Those figures are interesting. I have Inzi clearly ahead but at least those numbers made me pause for thought.Tests
de SIlva M-41, R-3207, Avg-52.6
Inzamam M-90, R-6783, Avg-51.0
Completely wrong. Edited.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)
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.What about the performances discounting minnows Bangladesh? Inzy had a good record against them if I am not wrong,
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).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)
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.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.
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.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.
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.Aravinda made the most of his talent