Inzamam - horribly over-rated?

[Perm]

For consistencies sake then, you'd have to say Murali is overrated as he averages 36.50 (excluding WXI) against Australia, the best side in the world, an argument I don't care for tbh.

The thing is, other batsmen have performed better than Inzamam and have better records against the best teams. If somebody average a couple points lower over their career but 10-15 points higher against Australia and South Africa I'd seriously consider rating them above Inzamam. Nobody else has matched Muralitharan's profilic wicket-taking, which allows him the luxury of performing poorly against Australia without people questioning whether somebody is better.

 

[Goughy]

The thing is, other batsmen have performed better than Inzamam and have better records against the best teams. If somebody average a couple points lower over their career but 10-15 points higher against Australia and South Africa I'd seriously consider rating them above Inzamam.

See my thread on why that would actually cost their team victories rather than help them.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

Just about anybody can be "overrated." I think you need a better argument than his performances against Australia and South Africa.

 

[pasag]

The thing is, other batsmen have performed better than Inzamam and have better records against the best teams. If somebody average a couple points lower over their career but 10-15 points higher against Australia and South Africa I'd seriously consider rating them above Inzamam. Nobody else has matched Muralitharan's profilic wicket-taking, which allows him the luxury of performing poorly against Australia without people questioning whether somebody is better.

If you want to statistically compare two players, then I have no issue with saying one is superior to another, statistically, as he has a better average against better countries and the other doesn't. However I don't pay much attention to a batsmen being called overrated or questioning his quality because of some vague stat like the ones you've provided. If you'd like to then that's your prerogative.

 

[Pratters]

A test average of 49.60 suggests a very successful career, and that can't be denied. However a fair few members of this site seem to suggest that Inzamam was in the top-tier of Test batsmen we've had in the last 10 years, but was he really?

He has been the greatest Pakistani batsman since Miandad. To see how good Inzamam was as a batsman, watch how late he played against the fast bowlers and how much time he had. 49.60 justifies how his career has been according to me. He under achieved according to me. Was watching an interview of his conducted by Bhogle couple of days back and it was interesting to hear Inzamam say that he didn't do as well as he would have liked in his career. He could have been in the Dravid level but was just a bit shorter achievement wise. Talent wise, he was up there with the best. Even whatever he achieved (which is great), he wasn't over rated according to me. In fact a lot of people under rate him because of his lazy demeanour.

 

[shankar]

Quality cricketer and as he went so did Pakistan.

Very different to so many players as the 'when' he scored his runs (as discussed in another thread) was key.

He never wasted runs in a losing effort, he didnt boost his stats in bore draws.

What he did was capitalise in match winning situations and average an amazing 80 in games Pakistan won.

Was the player that was the most important in terms of success for his team in the last 20 years.

I rank him very highly as a player (captain less so, but thats another story)

I have a similar perception of Inzamam, but that statistic of average in won matches cannot be used as evidence for that. We don't know how many of the matches were actually lost by the time he made his contribution in them.

 

[shortpitched713]

A test average of 49.60 suggests a very successful career, and that can't be denied. However a fair few members of this site seem to suggest that Inzamam was in the top-tier of Test batsmen we've had in the last 10 years, but was he really?

He has extremely noticeable holes in his career against both Australia and South Africa, the two best sides during his Test career, while he consistently dominated weaker sides like Bangladesh and New Zealand. Surely for a bloke who played most of his cricket in Pakistan on fairly dead tracks, an average of 50 isn't as impressive as it normally would be? He doesn't deserve to be ranked alongside Kallis, Ponting, Dravid etc as the premier batsmen of this era and there are many, many other batsmen who can lay fair claims to being better Test batsmen than Inzamam.

Surely you wouldn't fault him for his series turning runs against Bangladesh? And throughout his career New Zealand was not as weak of a Test side as it is now.

You talk about an average of 50 on dead tracks, but this doesn't account for the fact that he scored a ridiculous amount for Pakistan in wins, nullifying the idea of him being any sort of FTB or inflating his average much. If anything his average of 49.60 underrates him greatly as he was a remarkable clutch performer, who's performances more often than not ensured the success or failure of his team.

 

[Migara]

The thing is, other batsmen have performed better than Inzamam and have better records against the best teams. If somebody average a couple points lower over their career but 10-15 points higher against Australia and South Africa I'd seriously consider rating them above Inzamam. Nobody else has matched Muralitharan's profilic wicket-taking, which allows him the luxury of performing poorly against Australia without people questioning whether somebody is better.

Quite wrong. The Saffies had great averages until they confronted with spin. I don't care any player to be remotely a legend even if he averages 100 in Austrailia and South Africa but fails miserably in the sub continent. Spin playing also one of the most important aspects of batting.

 

[nightprowler10]

Quality cricketer and as he went so did Pakistan.

Very different to so many players as the 'when' he scored his runs (as discussed in another thread) was key.

He never wasted runs in a losing effort, he didnt boost his stats in bore draws.

What he did was capitalise in match winning situations and average an amazing 80 in games Pakistan won.

Was the player that was the most important in terms of success for his team in the last 20 years.

I rank him very highly as a player (captain less so, but thats another story)

He has been the greatest Pakistani batsman since Miandad. To see how good Inzamam was as a batsman, watch how late he played against the fast bowlers and how much time he had. 49.60 justifies how his career has been according to me. He under achieved according to me. Was watching an interview of his conducted by Bhogle couple of days back and it was interesting to hear Inzamam say that he didn't do as well as he would have liked in his career. He could have been in the Dravid level but was just a bit shorter achievement wise. Talent wise, he was up there with the best. Even whatever he achieved (which is great), he wasn't over rated according to me. In fact a lot of people under rate him because of his lazy demeanour.

Yeah these two posts pretty much sum up my feelings about the topic.

 

[Top_Cat]

Nup, firmly in the Inzi camp on this one. Gutsy player and was definitely a case of the stats not telling the whole story in terms of when he scored heavily and his contribution to wins for Pakistan. Was a fan ever since I saw him in the 1992 WC spank the NZ'ers around.

 

[Migara]

Inzamam was good against most of the bowlers. But when he faced truely the great then he flopped.

See his stats in last 5 years of his career.

Aussies had Warne and McGrath. Averages 0.5 against AUS.
Saffies had Ntini and Pollock. Averages 35.5 against them
Sri Lanka has Muralidaran. Averages 41.1, but he made a century when Murali was not playing. Average when Murali was playing = 25.8

Against all other countries which did not possess a champion bowler (except India and Kumble) Inzi failed.

Inzi is a very good batsman, a great pressure player (in ODIs), but in my book not a legend

 

[Beleg]

Aussies had Warne and McGrath. Averages 0.5 against AUS.

Umm - an innings in a match where he was clearly injured and should NOT have played.

For what it's worth, he spanked a better Australian attack (including both of these stalwarts) for a century which almost bought Pakistan a win. (1999/00). And he stole a game from Warne's jaws in 1994.

Inzimam is the best player of Muralitharan I have ever seen. Better than Lara, better than anybody you care to name. In 2000, Muralitharan was routinely routing the Pakistani batting line-ups, and Inzamam was the only person who looked at ease against him - culminating in some of the best attacking shots I have seen in a pressure situation.

The Sri Lankan bowler who actually troubled him the most was Vaas. Inzamam had the tendency of falling over while negotiating balls pitched on off-middle and coming in. Vaas, along with several others, exploited this on many occasions - resulting in an abundance of LBW dismissals, comparatively speaking.

 

[silentstriker]

Hell no. Excellent batsman.

 

[Richard]

Umm - an innings in a match where he was clearly injured and should NOT have played.

Absolutely. Amazing how much that influences the perception of him against Australia.

 

[sledger]

tbh I'd say he was slightly overated, but not as grossly as has been suggested here.

 

[Beleg]

I don't think it's possible to over-rate Inzamam's impact on Pakistani cricket. He, along with Wasim and Miandad, are the three figures who stand heads and shoulders above the rest as far as stature is concerned, during the last thirty years.

As a batsman, he definitely under-performed. Even so, he scored 17 centuries and 20 fifties in almost 50 wins averaging 78 against all countries. That's 37 fifty+ scores in 76 innings.

http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru...lass=1;result=1;template=results;type=batting

How can he be over-rated after that sort of performance?

 

[sledger]

Mohammed Yusuf for me was always the better player, and generally a better athlete all round.

 

[Beleg]

Mohammed Yusuf for me was always the better player, and generally a better athlete all round.

The only thing Yousuf is better at is playing a more graceful sweep shot.

 

[sledger]

and running, and fielding.

 

[Richard]

Na, Yousuf's far from an outstanding fielder.