Inzamam vs Gooch vs Chanderpaul

[PlayerComparisons]

.

 

[subshakerz]

Inzi. Gooch didn't have the output, Chanders hid down the order

 

[ankitj]

Inzi. Gooch didn't have the output, Chanders hid down the order

Inzi played 40/200 innings at #6 or below which is exactly 20%. Chanderpaul played 56/280 innings at #6 or below which is also exactly 20%. Inzi's most frequent position was #4 while Chanderpaul's was #5. Many good to great batsmen have played #5 as their most frequent batting position like Waugh, Sobers, Laxman etc. Not a good argument, sorry.

 

[subshakerz]

Inzi played 40/200 innings at #6 or below which is exactly 20%. Chanderpaul played 56/280 innings at #6 or below which is also exactly 20%. Inzi's most frequent position was #4 while Chanderpaul's was #5. Many good to great batsmen have played #5 as their most frequent batting position like Waugh, Sobers, Laxman etc. Not a good argument, sorry.

Last I checked 5 is lower in the order than 4. Not saying this is the major difference but yes it is a factor for me where the majority of your runs comes from.

And Inzi at 6 was mostly early career and he hardly scored at that position. And Chanders played 1/4th of his innings at 3/4 and was pretty poor in those positions.

It's pretty clear looking at their records that Chanders benefitted from lower order batting much moreso than Inzi. It would have been a different case if Chanders showed he could score as well up the order but chose to bat deeper.

 

[Line and Length]

My vote goes to Gooch. An opener, IMO, is more important than a batsman coming in at 5 or lower (Chanderpaul - whose average is boosted by a lot of red ink). As for Inzy, he was undoubtedly a good bat but a poor runner between wickets and a liability in the field.

 

[subshakerz]

My vote goes to Gooch. An opener, IMO, is more important than a batsman coming in at 5 or lower (Chanderpaul - whose average is boosted by a lot of red ink). As for Inzy, he was undoubtedly a good bat but a poor runner between wickets and a liability in the field.

That's not relevant to this question though.

 

[Line and Length]

That's not relevant to this question though.

The rest of that sentence is.

 

[Coronis]

Last I checked 5 is lower in the order than 4. Not saying this is the major difference but yes it is a factor for me where the majority of your runs comes from.

And Inzi at 6 was mostly early career and he hardly scored at that position. And Chanders played 1/4th of his innings at 3/4 and was pretty poor in those positions.

It's pretty clear looking at their records that Chanders benefitted from lower order batting much moreso than Inzi. It would have been a different case if Chanders showed he could score as well up the order but chose to bat deeper.

#batdeep

 

[MexicanRiver]

Inzi. Gooch didn't have the output, Chanders hid down the order

Inzamam failed against SA and Aus both home and away, and his runs in the West Indies came on slow pitches. His record in England and New Zealand heavily flatters him, a bit like Younis, who came through flat pitches and poor attacks.

Gooch was brilliant against W's led Pakistan and against Windies and has so many classics in low-scoring games, brilliant on fast pitches in West Indies unlike inzamam and also good in Asia and against spin too. He averaged 56 in 93 ashes against warne led attack and had a great tour of Australia in 1990 and a decent tour against Lillee in 80. His record hurts because he lost three of his best years to ban and had to play his worst matchup so much in a long series, played entirely in the bowling era, with tougher home pitches too. Inzi statpadded in the 2000 Dead Road era and got flat pitches at home. Inzamam is Cook level, not Gooch; Gooch is much better than Inzi Younis types.

Overall, an inflated average means nothing; context is important. Gooch faced better wi attack too and on way tougher wickets.

 

[subshakerz]

Inzamam failed against SA and Aus both home and away, and his runs in the West Indies came on slow pitches. His record in England and New Zealand heavily flatters him, a bit like Younis, who came through flat pitches and poor attacks.

Gooch was brilliant against W's led Pakistan and against Windies and has so many classics in low-scoring games, brilliant on fast pitches in West Indies unlike inzamam and also good in Asia and against spin too. He averaged 56 in 93 ashes against warne led attack and had a great tour of Australia in 1990 and a decent tour against Lillee in 80. His record hurts because he lost three of his best years to ban and had to play his worst matchup so much in a long series, played entirely in the bowling era, with tougher home pitches too. Inzi statpadded in the 2000 Dead Road era and got flat pitches at home. Inzamam is Cook level, not Gooch; Gooch is much better than Inzi Younis types.

Overall, an inflated average means nothing; context is important. Gooch faced better wi attack too and on way tougher wickets.

You are exaggerating Gooch, cherrypicking his best series and downplaying Inzi and ignoring his best series.

Gooch also failed overall in Aus like Inzi and never played in SA. Yes, he had tougher conditions at home but also overall wasnt that great away. Gooch was impressive yes against WI but that is about it that stands out from his record.

And even if we want to argue that overall Gooch did slightly better against pace, there is no doubt that Inzi's record against SC spinners like Kumble and Murali far outstrips Gooch in SC.

 

[ataraxia]

The rest of that sentence is.

"Poor runner" is only half relevant in that he makes his partners score less / run them out. The rest is accounted for in his batting average.

 

[MexicanRiver]

You are exaggerating Gooch, cherrypicking his best series and downplaying Inzi and ignoring his best series.

Gooch also failed overall in Aus like Inzi and never played in SA. Yes, he had tougher conditions at home but also overall wasnt that great away. Gooch was impressive yes against WI but that is about it that stands out from his record.

And even if we want to argue that overall Gooch did slightly better against pace, there is no doubt that Inzi's record against SC spinners like Kumble and Murali far outstrips Gooch in SC.

Paying pace is much more important, and Gooch is more proven against quality pace bowling despite brutal pitches and scheduling, unlike Inzamam. Gooch wasn't as good as Inzi against spin, but he was still very good against spin. Listen to what Warne says about Gooch (since you're big on peer rating). Inzi barely averaged 45 in the 90s despite playing in the middle order and easy home games; he needed 2000 dead roads to improve his average. In the bowling era, Inzi did hardly any better despite a lot easier challenges to overcome. I take a tax on 2000s runs. especially with someone who failed against quality pace bowling.

 

[subshakerz]

Paying pace is much more important, and Gooch is more proven against quality pace bowling despite brutal pitches and scheduling, unlike Inzamam. Gooch wasn't as good as Inzi against spin, but he was still very good against spin. Listen to what Warne says about Gooch (since you're big on peer rating). Inzi barely averaged 45 in the 90s despite playing in the middle order and easy home games; he needed 2000 dead roads to improve his average. In the bowling era, Inzi did hardly any better despite a lot easier challenges to overcome. I take a tax on 2000s runs. especially with someone who failed against quality pace bowling.

The problem is you are exaggerating Gooch's success in his record. He failed in Aus, never played in SA, a poor series in NZ and has a moderate record in SC. Even against WI, overall he wasnt outrageously good, but impressive. I give him points for being an opener, but as you mentioned, Inzi averaged more than him in the 90s before the pitches flattened, and was scoring well in Eng and NZ before the pitches even flattened.

Inzi just a better all-round bat for me.

 

[BazBall21]

The problem is you are exaggerating Gooch's success in his record. He failed in Aus, never played in SA, a poor series in NZ and has a moderate record in SC. Even against WI, overall he wasnt outrageously good, but impressive. I give him points for being an opener, but as you mentioned, Inzi averaged more than him in the 90s before the pitches flattened, and was scoring well in Eng and NZ before the pitches even flattened.

Inzi just a better all-round bat for me.

Gooch had one tour of Australia in his prime and succeeded so to say he outright failed there is simplistic mate. I've seen a lot of Inzi on fast pitches and he had clear fundamental problems. And also, those runs in England and NZ for him came against attacks that were generally a far cry from the England and NZ attacks of the past 10 years. The 1996 England attack in particular was weak.

Gooch was the best batsman v the WI juggernaut despite opening. In 3 of his 5 hundreds against them, he made over 50% of the team's runs in the innings on spiteful tracks. In only one series out of five did he average less than around 40. Averaged around 60 v them in a series home and away. I would say that's pretty close to outrageously good tbh given the attack and consistently pace-orientated nature of the wickets he played on against them.

 

[OverratedSanity]

NZ's late 90s attacks when they had Cairns, Doull, Nash were perfectly good attacks for a while Tbf. In the 2000s they were utterly dreadful whenever Bond didn't play.

 

[MexicanRiver]

The problem is you are exaggerating Gooch's success in his record. He failed in Aus, never played in SA, a poor series in NZ and has a moderate record in SC. Even against WI, overall he wasnt outrageously good, but impressive. I give him points for being an opener, but as you mentioned, Inzi averaged more than him in the 90s before the pitches flattened, and was scoring well in Eng and NZ before the pitches even flattened.

Inzi just a better all-round bat for me.

Gooch's 114 Auckland is better than any inzamam's knock in eng and nz. He got some very poor attacks in England in the 90s. Like younis and sehwag, he isn't proven outside Asia at all.

 

[subshakerz]

Gooch had one tour of Australia in his prime and succeeded so to say he outright failed there is simplistic mate. I've seen a lot of Inzi on fast pitches and he had clear fundamental problems. And also, those runs in England and NZ for him came against attacks that were generally a far cry from the England and NZ attacks of the past 10 years. The 1996 England attack in particular was weak.

Well, Inzi like Gooch had a good tour against an ATG Aus team in 99, but that didn't stop us from saying he failed there overall.

Inzi also scored against Gough/Caddick in 2001.

Gooch was the best batsman v the WI juggernaut despite opening. In 3 of his 5 hundreds against them, he made over 50% of the team's runs in the innings on spiteful tracks. In only one series out of five did he average less than around 40. Averaged around 60 v them in a series home and away. I would say that's pretty close to outrageously good tbh given the attack and consistently pace-orientated nature of the wickets he played on against them.

Great but those performances are balanced with poor series as well. We can say he had a higher ceiling than Inzi against pace but on final returns it's not a huge difference.

 

[BazBall21]

Well, Inzi like Gooch had a good tour against an ATG Aus team in 99, but that didn't stop us from saying he failed there overall.

Inzi also scored against Gough/Caddick in 2001.


Great but those performances are balanced with poor series as well. We can say he had a higher ceiling than Inzi against pace but on final returns it's not a huge difference.

Gooch did have the output. He struggled v one side. Averaged 48 against other teams.

Inzi was probably worse against both sides he struggled against, he just didn't play them as often so his average was less impacted. And he had the privilege of playing half his career in the 2000s.

That's before we even get into home conditions and batting positions.

As for Gooch v spin which you mentioned, I would say vastly more proven than Inzi against pace on fast pitches. Had a very good series v Warne, had a good tour of India, and has famous hundreds on turning tracks in ODI. Different format, but it still conveys his skill.

 

[subshakerz]

Gooch did have the output. He struggled v one side. Averaged 48 against other teams.

Inzi was probably worse against both sides he struggled against, he just didn't play them as often so his average was less impacted. And he had the privilege of playing half his career in the 2000s.

This seems unfairly penalising against Inzi. He didnt play SA/Aus as much so we assume he would do worse. And all his success in the 2000s should not be considered at all. Scoring in NZ and Eng don't count. Runs against Ambrose/Walsh dont count.

Objectively Gooch has more holes in his record. The side he struggled was Aus which as an Eng player matters a fair bit.

As for Gooch v spin which you mentioned, I would say vastly more proven than Inzi against pace on fast pitches. Had a very good series v Warne, had a good tour of India, and has famous hundreds on turning tracks in ODI. Different format, but it still conveys his skill.

I think there is a bit of SENA bias here because it seems having a vastly better record in SC doesnt matter at all for Inzi.

 

[BazBall21]

This seems unfairly penalising against Inzi. He didnt play SA/Aus as much so we assume he would do worse. And all his success in the 2000s should not be considered at all. Scoring in NZ and Eng don't count. Runs against Ambrose/Walsh dont count.

Objectively Gooch has more holes in his record.


I think there is a bit of SENA bias here because it seems having a vastly better record in SC doesnt matter at all for Inzi.

You said Gooch doesn't have the output when his struggles came mostly against one team. So you are in fact punishing him for a lopsided volume of tests against the only opponent he was below par against.

And we can't just say Inzi might have done better against Australia and SA if he played more. That's hypotheticals. The facts are he averages similar against them to Gooch against Australia despite not opening, didn't play them as much so his career average was less impacted, and tbh only playing 2 tests in Australia when he was an ageing force is more likely to be good fortune than bad fortune. We know fast pitches were his achilles heel and players with fading reflexes typically see their returns on fast pitches dwindle.

Of course those runs that you specified count. Nobody said he isn't a very good player.