Last edited by salman85; 25-05-2011 at 08:35 AM.
have to look beyond mere statistics here. i saw the bulk of inzamam's career. yousuf and yousuf didn't come close to inzy's ability to manipulate bowlers, read the game, adjust the pace of his innings accordingly and sheer talent. there's a reason he stood heads and shoulders above anyone else in the team after the retirement of wasim.
have a look at inzamam's performance in matches won by pakistan. averages over 75. in about 40+ tests. yeap. and the number of fifties he scored in ODIs where he played the crucial anchor role. AND he was able to step it up when needed as well. for a big fella he was surprisingly nimble on his feet to spinners.
his shuffle across the crease caused him some issues with left handers swinging the ball in from outside off (classic example - vaas dismissing him for 99 in one of the asian championship tests) but he very very very rarely got undone by outswing. for those that didn't see him, have a look at how late he played the ball. watch his innings against rampant west indian attacks in 93 and 2000. proper legend.
Also,an innings that is not mentioned amongst his finest is the century was Bangladesh.True,it was against the weakest Test side in the world,but to bat with the tail,the pressure of a humiliating loss building with every ball,it really was an incredible innings.
Inzi has to rank amongst the best players of fast bowling in the 2 decades.His ability to hook was not as incredible as Ponting's,even though he was no slouch himself,but the man seemed to have all the time in the world.Imran Khan was a huge fan of his,and even he remarked that Inzi was the best player of Fast Bowling he had seen since Viv Richards.I know Imran would have a tinge of bias in his evaluation here,but Inzi's ability against fast bowling really was fantastic.
Last edited by salman85; 25-05-2011 at 12:39 PM.
I did not say the 2 Ys were better than Inzamam. I said there isn't a lot that separates him from the 2 Ys. The way I see it, the difference between Miandad and Inzamam > the difference between Inzamam and the 2 Ys.
Inzamam being a very good player of fast bowling is a bit of a myth. As much as I like Imran Khan - and believe me when I say I'm a big fan - all his views don't necessarily have to be correct. He also said Mohammad Asif was the best bowler of his generation and, IIRC, he also said Irfan Pathan would make it big in Indian cricket.
As far as playing fast bowling goes, I would rate Saeed Anwar higher than him despite him having an inferior overall record. Like Beleg says, you've got to look beyond stats (and in any case, Inzamam's record outside the subcontinent is hardly what you'd expect from someone who was supposedly the best player of fast bowling since Viv Richards).
As regards the infamous "match winning" discussion - yes, I am well aware that Pakistan have gone on to win many matches in which he has scored a hundred, but that doesn't necessarily mean they won the matches because he scored a century. Pakistan had a brilliant bowling attack almost throughout Inzamam's career, so it's no surprise that he scored a lot of his runs in winning causes. As an example, Brian Lara scored an insane number of runs in a series in Sri Lanka in 2001, a series in which he dominated Muralitharan like no-one before or after. Unfortunately for Lara, West Indies ended up getting whitewashed in that series IIRC. Does that mean he wasn't a match-winner? Nah, he was arguably the biggest match-winner of his generation. It only means he had a pathetic side alongside him, and more particularly, a pathetic bowling attack.
I'm talking exclusively about tests here FTR. Don't get me wrong, Inzamam was a very good player but not in the class of Javed Miandad. Has a case for being Pakistan's second best batsman ever, but I'd personally have Javed Miandad, Hanif Mohammad, Zaheer Abbas and Saeed Anwar over him. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
A lot is being said here about Inzamam with some strong opinions from either side. Before I start let me make a very clear distinction between eye-players (for lack of a better term) and technically sound players.
The former set of players rely on a very powerful hand-eye coordination and even having a less-than-great technqiue sometimes sees them through. You can say these folks are the best naturals when it comes to picking a ball's length and are seldom bothered by extreme pace. V. Richards, Ponting, Inzamam, Aravinda and Kallicharan are some examples.
Since the lynchpin of their game is based on reflexes, these men suffer more than the others when their natural assets dimnish with age. Richards was a shadow of his former self after 1987/88 and perhaps, we are seeing Ponting in that stage right now.
The issue is that they do not have a powerful technique to fall back on. Their batting is based more on feeling right rather than mechanical feet and hand movements.
Inzamam, IMHO, went through that and after 1999/2000 his game against sheer pace wasn't as good as in the 90s. I saw him struggle woefully against Harmison's pace and bounce in 2006. The same Inzamam who had all the time in the world to cart men of the pace of Bishop, Ambrose and Patterson in the early/mid 90s!
No wonder we see so polarised opinions on Inzy's ability against pace. At the height of his power when his reflexes were at their peak, he was one of the finest players of raw pace you could imagine. Obviously, people who saw him post 2001 or so would tend to rely on the evidence of their eyes more.
Just putting things in perspective here. I apologise for the length of this post but it was required!
Last edited by Outswinger@Pace; 25-05-2011 at 01:25 PM.
Here goes :
RIP Phil Hughes. Forever 63*
Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
Rejecting 'selection deontology' since Mar '15
Moeen is a perfectly fine bowler FFS
WWCC - Loyaulte Mi Lie
"People make me happy.. not places.. people"
"When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life." - Samuel Johnson
"Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself" - Tony Benn
#408. Sixty three not out forever.
I'm having a really hard time deciding if you're being serious or sarcastic.
Think it's pretty clear it's sarcastic.
Originally Posted by Peter Mooresforever 63*
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)