right outside off stump' and before he could fully reconcile this radical new world of full length deliveries into his knowledge, he would be out plumb LBW.

 

[Richard]

ODIs perhaps, but then I don't consider them proper cricket so the point is moot. As for test cricket, I am not sure that's true, considering the fact that I would doubt someone who was not interested in the finer points of the game would spend all day watching the game to see Afridi come out to bat for 10 minutes.

Haha... doesn't sound good for the Pakistani "fans"!!!!!!!!! Given that there was an instant stream for the exits when Afridi was bowled 1st ball by Flintoff in a certain game I recall.

 

[Prince EWS]

Haha... doesn't sound good for the Pakistani "fans"!!!!!!!!! Given that there was an instant stream for the exits when Afridi was bowled 1st ball by Flintoff in a certain game I recall.

Was that a test or an ODI though?

 

[Richard]

A Test!

EDIT: this one, and it's alluded to in the report.

 

[silentstriker]

It is so ridiculous, too. I mean, people pay a lot of money to see cricket games - it astonishes me that they would leave on account of one player. But it's their money, I guess.

My guess is that those are the same fans who would burn effigies and issue death threats. Same as India.