Laxman vs. Inzamam

[Bublu Bhuyan]

I am quite sure you are not rating Ijaz Ahmed more than Jacques Kallis? And also not rating Saeed Anwar as highly as his stats and his superb innings agaisnt the aussies suggest???

There's a huge gap in the overall career average between Ijaz Ahmed and Jacques Kallis. Likewise, there's a difference in career averages between Anwar and Tendulkar/Ponting. But the difference between Inzamam and Laxman in terms of career averages is not much, Inzamam - 49.60, Laxman - 46.64, and hence the conclusion of my statement.

Laxman is a god batsman, averages in the mid 40's, very good stats agaisnt aussies. He do scores heavely in draw matches, i think average over 60 in them, shows that he averages highly on very good batting tracks.

Regarding this issue, let's have a look at Laxman's and Inzamam's Test averages outside Asia (outside the sub-continent)- Laxman - 47.68 Inzamam - 42.98 Links: http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/30750.html?class=1;filter=advanced;host=1;host=2;host=3;host=4;host=5;orderby=default;template=results;type=batting http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/40570.html?class=1;filter=advanced;host=1;host=2;host=3;host=4;host=5;orderby=default;template=results;type=batting Please note, I'm not taking Zimbabwe into the equation. They were an extremely decent team till 2002, but including them would give these guys the advantage of playing against them since 2003/04 when they became a minnow. Inzamam's plus point would be that he did perform well when the chips were down. But then again Laxman too has been extremely good in that regard. Having said that, I won't go into much argument even if someone claims Inzamam to be better than Laxman because I think the gap between them is sort of minimal. If only Inzamam performed better against Australia and South Africa, and in Australia and South Africa, I would have certainly rated him much ahead of Laxman.

[satyam1729]

How is dravid exactly a better ODI Batsman than ganguly? His avg is better, s/r is better, and Dravid - 12 times scored a 100, India won 8 of them (66%), Ganguly 18/22 (81%).. Now how exactly is Dravid better than Dada in the ODIs?

Care to remove record against Kenya, Namibia, Zimbawe. And Ganguly SR would be better because he was opener.

[satyam1729]

There's a huge gap in the overall career average between Ijaz Ahmed and Jacques Kallis. Likewise' date=' there's a difference in career averages between Anwar and Tendulkar/Ponting. But the difference between Inzamam and Laxman in terms of career averages is not much, Inzamam - [b']49.60, Laxman - 46.64, and hence the conclusion of my statement. Regarding this issue, let's have a look at Laxman's and Inzamam's Test averages outside Asia (outside the sub-continent)- Laxman - 47.68 Inzamam - 42.98 Links: http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/30750.html?class=1;filter=advanced;host=1;host=2;host=3;host=4;host=5;orderby=default;template=results;type=batting http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/40570.html?class=1;filter=advanced;host=1;host=2;host=3;host=4;host=5;orderby=default;template=results;type=batting Please note, I'm not taking Zimbabwe into the equation. They were an extremely decent team till 2002, but including them would give these guys the advantage of playing against them since 2003/04 when they became a minnow.

Against OZ and SA http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;home_or_away=2;opposition=2;opposition=3;orderby=runs;team=6;team=7;template=results;type=batting Inzamam would have never made into this Indian side.

[S.Bond]

There's a huge gap in the overall career average between Ijaz Ahmed and Jacques Kallis. Likewise' date=' there's a difference in career averages between Anwar and Tendulkar/Ponting. But the difference between Inzamam and Laxman in terms of career averages is not much, Inzamam - [b']49.60, Laxman - 46.64, and hence the conclusion of my statement. Regarding this issue, let's have a look at Laxman's and Inzamam's Test averages outside Asia (outside the sub-continent)- Laxman - 47.68 Inzamam - 42.98 Links: http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/30750.html?class=1;filter=advanced;host=1;host=2;host=3;host=4;host=5;orderby=default;template=results;type=batting http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/40570.html?class=1;filter=advanced;host=1;host=2;host=3;host=4;host=5;orderby=default;template=results;type=batting Please note, I'm not taking Zimbabwe into the equation. They were an extremely decent team till 2002, but including them would give these guys the advantage of playing against them since 2003/04 when they became a minnow.

I hope you awnser post 247...

[satyam1729]

There's a huge gap in the overall career average between Ijaz Ahmed and Jacques Kallis. Likewise' date=' there's a difference in career averages between Anwar and Tendulkar/Ponting. But the difference between Inzamam and Laxman in terms of career averages is not much, Inzamam - [b']49.60, Laxman - 46.64, and hence the conclusion of my statement. Regarding this issue, let's have a look at Laxman's and Inzamam's Test averages outside Asia (outside the sub-continent)- Laxman - 47.68 Inzamam - 42.98 Links: http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/30750.html?class=1;filter=advanced;host=1;host=2;host=3;host=4;host=5;orderby=default;template=results;type=batting http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/40570.html?class=1;filter=advanced;host=1;host=2;host=3;host=4;host=5;orderby=default;template=results;type=batting Please note, I'm not taking Zimbabwe into the equation. They were an extremely decent team till 2002, but including them would give these guys the advantage of playing against them since 2003/04 when they became a minnow.

Laxman averages 50 as middle order batsman.

[satyam1729]

If you take only results match for both players (that mean without draw matches) Inzamam average 51, laxman's average goes down to 39. Laxman averages 45 agaisnt aussies in those matches and Inzamam averages 33.76 agaisnt aussies. Agaisnt all other countries inzamam surpasses Laxman.... Inzamam also surpass Laxman's average in every continent but Europe where laxman only played a total of 4 innings. Inzamam has got 19 centuries, laxman 7. Inzamam averages about 20 more in wins, inzamam averages more even in loses. Inzamam averages Largely more in 1st, 3 rd and 4th innings. Laxman averages more just in the second innings with 57 but even there Inzi averages 53. I think this comparaison is ridiculous. Inzamam is way wayyy ahead of Laxman.

Laxman comes at no.6 . So he has less chance of scoring centuries. Inzamam never scored against top sides. So he will always score more runs in win against England and NZ. Inzamam also skipped tour against OZ. So once again he boasted his average.

[S.Bond]

There's a huge gap in the overall career average between Ijaz Ahmed and Jacques Kallis. Likewise' date=' there's a difference in career averages between Anwar and Tendulkar/Ponting. But the difference between Inzamam and Laxman in terms of career averages is not much, Inzamam - [b']49.60, Laxman - 46.64, and hence the conclusion of my statement. Regarding this issue, let's have a look at Laxman's and Inzamam's Test averages outside Asia (outside the sub-continent)- Laxman - 47.68 Inzamam - 42.98 Links: http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/30750.html?class=1;filter=advanced;host=1;host=2;host=3;host=4;host=5;orderby=default;template=results;type=batting http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/40570.html?class=1;filter=advanced;host=1;host=2;host=3;host=4;host=5;orderby=default;template=results;type=batting Please note, I'm not taking Zimbabwe into the equation. They were an extremely decent team till 2002, but including them would give these guys the advantage of playing against them since 2003/04 when they became a minnow. Inzamam's plus point would be that he did perform well when the chips were down. But then again Laxman too has been extremely good in that regard. Having said that, I won't go into much argument even if someone claims Inzamam to be better than Laxman because I think the gap between them is sort of minimal. If only Inzamam performed better against Australia and South Africa, and in Australia and South Africa, I would have certainly rated him much ahead of Laxman.

I think stats vs aus, south africa are very important. But then it's not all. How do you rate dravid then??? Poor stats vs south africa, ok stats vs australia and boosted by just ONE match in wich the bowling attack was, bichel, williams, gillespie and mcgill.... (He still performed BRILLIANTLY) But i hope you know this attack is no better than and Indian pace attack... That's just to show you, you can't just take stats agaisnt Aus and South Africa to judge a player.

[satyam1729]

Laxman and Inzamam as middle order http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?batting_positionmin1=3;batting_positionval1=batting_position;class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=140;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=6;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=batting_average;qualmin1=3000;qualval1=runs;team=140;team=6;team=7;template=results;type=batting Laxman and Inzamam away from home http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?batting_positionmin1=3;batting_positionval1=batting_position;class=1;filter=advanced;home_or_away=2;opposition=1;opposition=140;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=6;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=batting_average;qualmin1=3000;qualval1=runs;team=140;team=6;team=7;template=results;type=batting Laxman is far better batsman than flat track bully Inzamam.

[Bublu Bhuyan]

If you take only results match for both players (that mean without draw matches) Inzamam average 51, laxman's average goes down to 39. Laxman averages 45 agaisnt aussies in those matches and Inzamam averages 33.76 agaisnt aussies. Agaisnt all other countries inzamam surpasses Laxman.... Inzamam also surpass Laxman's average in every continent but Europe where laxman only played a total of 4 innings. Inzamam has got 19 centuries, laxman 7. Inzamam averages about 20 more in wins, inzamam averages more even in loses. Inzamam averages Largely more in 1st, 3 rd and 4th innings. Laxman averages more just in the second innings with 57 but even there Inzi averages 53. I think this comparaison is ridiculous. Inzamam is way wayyy ahead of Laxman.

Not a fair comparison when you take into account their averages in wins, draws, etc simply because Inzamam played in a team with an excellent bowling attack while Laxman played in a team consisting of an extremely mediocre bowling attack. Unless your bowlers knock out the 20 opposition wickets, your team can't win a Test match. Inzamam's plus points would be that he has much more centuries than Laxman, this is an extremely valid point. Another plus point would be his superior 4th innings batting average compared to Laxman. This too is kind of a good point. Overall as I've said before, the gap is minimal. Inzamam has his own advantages with more centuries and a better 4th innings average, while Laxman counters it with magnificent performances against Australia and a superior average outside the sub-continent. P.S. I'm kind of skeptical now with my statement that Laxman is better, specially after taking into account Inzamam's 25 Test centuries compared with Laxman's 15 centuries, and Inzamam's superior 4th innings average. I didn't take into account these two factors earlier.

[satyam1729]

I think stats vs aus, south africa are very important. But then it's not all. How do you rate dravid then??? Poor stats vs south africa, ok stats vs australia and boosted by just ONE match in wich the bowling attack was, bichel, williams, gillespie and mcgill.... (He still performed BRILLIANTLY) But i hope you know this attack is no better than and Indian pace attack... That's just to show you, you can't just take stats agaisnt Aus and South Africa to judge a player.

That attaack of OZ would have murdered Pakistan 4-0. Muppet you can't handle Siddle , Hauritz and Hilfenaus and talking about Gillespie , Lee and Mcgill. :haha::hysterical:

[S.Bond]

Laxman comes at no.6 . So he has less chance of scoring centuries. Inzamam never scored against top sides. So he will always score more runs in win against England and NZ. Inzamam also skipped tour against OZ. So once again he boasted his average.

what's the logic there???

[Bublu Bhuyan]

Laxman and Inzamam as middle order http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?batting_positionmin1=3;batting_positionval1=batting_position;class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=140;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=6;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=batting_average;qualmin1=3000;qualval1=runs;team=140;team=6;team=7;template=results;type=batting Laxman and Inzamam away from home http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?batting_positionmin1=3;batting_positionval1=batting_position;class=1;filter=advanced;home_or_away=2;opposition=1;opposition=140;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=6;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=batting_average;qualmin1=3000;qualval1=runs;team=140;team=6;team=7;template=results;type=batting Laxman is far better batsman than flat track bully Inzamam.

That attaack of OZ would have murdered Pakistan 4-0. Muppet you can't handle Siddle ' date=' Hauritz and Hilfenaus and talking about Gillespie , Lee and Mcgill. :haha::hysterical:[/quote'] Can't you post without insulting players from other countries? Such distasteful comments.

[satyam1729]

I think stats vs aus, south africa are very important. But then it's not all. How do you rate dravid then??? Poor stats vs south africa, ok stats vs australia and boosted by just ONE match in wich the bowling attack was, bichel, williams, gillespie and mcgill.... (He still performed BRILLIANTLY) But i hope you know this attack is no better than and Indian pace attack... That's just to show you, you can't just take stats agaisnt Aus and South Africa to judge a player.

Not a fair comparison when you take into account their averages in wins, draws, etc simply because Inzamam played in a team with an excellent bowling attack while Laxman played in a team consisting of an extremely mediocre bowling attack. Unless your bowlers knock out the 20 opposition wickets, your team can't win a Test match. Inzamam's plus points would be that he has much more centuries than Laxman, this is an extremely valid point. Another plus point would be his superior 4th innings batting average compared to Laxman. This too is kind of a good point. Overall as I've said before, the gap is minimal. Inzamam has his own advantages with more centuries and a better 4th innings average, while Laxman counters it with magnificent performances against Australia and a superior average outside the sub-continent. P.S. I'm kind of skeptical now with my statement that Laxman is better, specially after taking into account Inzamam's 25 Test centuries compared with Laxman's 15 centuries, and Inzamam's superior 4th innings average. I didn't take into account these two factors earlier.

Laxman came at no.6 , Inzamam came at no.4. Inzamam can never play an innings like Laxman 's 281 or 167 against OZ.

[Bublu Bhuyan]

Laxman came at no.6 ' date=' Inzamam came at no.4. Inzamam can never play an innings like Laxman 's 281 or 167 against OZ.[/quote'] As I've said earlier, Laxman's plus point against Inzamam is his magnificent performances against Australia. BTW, there were many occasions when Inzamam came much below no.4. He even came at no.7 on occasions. During the later part of his career, he mostly batted below no.4 in test matches.

[ZodiaC]

Care to remove record against Kenya' date=' Namibia, Zimbawe. And Ganguly SR would be better because he was opener.[/quote'] Sure, then why don't we remove, UAE, Kenya from Dravid's list? :--D So still it's 72% vs 60% anyways :clap: Ohh yeah.. Being an opener might have given him some advantage, alright.. Still you didn't tell me how is dravid>ganguly in the ODIs? You were ROFL in the last page, innit? :finger:

[satyam1729]

As I've said earlier' date=' Laxman's plus point against Inzamam is his magnificent performances against Australia. BTW, there were many occasions when Inzamam came much below no.4. He even came at no.7 on occasions. During the later part of his career, he mostly batted below no.4 in test matches.[/quote'] How may century did Inzamam hit when he came below 4 position.?

[S.Bond]

Not a fair comparison when you take into account their averages in wins' date= draws, etc simply because Inzamam played in a team with an excellent bowling attack while Laxman played in a team consisting of an extremely mediocre bowling attack. Unless your bowlers knock out the 20 opposition wickets, your team can't win a Test match. Inzamam's plus points would be that he has much more centuries than Laxman, this is an extremely valid point. Another plus point would be his superior 4th innings batting average compared to Laxman. This too is kind of a good point. Overall as I've said before, the gap is minimal. Inzamam has his own advantages with more centuries and a better 4th innings average, while Laxman counters it with magnificent performances against Australia and a superior average outside the sub-continent. P.S. I'm kind of skeptical now with my statement that Laxman is better, specially after taking into account Inzamam's 25 Test centuries compared with Laxman's 15 centuries, and Inzamam's superior 4th innings average. I didn't take into account these two factors earlier.

Maybe you didn't read it well or i was not clear enough. the stas i posted are stats in wins and lost matches. That means result matches... I am not arhuing on the fact that inzamam has more wins than Laxman. The fact is that Inzamam averages 69 in wins, and laxman averages 50 in wins. This stat don't take into account te quality of bowling.

[Bublu Bhuyan]

Ganguly was a far better ODI batsman than Dravid on any given day. Ganguly's specialty was ODI cricket, while Dravid mastered the art of Test cricket.

[satyam1729]

Sure, then why don't we remove, UAE, Kenya from Dravid's list? :--D So still it's 72% vs 60% anyways :clap: Ohh yeah.. Being an opener might have given him some advantage, alright.. Still you didn't tell me how is dravid>ganguly in the ODIs? You were ROFL in the last page, innit? :finger:

Please some other time. Now it is Inzamam vs Laxman.

[satyam1729]

Maybe you didn't read it well or i was not clear enough. the stas i posted are stats in wins and lost matches. That means result matches... I am not arhuing on the fact that inzamam has more wins than Laxman. The fact is that Inzamam averages 69 in wins, and laxman averages 50 in wins. This stat don't take into account te quality of bowling.

The fact is Inzamam never won against top sides. So he will average more against bottom sides. Pakistan has won only 1 test series each against IND,OZ,SA in last 20 years.