-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Arivinda De Silva Vs Inzamam ul Haq?
- Thread starter deira
- Start date
JBH001
International Regular
In an all-round sense? Probably Aravinda.
But in terms of batting? Inzys record dwarfs Aravinda by a considerable margin as he was technically better, better on all surfaces against all bowlers (except perhaps Australia) and far more consistent. Still, Aravinda was marvellous to watch. I always had a sense of anticipation when he went out to bat as (like Sana) he was one of the great entertainers of the game, and his perfomance in the WC final of 1996 must be the stand out Finals perfomance of any one individual in the history of the game. Nevertheless, my head says Inzamam. But my heart and sense of nostalgia votes Aravinda.
But in terms of batting? Inzys record dwarfs Aravinda by a considerable margin as he was technically better, better on all surfaces against all bowlers (except perhaps Australia) and far more consistent. Still, Aravinda was marvellous to watch. I always had a sense of anticipation when he went out to bat as (like Sana) he was one of the great entertainers of the game, and his perfomance in the WC final of 1996 must be the stand out Finals perfomance of any one individual in the history of the game. Nevertheless, my head says Inzamam. But my heart and sense of nostalgia votes Aravinda.
Last edited:
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Ooooo, tough choice. I'd have to go with big Inzi, though. As good as Aravinda was, Inzi just seemed that little bit better. Knocks like his ton in the 1996 WC final make it tough to decide, though. That one was all class. Also, as good as his record was, I don't think Inzi lived up to all that was expected of him. His knocks in the 1992 WC were those of a Tendulkar-like genius on the way up and I think he ended up 'merely' being an excellent Test batsman. Promised more, though.
Migara
Cricketer Of The Year
Inzy is a better batsman, but he had lot of support from fellow batsmen.
When we look at their records,
Test
Inzamam M-120, R-8830, Avg-49.6
de Silva M-93, R-6361, Avg-43.0
ODI
Inzamam M-378, R-11374, Avg-39.6, SR-74.4
de Silva M-308 M-9284, Avg-34.9, SR-81.1
When whole career looked at Inzamam is the better test batsman. In ODI's de Silva's superlative strike rate makes his lower average to get compensated. But since de Silva was a crafty bowler and a brilliant fielder, with perfect off the field profile, makes him the better player.
But when we look at post 1996 profile of both players stats looks bit more different
Tests
de SIlva M-41, R-3207, Avg-52.6
Inzamam M-90, R-6783, Avg-51.0
ODIs
de Silva M-141, R-4579, Avg-38.5, SR-81.9
Inzamam M-282, R-8433, Avg-38.8, SR-74.1
Now this clearly shows that when support is there de Silva was a greater batsman than Inzamam. after 1996 SL found new batsman like Atapattu, Sangakkara, Jayawardane, and players like Jayasuriya, Mahanama and Tillekaratne found form.
Before that de Silva and Ranatunga had to do all the scoring unlike Inzamam. Until 1996 SL was minnow like in cricket. But with 1996 WC, turnaround came, and when de SIlva found support SL batting started florishing.
When we look at their records,
Test
Inzamam M-120, R-8830, Avg-49.6
de Silva M-93, R-6361, Avg-43.0
ODI
Inzamam M-378, R-11374, Avg-39.6, SR-74.4
de Silva M-308 M-9284, Avg-34.9, SR-81.1
When whole career looked at Inzamam is the better test batsman. In ODI's de Silva's superlative strike rate makes his lower average to get compensated. But since de Silva was a crafty bowler and a brilliant fielder, with perfect off the field profile, makes him the better player.
But when we look at post 1996 profile of both players stats looks bit more different
Tests
de SIlva M-41, R-3207, Avg-52.6
Inzamam M-90, R-6783, Avg-51.0
ODIs
de Silva M-141, R-4579, Avg-38.5, SR-81.9
Inzamam M-282, R-8433, Avg-38.8, SR-74.1
Now this clearly shows that when support is there de Silva was a greater batsman than Inzamam. after 1996 SL found new batsman like Atapattu, Sangakkara, Jayawardane, and players like Jayasuriya, Mahanama and Tillekaratne found form.
Before that de Silva and Ranatunga had to do all the scoring unlike Inzamam. Until 1996 SL was minnow like in cricket. But with 1996 WC, turnaround came, and when de SIlva found support SL batting started florishing.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Purely as batsmen, Inzamam was almost undoubtedly better, though as pointed-out he had the advantage of often having as many as 3 or 4 other good to excellent players in the side alongside him. Who knows how good Aravinda might have been had he debuted in, say, 1990 rather than 1984. I hope quite a bit better. Being a lone-ranger, which he sometimes was, could of times be a disadvantage.
Aravinda, as most people know, is my favourite batsman ever, and I've always thought that had just a few small-ish things happened differently he might have averaged 50 or so in Test-cricket. But as it was, Inzamam undoubtedly had the better career, for whatever reasons. Aravinda was the best to watch, though, by miles, better than anyone for mine, and I just can't really see a poll including him without voting for.
PUBLIC POLLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Aravinda, as most people know, is my favourite batsman ever, and I've always thought that had just a few small-ish things happened differently he might have averaged 50 or so in Test-cricket. But as it was, Inzamam undoubtedly had the better career, for whatever reasons. Aravinda was the best to watch, though, by miles, better than anyone for mine, and I just can't really see a poll including him without voting for.
PUBLIC POLLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Goughy
Hall of Fame Member
Those figures are interesting. I have Inzi clearly ahead but at least those numbers made me pause for thought.
I was never much of an Aravinda fan but then Im probably influenced by the fact that Sril Lanka didnt play England that often and when they did he averaged 23 against England in the first 14 years of his career.
Precambrian
Banned
What about the performances discounting minnows Bangladesh? Inzy had a good record against them if I am not wrong,
Also against the strongest team Aussies? Mad Max I think certainly has better record than Inzy. (Crapinfo is not working in my region rite now)
Also against the strongest team Aussies? Mad Max I think certainly has better record than Inzy. (Crapinfo is not working in my region rite now)
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
Inzy clearly, in my opinion.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
Completely wrong. Edited.
Last edited:
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
He does, averages 70 or summat, but it makes little difference to his career average (unlike Mohammad Yousuf). Inzamam still performed against most of the Test-class teams.
Not an accurate reflection: Australia were obviously, indisputably the strongest team around for less than half of Aravinda's career and only about 2\3 of Inzamam's. In any case, Aravinda played just 3 3-Test series against them, plus a 2-Test one. In 2 of these he was outstanding, in 1 good, and 1 abysmal. Only 1 of these series came at a time when Australia were blatantly clear of the pack (in which he averaged 96, but came to the crease just 4 times and had a top-score of just 78).
Neither is Inzamam's record against Australia entirely an accurate reflection. Officially, he faced them 14 times and averaged 31, but the last Test should never be a Test (that World XI rubbish), the penultimate one he was injured and shouldn't have played, and scored just 2 runs in 4 innings. The real Inzamam averaged 37 against Australia.
TT Boy
Hall of Fame Member
No the real Inzy averages 31, practically every cricketer in the world has played half fit/injured/ill at one time or another. By that logic Shaun Pollock could say every test after say 1999 is not the real Polly for I had an ankle which saw my pace plummet and was not the same bowler again. Bollocks.
The guy failed against Australia, fine, he was still a great player. There is no need to make excuses for I'm sure Inzy would not say such a thing, he would simply acknowledge he failed to perform against the Australians.
Aravinda made the most of his talent, Inzi did not. He could have fared much better, but for a lethargic, languid lifestyle that would've felled a lesser athlete.
Having said that, Inzi stands out more so than Aravinda, and not necessarily for non-cricketing reasons. He exuded a presence, heavyweight and different, perhaps even WGracian, but one nevertheless.
Having said that, Inzi stands out more so than Aravinda, and not necessarily for non-cricketing reasons. He exuded a presence, heavyweight and different, perhaps even WGracian, but one nevertheless.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
There are different levels of fitness, every cricketer has played with the odd minor niggle (some play with 'em more often than they play in full comfort) but that's totally different. Inzamam in the First Test in 2004\05 was almost completely immobile, any fool could see he shouldn't have been playing, he was only doing so because he was captain. He sat-out the remaining 2 Tests.
I maintain - Inzamam in the only part of his career with any significance averaged 37 against Australia.
Pollock's ankle injury was in 1997 not 1999, was it not? Nonetheless, there is a very obvious point in Pollock's career (2000\01 to 2001\02) where he was not the same bowler before and after and it'd be foolhardy to judge one of them by the other to boot.
Last edited:
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Don't think so at all, TBH. As I said - I love Aravinda to bits, he was a brilliant player anyway, but he always struck me as someone who could have done more, lots more. Not all of it was his fault: the lack of support (Asanka Gurasinha was the only other decent batsman in the side for a fair amount of his career) issue has already been mentioned.
I don't know as much about him as some, but he often threw his wicket away in the time I watched. Now, so do all batsmen, and someone like David Gower also gets the same criticism, and I've always maintained that David Gower did indeed get everything from his ability that he could have. Aravinda, I always thought, could have played less of the get-out strokes. Don't ask me why, and maybe yes it is indeed because I was always so disappointed when he did. But it's the impression I've always had.
