Laxman vs. Inzamam

[Bublu Bhuyan]

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.

You didn't get it. Suppose Inzamam and Laxman both scores a century each in a Test match. It's very possible that the brilliant Pak bowling attack would win that match for their team, and thus that century by Inzamam would be counted in matches won (boosting his average in wins). In Laxman's case, it's entirely possible and likely that the bowlers would struggle to take wickets ultimately resulting the match to be drawn. That century of Laxman would ultimately be counted in drawn matches (not boosting his average in wins, for no fault of his).

[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'] Batting below 4 http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?batting_positionmin1=5;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 http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?batting_positionmin1=5;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=1500;qualval1=runs;team=140;team=6;team=7;template=results;type=batting http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?batting_positionmin1=5;batting_positionval1=batting_position;class=1;filter=advanced;home_or_away=2;opposition=1;opposition=140;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;orderby=batting_average;qualmin1=1500;qualval1=runs;team=140;team=6;team=7;template=results;type=batting Inzamam would have struggled to get into Indian side.

[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.

You don't get the point. Inzamam never scored against top side. So his country never won. So his average would be high than Laxman who scored against top side.

[Bublu Bhuyan]

Batting below 4 http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?batting_positionmin1=5;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 http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?batting_positionmin1=5;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=1500;qualval1=runs;team=140;team=6;team=7;template=results;type=batting http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?batting_positionmin1=5;batting_positionval1=batting_position;class=1;filter=advanced;home_or_away=2;opposition=1;opposition=140;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;orderby=batting_average;qualmin1=1500;qualval1=runs;team=140;team=6;team=7;template=results;type=batting Inzamam would have struggled to get into Indian side.

You make it sound as if they are pathetic stats. Sure Laxman comes out on top, but Inzamam doesn't have sub-par figures either.

[satyam1729]

You make it sound as if they are pathetic stats. Sure Laxman comes out on top' date=' but Inzamam doesn't have sub-par figures either.[/quote'] But he would have never made into Indian side. OK why was Sehwag dropped from Indian side ? He was averaging above 50 even then.

[S.Bond]

You didn't get it. Suppose Inzamam and Laxman both scores a century each in a Test match. It's very possible that the brilliant Pak bowling attack won that match for their team' date=' and thus that century by Inzamam would be counted in matches won (boosting his average in wins). In Laxman's case, it's entirely possible and likely that the bowlers would struggle to take wickets ultimately resulting the match to be drawn. That century of Laxman would ultimately be counted in drawn matches (not boosting his average in wins, for no fault of his).[/quote'] I kind of agree with you. But Laxman contemporaries in the Indian Team, Dravid, Tendulkar averages 67 in wins. Didin't check for viru but I am quite sure it will be even more. But you know that a lot of matches are draws because of flat tracks so scoring on them is easier.

[satyam1729]

I kind of agree with you. But Laxman contemporaries in the Indian Team, Dravid, Tendulkar averages 67 in wins. Didin't check for viru but I am quite sure it will be even more. But you know that a lot of matches are draws because of flat tracks so scoring on them is easier.

Most flat tracks are found in Pakistan.

[S.Bond]

You make it sound as if they are pathetic stats. Sure Laxman comes out on top' date=' but Inzamam doesn't have sub-par figures either.[/quote'] To make it clear, I think VVS Laxman is a very good batsman in the best format of the game. If you think he is better than Inzamam, it's ok. This threads was about Umar Akmal lol.

[S.Bond]

Most flat tracks are found in Pakistan.

:yay::yay: And for this observation : :hatsoff:

[S.Bond]

But he would have never made into Indian side. OK why was Sehwag dropped from Indian side ? He was averaging above 50 even then.

Let alone Indian side,indian had a great batting order, he would have strugled to make a bengali side.

[satyam1729]

To make it clear, I think VVS Laxman is a very good batsman in the best format of the game. If you think he is better than Inzamam, it's ok. This threads was about Umar Akmal lol.

Similarly i consider Inzamam a very good batsman. But i would never pick him in any World XI side.

[ZodiaC]

Ganguly was a far better ODI batsman than Dravid on any given day. Ganguly's specialty was ODI cricket' date=' while Dravid mastered the art of Test cricket.[/quote'] Thanks bro for speaking some sense, well known fact, dunno what satyam is trying to prove.

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

You were never in the picture, and came outta the blue, and started ROFLing at my post as if I made any pathetic-nonsensical comment. Now you are saying this? :--D Anyways, okay with me, peace.

[satyam1729]

Let alone Indian side' date='indian had a great batting order, he would have strugled to make a bengali side.[/quote'] Who you would have replaced him with. Your best bet is Ganguly.

[ZodiaC]

Most flat tracks are found in Pakistan.

I think most flat tracks are found in India, Pak pitches are more kinda bouncy fast tracks.

[S.Bond]

I think most flat tracks are found in India' date=' Pak pitches are more kinda bouncy fast tracks.[/quote'] I think their was no great difference in the last decade. Both were pathetic...

[satyam1729]

I think most flat tracks are found in India' date=' Pak pitches are more kinda bouncy fast tracks.[/quote'] Do you know how many triple centuries have been scored in Pak ?

[satyam1729]

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=host;opposition=1;opposition=140;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=6;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=team_average;spanmin1=02+jan+2000;spanval1=span;team=1;team=140;team=2;team=3;team=4;team=5;team=6;team=7;team=8;template=results;type=team See Pakistan tops the list.

[ZodiaC]

I think their was no great difference in the last decade. Both were pathetic...

Hmm, I Kinda agree..

Do you know how many triple centuries have been scored in Pak ?

See, a whole lot depends, as bond said, in the last decade both were equally pathetic.. But still i thought Pak pitches had some life compared to dead indian wickets. Maybe I'm wrong. And just coz Lara scored 400 and gayle 300 @ Windies it doesn't mean that all the tracks are flat.. Can't generalize like that..

[ZodiaC]

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=host;opposition=1;opposition=140;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=6;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=team_average;spanmin1=02+jan+2000;spanval1=span;team=1;team=140;team=2;team=3;team=4;team=5;team=6;team=7;team=8;template=results;type=team See Pakistan tops the list.

Ohh okay.. Thanks for the stats.. Plus the second least matches played.. So yeah gotta agree with you..

[The Outsider]

:hysterical::hysterical: Ganguly is better than Dravid and Pakistan produces hard, bouncy tracks! You, sir, are great! :adore: