Rate Anwar higher than Inzy, having seen both of them play. Anwar was more assured against high quality attacks, and Warne/Murali. Only problem is he didnt play enough cricket, but in the 90s when attacks were at the best, I remember him being more valued than Inzi.I would rate Younis as the second best test batsman, tied with Inzy and Hanif. Considering some of his innings under pressure, I would consider him higher than Abbas and Yousuf, two very aesthetic batsmen but no way close to being as reliable as Younis Khan has been, be it in home turf or away.
Miandad.
Inzy/Younis/Hanif.
Yousuf/Abbas/Anwar.
For me he is quite ahead of Dravid actually..the stats don't quite show it and I understand that why people will think differently but there is just far too many factors to consider here.I love Inzy. Rate him higher than Younis. I think he was of a higher caliber. There can be millions of stats to tell x or y to me but I can't quantify such things. Having seen them both a fair bit, I feel more confident about Inzy's skill level.
I do agree with Fusion that Inzamam was severely underrated. Isn't that far behind Dravid, really.
I don't think saying Inzi>Dravid is ridiculous, but this was a pretty biased post imo. Saying Dravid's double at Adelaide came on a flat track against a not so great attack and thus discounting it in favour of a hundred from Inzi just because it came against McWarne is just silly. No matter what conditions Dravid faced that day, the team was 4 wickets down and 500 runs behind Australia in the first innings. There's just no way to knock down that innings. Dire circumstances and anything less than a double hundred from him and we would've lost. We also probably would've lost if he hadn't followed it up with 72 in the 4th innings. I'd take that over whatever Inzi did against McWarne thanks. There's also Perth 2008, which no one except me seems to remember.For me he is quite ahead of Dravid actually..the stats don't quite show it and I understand that why people will think differently but there is just far too many factors to consider here.
Dravid has only one century in Australia, as you mentioned, a 230 in Adelaide and we all know how flat Adelaide is..against Gillespie, Bichel, Brad Williams and MacGill..Macgill might be a decent bowler but his 2003 series was terrible..anyone who has seen that series should remember that he was bowling one full toss and one half tracker an over..
The main factor here is Dravid is associated with the famous 2001 test match which was undoubtedly a brilliant innings. However his overall record against Australia and South Africa aren't all that for someone who is supposed to have the best technique against pace bowling.
Inzamam on the other hand has a hundred in Australia against McGrath, Fleming and Warne in 99.
He has also not played against Australia at home since 1998.
So pretty much we have 3 test matches in 99 in Australia.
The 2004 series Inzamam was unfit and played only 1 game with an injury and got a pair if I am not mistaken.
Overall the stats are still in Dravid's favour and I totally understand if most people rate him higher. Personally I find him a tad overrated, not to say he is crap or anything but I feel he is considered a tad greater than he was because of the Kolkata test match.
Yea Inzy had better raw talent. 92 WC was a good indication of that. Dravid was hardworking, more focussed, constantly worked on his technique. He was patient and didn't give up. He made the most of his talent. And, he knew how to run which is something that ca't be said about Inzy.An interesting topic for me is who was the better player of pace bowling. Inzamam had so much time v pace bowling, it was unreal. To play he kind of innings he did during 92 WC completely raw speaks volumes.
While Dravid is more prolific (he did play far more tests) and more dependable even, while Dravid was the wall, Inzamam was more at ease naturally against pace.
Thee and me Pratters are always going to be impressed by guys like Inzy, who are built like us, yet still manage to look so light on their feetAn interesting topic for me is who was the better player of pace bowling. Inzamam had so much time v pace bowling, it was unreal. To play he kind of innings he did during 92 WC completely raw speaks volumes.
While Dravid is more prolific (he did play far more tests) and more dependable even, while Dravid was the wall, Inzamam was more at ease naturally against pace.
It has to do with role models. Pakistan never really had express fast bowlers until Imran came along. Fazal Mahmood and Khan Mohammad in the 50s were medium pacers. It is only after Imran that the line started.It is weird really. In the first tests India played, they had some of the best fast bowlers in Md. Nissar and Amar Singh. It has a lot to do with poor nutritional patterns and no culture to produce athletes. We just don't support an environment where athletes can develop. It is not that we do not have people with tall frames. We have loads of them in Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan at least, to just give you 3 states. It is just that we don't have a culture where we develop sports or sports people. Developing fast bowlers requires great care. I guess if cricket was a more 'athletic' sport, India would have had a much more average history in it.
No, that's not a reason. Even if you consider that, a large % of population is non vegetarian too. Punjabis are mostly non vegetarians for instance. The Haryanvi jats are strong people too. I was in Delhi recently and guy who drove me around was a tall guy whose height and built suprised me.A large %age of population is vegetarian (no offence) doesn't help either.
Yep. Just get a wasim, waqar, shoaib, or an Imran leading the Indian attack and let 1 billion people look up to them as THE role models then sure as **** you'll get plenty of fast bowlers cropping up. Sure most of the crop will be ****e (just like in Pakistan) but some will obviously be good.I'm definiely more prepared to accept smali's argument than the vegetarian one, which imo is just a weak excuse, and factually incorrect. Not saying we'll have a legion of quicks if one manages to achieve greatness, bu it'll certainly help. Everyone in gully cricket here fights for the bat ffs... that's the problem.