Ashraful can walk into the Indian lineup

[Holysmoke]

yea.. all it shows is the teams over dependence on 1 player, and its incompetency without him.... doesnt mean the player is good wrt topic, bangla are overdependent on ashraful, but that doesnt make him a good player.. he is a crappy player as compared to top batsmen from sides the world over, but he is the only reasonable batsman in the whole bangla team.. the bangla team would be much much worse without him... doesnt mean that he is great...

[Guest dada_rocks]

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.

He is finding it hard to get perfectly well-enuncicated point made in CC's post which is that "the stat being brandished tells how important the batsman is for the team not how good he is in the absolute sense " and you are throwing words like causality. Good luck with getting the message through.

[MundaPakistani]

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.

I think that's an easy way out. Inzi played most of his games in a good team, a team that had high class bowlers like the Ws and Saqlain who would take their team to a win even when the batsmen failed so to maintain an average of close to 80 in wins while playing for that team is nothing short of an extraordinary accomplishment. Secondly while rating an innings how can a half century in a defeat or a high scoring draw earn the same number of points as a half century in a win? Do you think any one gives importance to all the mountains of runs that the batsmen scored in the first 2 test matches of the IND PAK series? compare that to Yousuf's 90 odd and half centuries by our openers in the final test and then tell me which was more important that 190 odd in a high score draw or that 90 odd in a win? (didn't mention Akmal's innings because it was an epic)

[CC1981]

Inzi played most of his games in a good team, a team that had high class bowlers like the Ws and Saqlain who would take their team to a win even when the batsmen failed so to maintain an average of close to 80 in wins while playing for that team is nothing short of an extraordinary accomplishment.

Having the two Ws and Saqqi is precisely the reason why Inzy's stats are so inflated in wins! Pakistan's weakness was its brittle batting order- their bowlers more or less delivered everytime the batters put up a score...so obviously, it means that when your best batsman scored big, your team won almost always. Again, a guage of how important that batsman is to your batting lineup, not how good he is in reality.

Secondly while rating an innings how can a half century in a defeat or a high scoring draw earn the same number of points as a half century in a win?

Simply because of the quality of the innings & who he batted againt and at what stage of the match counts for more than the match result- which a batsman DOES NOT KNOW when he goes out to bat and therefore is NOT a factor in his batting. As i said, what you are measuring is how important a batsman is to his team. Not how good that batsman is. If a team involving your grandma, my grandma, Dada_rocks' grandma and seven other grandmas took the field against an international team with the 11th player being Abdul Razzaq, it'd pretty much boil down to Razzaq doing something extraordinary for the team to win and if Razzaq fails, the team is bolloxed. In such a scenario, a batsman of Razzaq's quality will average far more in wins than even bradman..but it in no shape or form makes him a better batsman or even factors in the 'who is a better batsman' question.

[Dhondy]

A batsman is known by the quality of bowlers he has dominated. Through the length of his career, Inzy has played against only 8 bowlers who ended up with a career bowling average of under 25. Against such bowlers, he has played 79 innings, scored 3182 runs, and averaged 43.6. Compare that with Tendulkar, who has played against no less than 15 such bowlers, over 102 innings, scored 4394 runs, and averages 45.2. These stats were provided by the greatest ever statistician to walk this earth- our very own Bheembhai.

[MundaPakistani]

Having the two Ws and Saqqi is precisely the reason why Inzy's stats are so inflated in wins! Pakistan's weakness was its brittle batting order- their bowlers more or less delivered everytime the batters put up a score...so obviously' date=' it means that when your best batsman scored big, your team won almost always. Again, a guage of how important that batsman is to your batting lineup, not how good he is in reality.[/quote'] That's a valid point and I won't disagree with that but my original point about bowlers 'bailing' the batsmen out still stands and i can give you examples if you want.

Simply because of the quality of the innings & who he batted againt and at what stage of the match counts for more than the match result- which a batsman DOES NOT KNOW when he goes out to bat and therefore is NOT a factor in his batting. As i said, what you are measuring is how important a batsman is to his team. Not how good that batsman is. If a team involving your grandma, my grandma, Dada_rocks' grandma and seven other grandmas took the field against an international team with the 11th player being Abdul Razzaq, it'd pretty much boil down to Razzaq doing something extraordinary for the team to win and if Razzaq fails, the team is bolloxed. In such a scenario, a batsman of Razzaq's quality will average far more in wins than even bradman..but it in no shape or form makes him a better batsman or even factors in the 'who is a better batsman' question.

:hic: bhai that's another hypothetical example Inzi didn't play with grandmas he played on a fairly successful team..why do you think his team mates ie Saeed, Malik etc weren't any where near as successful as Inzi was.

[CC1981]

bhai that's another hypothetical example Inzi didn't play with grandmas he played on a fairly successful team..why do you think his team mates ie Saeed, Malik etc weren't any where near as successful as Inzi was.

Lets cut to the chase...do you agree or disagree with the point that ' average in wins/losses/draws' is not a guage for how good a batsman is but how important that batsman is to his team ?

[MundaPakistani]

Lets cut to the chase...do you agree or disagree with the point that ' average in wins/losses/draws' is not a guage for how good a batsman is but how important that batsman is to his team ?

It's just one of the several things that need to be considered while judging the overall performance of a batsman.

[Dhondy]

I think that's an easy way out. Inzi played most of his games in a good team, a team that had high class bowlers like the Ws and Saqlain who would take their team to a win even when the batsmen failed so to maintain an average of close to 80 in wins while playing for that team is nothing short of an extraordinary accomplishment.

Not really. He has had to work much harder in victories attained since the 2Ws retired. Before their retirement, he averaged 74.1 in wins. Since then, he has had to average a staggering 90.3 to pull his team through.

[MundaPakistani]

A batsman is known by the quality of bowlers he has dominated. Through the length of his career, Inzy has played against only 8 bowlers who ended up with a career bowling average of under 25. Against such bowlers, he has played 79 innings, scored 3182 runs, and averaged 43.6. Compare that with Tendulkar, who has played against no less than 15 such bowlers, over 102 innings, scored 4394 runs, and averages 45.2. These stats were provided by the greatest ever statistician to walk this earth- our very own Bheembhai.

interesting stats...i guess Inzi's performance against Walsh and Ambrose must have helped to get so close to Sachin.

[MundaPakistani]

Not really. He has had to work much harder in victories attained since the 2Ws retired. Before their retirement, he averaged 74.1 in wins. Since then, he has had to average a staggering 90.3 to pull his team through.

thanks D bhai..so i guess it's safe to say that Ws or no Ws Inzi continues to be a match winner.

[CC1981]

It's just one of the several things that need to be considered while judging the overall performance of a batsman.

You have not explained why. Anything to judge an overall performance of a batsman must be empiric in nature- the fact how important a batsman is to his team(which is what your statistics here measures) has literally zero relevance to how good the batsman actually is! that is what my example with 10 grandmas and Abdul Razzaq was designed to illustrate. Unless your measurement is to do with the quality of a batsman, it has no place in judging the overall performance of a batsman- your measurement doesnt measure quality in the least empiric sense- it just measures how important the batsman is to the team. I bet i will be more important than Tendulkar is if i played U-12 cricket today...and by your thinking, it should play 'some part' in rating me as a batsman opposed to Tendulkar..which i think is just poppycock.

[Dhondy]

interesting stats...i guess Inzi's performance against Walsh and Ambrose must have helped to get so close to Sachin.

Correct. In the 13 innings he has played against these two bowlers (A+W on 12 occasions, and 1 innings v W alone), he averages 61.7.

[gator]

can someone delete this thread.... it questions the credibility and knowledge of our posters... HTF will Ashraful penetrate a middle order which has Sachin/Dravid/Ganguly/Laxman.... each one is 10 times the batter, tht he is....

[Gambit]

MP, FYI Andy Flower averages 84 in Zim's wins which makes him a greater 'matchwinning' batsman. :fight:

[Gambit]

can someone delete this thread.... it questions the credibility and knowledge of our posters... HTF will Ashraful penetrate a middle order which has Sachin/Dravid/Ganguly/Laxman.... each one is 10 times the batter, tht he is....

I think it's time I explained the reasons behind such an explosive statement in the thread time. On the other hand, **** it. Let the debate rage on! :top:

[MundaPakistani]

MP' date=' FYI Andy Flower averages 84 in Zim's wins which makes him a greater 'matchwinning' batsman. :fight:[/quote'] aray bhai Inzi won 7 times as many test matches as Andy Flower ( 7 vs 49).

[MundaPakistani]

You have not explained why. Anything to judge an overall performance of a batsman must be empiric in nature- the fact how important a batsman is to his team(which is what your statistics here measures) has literally zero relevance to how good the batsman actually is! that is what my example with 10 grandmas and Abdul Razzaq was designed to illustrate. Unless your measurement is to do with the quality of a batsman, it has no place in judging the overall performance of a batsman- your measurement doesnt measure quality in the least empiric sense- it just measures how important the batsman is to the team. I bet i will be more important than Tendulkar is if i played U-12 cricket today...and by your thinking, it should play 'some part' in rating me as a batsman opposed to Tendulkar..which i think is just poppycock.

I have...by giving you the example of the last IND PAK series...i don't know why you keep bringing grandmas in because Inzi played on a succesful team which always had one other great batsman(Saeed and now Yousuf),several 'good' batsmen like Younis, Malik, Ijaz etc and great bowlers like the 2 Ws .

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[CC1981]

I have...by giving you the example of the last IND PAK series...i don't know why you keep bringing grandmas in because Inzi played on a succesful team which always had one other great batsman(Saeed and now Yousuf)' date='several 'good' batsmen like Younis, Malik, Ijaz etc and great bowlers like the 2 Ws .[/quote'] No, you have not stated why a matchwinning knock is in the equation to evaluate a batsman- a batsman does NOT go out to bat knowing it will be in a losing/drawing or wining cause- so by causality, your criteria is irrelevant. For two, Yousuf and Anwar were never great. For three, i have explained to you what you are measuring is the relative worth of a batsman to his team- NOT how good he/she is. I bring in the grandma example to demonstrate that having a better average in wins have NOTHING to do with how good a batsman you are - it has everything to do with how much your team relies on you. You could be a great batsman in a great team and your team relies on you far less than a decent batsman on a poor team. Your averages in matches won does not address this and as such, is irrelevant.