Ashraful can walk into the Indian lineup

[The Outsider]

Shehezada is spot on! If you look at the stats of games won Inzi averages 78 and that's excluding BAN...among the current batsman no one other than Dravid(average of 76) comes close.

MP, average in matches won is not a very accurate gauge of a batsman's abilities because so many other factors come into play. Having said that, there is no denying the value Inzamam has brought to the Pakistan batting lineup.

[Shehezaada]

MP' date=' average in matches won is not a very accurate gauge of a batsman's abilities because so many other factors come into play. Having said that, there is no denying the value Inzamam has brought to the Pakistan batting lineup.[/quote'] very good point, though MP is not one of them, I hate when people try to say that Inzy is better then Tendulkar because his average is more in won matches

[MundaPakistani]

MP' date=' a[b']verage in matches won is not a very accurate gauge of a batsman's abilities because so many other factors come into play. .

Why do you say that? it may not be THE only way to judge a batsman's accomplishment but it's certainly ONE of the most important factors to consider.

[Zap_Brannigan]

Its not an important factor at all......It just a stupid parameter that only inzi supporters show...what happened to all his 0's in Australia when pak lost? Tell me inzis average when pak loses? This particular parameter is so stupid that i am not even goin to explain y........hope you think before u say the stats again.

[The Outsider]

^ Basically speaking, averages in matches won indicates how much a team is dependent on a particular batsman. There is no denying Inzamam's importance to Pakistan as I previously stated but he was one of the very important run scoring devices of Pakistan. Guys like Ponting, Hayden, Gilchrist etc. wont have a very high average in matches won compared to Inzamam because they would win regardless whether they scored high or not on the back of others' batting and their bowling, which was Pakistan;s strength as well.

[Zap_Brannigan]

Even the dependency is true only if hes a lone star in a bad team,but inzi has played most of his career with players like waqar,akram and the likes. Except the last 4 years, Inzi has been a part of decent to good teams. So the team wasn't exactly dependent on him,which makes the 78 even more completely ridiculous measurement of inzis quality. I averaged around 70 in games won in the last trny i played in.But i made only around 100 runs in the 5 games i played in. So a great avg of 70( in 25 over games) in matches won but a mediocre 20 total. So am i a great or just decent?If i am names Inzi,atleast pak supporters will tell me i am a great batsman.

[MundaPakistani]

Its not an important factor at all......It just a stupid parameter that only inzi supporters show...what happened to all his 0's in Australia when pak lost? Tell me inzis average when pak loses? This particular parameter is so stupid that i am not even goin to explain y........hope you think before u say the stats again.

Why are you getting mad bhai?

Even the dependency is true only if hes a lone star in a bad team' date=but inzi has played most of his career with players like waqar,akram and the likes. Except the last 4 years, Inzi has been a part of decent to good teams. So the team wasn't exactly dependent on him,which makes the 78 even more completely ridiculous measurement of inzis quality. I averaged around 70 in games won in the last trny i played in.But i made only around 100 runs in the 5 games i played in. So a great avg of 70( in 25 over games) in matches won but a mediocre 20 total. So am i a great or just decent?If i am names Inzi,atleast pak supporters will tell me i am a great batsman.

When you play with great bowlers like the 2 Ws you expect them to 'bail' the batsmen out and take the team to a win even when the batsmen fail hence we can assume that on many occasions PAK won even when Inzi failed so that right there makes it even more incredible on how he was still able to maintain an average of 78 in games won.

[Donny]

Inzamam-ul-Ashraful ?

[Zap_Brannigan]

Or it could also mean that 2Ws always did a good job and all inzi need to do was get 30-40 in a no pressure situation and stay not out.... It doesnt even matter what the 78 means.....i am saying that the criteria is itself stupid.I mean very stupid. When you are part of a team, you are expected to score good in,lets say 15 of the 50 games you play,its not 5 out of the 25 games you win in those 50. Forget the explanation, take a look at my stats i posted in the previous post,tell me whether i had a great trny or was i not tht good?

[MundaPakistani]

Forget the explanation, take a look at my stats i posted in the previous post,tell me whether i had a great trny or was i not tht good?

If taking your team to a win means something then Inzi is second to none in that category how ever that doesn't automatically put him on par with Lara, Sachin or Ponting.

[MundaPakistani]

Inzamam-ul-Ashraful ?

:giggle: it's actually Inzamam ul Hulk

[Zap_Brannigan]

If taking your team to a win means something then Inzi is second to none in that category how ever that doesn't automatically put him on par with Lara' date=' Sachin or Ponting.[/quote'] So you are saying that i had a great tournament even when i failed in most of the games in the trny and my team failed to make the cut. And i was also much better than the guy who scored 300 runs in 7 games to win the trny for his team but averaged around 40 in games won(which was all the games they played). Besides if you are saying that Inzi took his team to victory due to his 78 avg,then i suppose he also took his team to defeats when he didnt score,which happened more often than not.

[MundaPakistani]

So you are saying that i had a great tournament even when i failed in most of the games in the trny and my team failed to make the cut. And i was also much better than the guy who scored 300 runs in 7 games to win the trny for his team but averaged around 40 in games won(which was all the games they played). Besides if you are saying that Inzi took his team to victory due to his 78 avg,then i suppose he also took his team to defeats when he didnt score,which happened more often than not.

Why are trying to come up with your own stats when the stats about his batting are already available...you can quickly glance through the matches that he consistently won for PAK and come up with your analysis after you have looked at the 'real' stats. Besides i think most teams would prefer a batsman to score runs in a winning cause than to have more than half of his career runs spent in loses. Truly great batsmen should have contributions in a team's famous wins rather than scoring a bucket full of runs in defeats how ever i repeat that average in matches won is not the one and only factor to judge a batsman's accomplishment.

[Holysmoke]

nah, thats like having someone like afridi ... when he scores, he scores big, and fast, and you end up winning... but otherwise? even someone like him would have a good average in games won... bear in mind that afridi is a different case.. he scores 1 in 10 games... and pakistan wins 4 out of ten games.. so he's not exactly the perfect person.. but you get my point...

[MundaPakistani]

nah, thats like having someone like afridi ... when he scores, he scores big, and fast, and you end up winning... but otherwise? even someone like him would have a good average in games won... bear in mind that afridi is a different case.. he scores 1 in 10 games... and pakistan wins 4 out of ten games.. so he's not exactly the perfect person.. but you get my point...

No actually Afridi doesn't have a very good average in games won because PAK don't rely on him to score runs(i hope we never have to) so even in wins he has a lot of low scores.

[CC1981]

Why do you say that? it may not be THE only way to judge a batsman's accomplishment but it's certainly ONE of the most important factors to consider.

It is a bullsheet factor. Simply because you averaging 150 in a win when your team wins 1 out of 10 matches and getting a string of zeroes when they lose show your incompetence more than anything else. All it shows is how important the batsman is to his team, not how good a batsman is. A Dinesh Mongia or Abdul Razzaq would be more important batsman to the team than Tendulkar is to Indian lineup if Razzaq and Mongia showed up for a highschool team.

[Guest dada_rocks]

It is a bullsheet factor. Simply because you averaging 150 in a win when your team wins 1 out of 10 matches and getting a string of zeroes when they lose show your incompetence more than anything else. All it shows is how important the batsman is to his team, not how good a batsman is. A Dinesh Mongia or Abdul Razzaq would be more important batsman to the team than Tendulkar is to Indian lineup if Razzaq and Mongia showed up for a highschool team.

:thumbs_up: Main ga ga ke thak gaya hun ye kahani

[The Outsider]

Besides i think most teams would prefer a batsman to score runs in a winning cause than to have more than half of his career runs spent in loses.

The only problem is that of causality here ie. a batsman does not know how others will bat or bowl in advance while he is scoring the runs.

[MundaPakistani]

It is a bullsheet factor. Simply because you averaging 150 in a win when your team wins 1 out of 10 matches and getting a string of zeroes when they lose show your incompetence more than anything else. All it shows is how important the batsman is to his team, not how good a batsman is. A Dinesh Mongia or Abdul Razzaq would be more important batsman to the team than Tendulkar is to Indian lineup if Razzaq and Mongia showed up for a highschool team.

like i was saying to Zap why are you trying to come up with hypothetical stats when the real stats are already available? why dont you look at the actual stats and then come up with your analysis?

[CC1981]

like i was saying to Zap why are you trying to come up with hypothetical stats when the real stats are already available? why dont you look at the actual stats and then come up with your analysis?

Because the hypothetical demonstrates my point just as well as real stats would and saves a lot more time. Fact remains - all this 'average in victory/loss/draw' shows how valuable you are to your team- which is entirely different from how good a player you are in empirical reality. So it is not even a factor in evaluating how good players are. Not to mention, if you are a part of a world-beating team and your team wins 60-70 % matches plus you play 100-ish matches, your averages in wins will taper down compared to someone who's team wins 10% of the time and is over-reliant on that person's batting/bowling. All it means is that the team is over-reliant on you and your good days/bad days dictate your team's performance. not how many good days or bad days you have or how often you have them- which is a far more logical benchmark in evaluating how player X is compared to player Y.