• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Inzamam vs Hayden; Test Batting

Who was the better test batsman?


  • Total voters
    41
  • Poll closed .

hang on

State Vice-Captain
all else being equal being defined how, debris? records and performances will never be equal, surely.
 

Debris

International 12th Man
all else being equal being defined how, debris? records and performances will never be equal, surely.
Careers are similar enough that there is a lot of debate over who is better. My opinion is that openers are more valuable than middle-order batsmen unless the middle-order batsman is clearly better.
 

hang on

State Vice-Captain
Average is not everything, of course, and there are other ways to judge a batsman. In this case, though, I actually do rate Gavaskar a more valuable player if entire careers are considered.
fair enough. their averages were reasonably close and their careers coincided for the most part. in your estimation, is "more valuable" equivalent to "better"?
 

Debris

International 12th Man
Better is a really hard term to define. How do you actually judge that if not in value to the side? Richards was certainly more talented and had a higher peak. Also more fun to watch.
 

slowfinger

State Captain
I would term this on which country needed them more... So Inzy hands down, but Hayden is my favourite OZ player hands down.
 

Blaze 18

Banned
I would term this on which country needed them more... So Inzy hands down, but Hayden is my favourite OZ player hands down.
Zimbabwe needed Andy Flower more than Pakistan needed Inzy and Australia needed Hayden. Would you say he's better than both?
 

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
Zimbabwe needed Andy Flower more than Pakistan needed Inzy and Australia needed Hayden. Would you say he's better than both?
Umm, I am inclined to say so regardless. Anyone who averaged 50+ through the 1990s has to be a damn good test batsmen.
 

hang on

State Vice-Captain
Not sure about Flower averaging 50 plus in the 90s. Think he averaged less than 45.
 
Last edited:

hang on

State Vice-Captain
he did have an incredible couple of years after that, it is true. just checked....doubled his century count too!
 

Debris

International 12th Man
Oh yes, I was wrong about that. He must have had an awesome 2000 to finish with a career average of 51+ by the end of the year. Still inclined to rate him higher that Hayden and Inzamam.
You can actually go further than that. Andy Flower was more important to Zimbabwe than Sachin Tendulkar was to India, considering the number of other great batsmen India had at the same time. Don't think I would rate him more highly as a batsman than Tendulkar, though.
 

hang on

State Vice-Captain
Better is a really hard term to define. How do you actually judge that if not in value to the side? Richards was certainly more talented and had a higher peak. Also more fun to watch.
fair enough. though the value to the side argument makes it a little too relative in my humble.
 

shortpitched713

International Regular
Hayden. Much harder to replace than Inzamam. For Inzamam, even Pakistan had Younis Khan and Mohammad Yousuf already in the team. For Hayden, there has yet to be as great of an opener in Test cricket since he retired.
 

Top