How good an ODI batsman was Inzamam?

[silentstriker]

*SIGH*, I would take Inzy over Dravid in ODI batting too but to say he puts people to sleep is ridiculous. I do not know a single person who is a knowledgable person on the game of cricket, who finds batting like Kallis or Dravid 'boring'. I suppose if your definition of good cricket is boundaries, then I can see why.

 

[open365]

Nonsense, that, IMO. Pakistan's most recent WC barely got going, so that counts for virtually nothing; and obviously he was poor in WC2003, which, purely and simply, can happen. But there was little wrong with his play in 3 out of 4 WCs, his first 3 being acceptible enough.

It's not just WCs though, the stats the article posted had Inzy bottom in almost every catergory i seem to remember.

I may even find the link to it one day

 

[Perm]

Inzamam is a terribly under-rated ODI player, his knock to eliminate NZ out of the 1992 World Cup was pure destruction. I would still rate him as a better Test player than ODI player though.

 

[open365]

*SIGH*, I would take Inzy over Dravid in ODI batting too but to say he puts people to sleep is ridiculous. I do not know a single person who is a knowledgable person on the game of cricket, who finds batting like Kallis or Dravid 'boring'. I suppose if your definition of good cricket is boundaries, then I can see why.

Oh come of the high horse for a second please, there are - shock horror- knowledgable mortals around here that think players like Kallis and Dravid can at times(imo quite a lot of the time) be boring to watch.

It's not something to be ashamed of. I love test cricket as much as the next man, but i'm still big enough to admit that watching someone block the **** out of it in an ODI game can be immensely tedious even if it is such an esteemed player as Rahul Dravid.

 

[Perm]

I do think silenstriker has a point though, the majority of people who claim that Dravid and Kallis are boring know very little about cricket itself, and would prefer to see every batsman striking at over 100% and regular scores of more than 350. However, not every person who thinks they are boring are like this, I do appreciate that there are some true cricket fans out there who may not like the way that Dravid and Kallis play and although I would strongly disagree, their opinions still have to be respected IMO.

 

[open365]

I do think silenstriker has a point though, the majority of people who claim that Dravid and Kallis are boring know very little about cricket itself, and would prefer to see every batsman striking at over 100% and regular scores of more than 350. However, not every person who thinks they are boring are like this, I do appreciate that there are some true cricket fans out there who may not like the way that Dravid and Kallis play and although I would strongly disagree, their opinions still have to be respected IMO.

I know he has a point, i just don't like the way peple bracket cricket fans into "Likes 2020" and "Likes 1960s test matches"

I don't believe liking boundaries is something that disqualifies me from enjoying a Kallis innings.

 

[Perm]

Completely agree with that second part, I like to see boundaries when watching cricket and would prefer to watch my team batting as opposed to bowling. I still enjoy the majority of Kallis' innings, there is the odd exception though, when I feel he should have taken some more responsibility for the team and he hasn't done so.

 

[Anil]

tendulkar, richards, lara, bevan, haynes, jones, m. waugh, miandad, m. crowe, ponting would be my top ten....i would put inzy just after that....

 

[shortpitched713]

It's not something to be ashamed of. I love test cricket as much as the next man, but i'm still big enough to admit that watching someone block the **** out of it in an ODI game can be immensely tedious even if it is such an esteemed player as Rahul Dravid.

Rarely happens any more from Dravid though. Lately hes gotten quite good at accelerating depending on the situation and the need of the team.

 

[haroon510]

*SIGH*, I would take Inzy over Dravid in ODI batting too but to say he puts people to sleep is ridiculous. I do not know a single person who is a knowledgable person on the game of cricket, who finds batting like Kallis or Dravid 'boring'. I suppose if your definition of good cricket is boundaries, then I can see why.

i admit i am not an expert like u and many other users here but i know one or two things about cricket. first of all it is a game only and in any sport there are fans who disagree on each other's point of views and we should respect that.
second, sports and games are played to entertain the fans. the same thing goes with cricket. if fans aren't entertained than what is the point of even playing the damn game. Dravid might be a good batsman but he isn't a good entertainer. he can't win u the match when u have handred runs in the board to chess with run rate of six or six and half. he has never done it.

off course any game that we say is a good game we describe it good becuase of agrasiviness and in cricket the agrasiviness is the boundaries and sixes or wickets. that is what missing with dravid. cricket should be agresive if it is to call it a good game, and guys like shahid afridi and so on has conterbuted alot more than dravid would ever becuase of thier agrasivness and playing strokes.

 

[Prince EWS]

i admit i am not an expert like u and many other users here but i know one or two things about cricket. first of all it is a game only and in any sport there are fans who disagree on each other's point of views and we should respect that.
second, sports and games are played to entertain the fans. the same thing goes with cricket. if fans aren't entertained than what is the point of even playing the damn game. Dravid might be a good batsman but he isn't a good entertainer. he can't win u the match when u have handred runs in the board to chess with run rate of six or six and half. he has never done it.

off course any game that we say is a good game we describe it good becuase of agrasiviness and in cricket the agrasiviness is the boundaries and sixes or wickets. that is what missing with dravid. cricket should be agresive if it is to call it a good game, and guys like shahid afridi and so on has conterbuted alot more than dravid would ever becuase of thier agrasivness and playing strokes.

Posts like this make me cry.

 

[shortpitched713]

Posts like this make me cry.

Don't see why, SS said he found Dravid and Kallis to be exciting players. Haroon said they were boring and claimed that Afridi is exciting. Haroon may not be right, but at least he gave a reason unlike SS.

 

[Prince EWS]

Don't see why, SS said he found Dravid and Kallis to be exciting players. Haroon said they were boring and claimed that Afridi is exciting. Haroon may not be right, but at least he gave a reason unlike SS.

It was more the use of the phrase "guys like shahid afridi and so on has conterbuted alot more than dravid would ever" really.

I don't mind if people say certain players are boring - that's all just taste in cricket and although I don't always agree with what they say, people are entitled to their opinions there. However, when people actually make out that guys that Dravid and Kallis are bad players, then I take issue. I don't care if you like watching them or not - but credit where credit is due - they are both infinitely better players than Afridi.

Saying Afridi has contributed a lot more than Dravid would be akin to me or SS saying that Akash Chopra has contributed a lot more than Gilchrist. It's quite obviously not true, even though we prefer to watch Chopra bat.

 

[Richard]

Akash Chopra?

 

[Perm]

Can't see how anyone would not want to watch Gilchrist bat, even if you are a fan of gritty and defensive innings. The guy isn't a slogger like Afridi and plays his shots in a much more aesthetically pleasing manner.

But I do agree with you Prince, championing Afridi is something that really annoys me, just because he does hit the boundaries and make the quick runs doesn't make him a good player. Infact, given his talent he is quite a poor player compared to what he should be. Definately inferior to Dravid and Kallis.

 

[FRAZ]

Inzamam-ul-haq for me is the second best ODI batsman that Pakistan has ever produced . He was a thinker as a batsman and the ability of making a game alive outta no where was his speciality. For what I have seen is that though Tendulkar and Dravid,DeSilva and Jayasuriya have had been the stroke factories from sub-continent but they never could take the pressure smoothly like Inzi . Running b/w the wickets has been his only problem otherwise he was a great find .
He should have retired with dignity a few months earlier like I have said that he was the worst captain EVER for Pakistan . He used to let the game drift along and had a complex as if he can dictate like Imran .
I knew that what eventualy might happen (As others have seen) with his career in the end and if as a person he had a flaw it was that he was the dumbest captain ever for Pakistan and he just never could deliver as a captain .
I certainly am disappointed with the attitude of some of the posters that they never even said one thing in my appreciation . I just can't believe it . I have made tons of fulfilled predictions about the future of the game and some players . I feel so so so so so so so so sad . I mean ...............forget it !!!!!

 

[shortpitched713]

However, when people actually make out that guys that Dravid and Kallis are bad players, then I take issue.

Where did anyone say that?

 

[Perm]

Where did anyone say that?

haroon alluded to it at the end of his post, but didn't actually say that they were bad players. Just said that they can't contribute as much as Shahid Afridi which is absurdly false.

 

[haroon510]

It was more the use of the phrase "guys like shahid afridi and so on has conterbuted alot more than dravid would ever" really.

I don't mind if people say certain players are boring - that's all just taste in cricket and although I don't always agree with what they say, people are entitled to their opinions there. However, when people actually make out that guys that Dravid and Kallis are bad players, then I take issue. I don't care if you like watching them or not - but credit where credit is due - they are both infinitely better players than Afridi.

Saying Afridi has contributed a lot more than Dravid would be akin to me or SS saying that Akash Chopra has contributed a lot more than Gilchrist. It's quite obviously not true, even though we prefer to watch Chopra bat.

i have never said kallis and dravid are bad players. a player with average of over 50 in test and over 40 in one day would never be considered a bad player. what i was talking about is the style of thier bating. they are good batsman but they aren't entertaining to watch. i used to consider cricket the most boring game ever. i watched shahid afridi's fastest century against Sir Lanka that is when i started watching cricket. it isn't shahid afridi's bating only. when he bowles, the way he mixes his deliveries, bowling spin, fast, off spin, leg spin it is all entertaining. to sum it up his agrasive approach to cricket is entertaining. it ins't only shahid afridi. players like lara, tendulker, KP (i love watching this guy) , ricky pointing, Adam gilgrist, jaysuria and many other players who sorta of play aggrasive cricket like shahid afridi, they have conterbuted more to cricket than kallis and Dravid ever would. again it is my point of view u people can disagree with me but that is what i think. i love to see these guys bat becuase these players play risky, agrasive and they daminate the opposition's bowling line when they are in thier good forms. i mean they try new tachnics with thier bating while u would see kallis and Dravid bating the same way that u have seen them bating in thier pervious matches. the same shots, the same definse and so on.

 

[Prince EWS]

i have never said kallis and dravid are bad players. a player with average of over 50 in test and over 40 in one day would never be considered a bad player. what i was talking about is the style of thier bating. they are good batsman but they aren't entertaining to watch. i used to consider cricket the most boring game ever. i watched shahid afridi's fastest century against Sir Lanka that is when i started watching cricket. it isn't shahid afridi's bating only. when he bowles, the way he mixes his deliveries, bowling spin, fast, off spin, leg spin it is all entertaining. to sum it up his agrasive approach to cricket is entertaining. it ins't only shahid afridi. players like lara, tendulker, KP (i love watching this guy) , ricky pointing, Adam gilgrist, jaysuria and many other players who sorta of play aggrasive cricket like shahid afridi, they have conterbuted more to cricket than kallis and Dravid ever would. again it is my point of view u people can disagree with me but that is what i think. i love to see these guys bat becuase these players play risky, agrasive and they daminate the opposition's bowling line when they are in thier good forms. i mean they try new tachnics with thier bating while u would see kallis and Dravid bating the same way that u have seen them bating in thier pervious matches. the same shots, the same definse and so on.

Yeah, that's your opinion regarding what's entertaining and what's not. Personally, I disagree with all of it, but hey, you can think that if you wish - cricketing taste is seperate from cricketing understanding.

But even though you may enjoy Afridi as a player, you do have to realise that he's vastly inferior to the likes of Dravid, regardless of how entertaining you find him.

What really gets my goat though, is the comment "they have conterbuted more to cricket than kallis and Dravid ever would." That comment is just completely wrong IMO, and that's what "makes my cry" as I said.