***Official*** IPL 2009

[Jono]

In the period 2003-2007, the period you picked out as Dravid's peak, 10 batsmen who played more than 50 ODIs averaged more than Dravid, and- this is the clincher- every single one of them scored at a better strike rate. If that doesn't change your mind, i'm afraid I'll have to accept your mind is set.

In case you're interested, those batsmen are:

Mike Hussey, Jacques Kallis, MS Dhoni, Matthew Hayden, Ricky Ponting, Inzamam Ul-Haq, Michael Clarke, Andrew Symonds, Sachin Tendulkar and Kumar Sangakkara.

Those averaging under five runs less, but with a much superior strike rate, include Graeme Smith, Chris Gayle, Marcus Trescothick, Adam Gilchrist, Sanath Jayasuriya and- perhaps most surprisingly- Andrew Flintoff. There's not a player on that list that I wouldn't prefer in my ODI team to Dravid.

Source.

To be fair, I said he was top 10 ODI batsmen in 2006, not from 2003-2007. Fair enough though.

You could never convince me that Trescothick was a better ODI batsmen than Dravid in that period though.

I have no problem admitting Dravid will not go down as a ODI great. But I think you seriously underrate the difference between a 44 average and a 39, to group Kallis and Yousuf in that bracket as "slow/bat through innings" batsmen who aren't that valuable.

 

[Cruxdude]

I expected him to average more too tbh.

Players like Inzamam, Dravid, Kallis, Yousuf aren't worth half as much as most believe IMO- and Dravid has the worst record out of any of them.

I believe Inzi is a brilliant one day international batsman. One of his great innings in an ODI was the Karachi ODI against ndia where he shepherded the chase brilliantly and they ended up scoring 344 after being around 70/2 in 17 overs. This was not a one-off and he was a brilliant batsman. Coming from an Indian this is very high praise too

 

[Xuhaib]

There isn't any doubt.

Tendulkar is the greatest ever ODI batsman. Of all the other batsmen who have played the game, only Viv Richards and to a far lesser extent Michael Bevan, have a serious claim to that title.

Dhoni.

 

[Beleg]

I believe Inzi is a brilliant one day international batsman. One of his great innings in an ODI was the Karachi ODI against ndia where he shepherded the chase brilliantly and they ended up scoring 344 after being around 70/2 in 17 overs. This was not a one-off and he was a brilliant batsman. Coming from an Indian this is very high praise too

Seconded. Inzamam possessed the rare ability to change the tempo of the game at will. It's hard to argue against his performances.

 

[Uppercut]

I believe Inzi is a brilliant one day international batsman. One of his great innings in an ODI was the Karachi ODI against ndia where he shepherded the chase brilliantly and they ended up scoring 344 after being around 70/2 in 17 overs. This was not a one-off and he was a brilliant batsman. Coming from an Indian this is very high praise too

Seconded. Inzamam possessed the rare ability to change the tempo of the game at will. It's hard to argue against his performances.

Inzamam lost Pakistan matches too though. Innings like 101 off 121 in a 40 over match, 59 off 86, 85 off 116 are often counter-productive. In some cases you could even go as far to say the team would have been better off with 10 batsmen.

Inzy's not too bad really- Dravid is probably the worst I've seen for losing matches by batting too slowly- but the idea of someone having a negative impact on his side's chances really puts me off them as players.

 

[Athlai]

I101 off 121 i

What the... he scored half his teams runs and faced half the balls at a good strike rate Raja obviously was the disappointing one there. Inzi even got Player of the Match in this one.

In all these instances Pakistan entirely collapsed and Inzamam rebuilt the whole innings while still batting at a very decent nick.

 

[Beleg]

Inzamam lost Pakistan matches too though. Innings like 101 off 121 in a 40 over match, 59 off 86, 85 off 116 are often counter-productive. In some cases you could even go as far to say the team would have been better off with 10 batsmen.

This is one of the more bizzarre statements I've read in a long time. In the game against Sri Lanka, he scored at a strike-rate of over eighty while Raja was pottering along at sixty. He kept the innings moving at a steady pace considering the strike-rate of his fellow opener. The innings was played in an ODI in 1992 against Sri Lanka with Imran Khan as a captain. Inzamam's innings was considered superlative enough that he was chosen the man of the match despite being on the losing side. Pakistan would have been licking their lips after forty overs. To hold him liable for a loss resulting from a bowling failure is patently absurd.

In the game against South Africa, Pakistan had lost their first four wickets for a grand total of nine runs chasing 271. Most people had given up any hope of winning the game by then. If it weren't for Inzamam, Pakistan would have been bundled out for around 150 in another humilating defeat. In front of the home crowd, under the lights facing a world class bowling line-up, he produced an innings which brought Pakistan within striking distance of the target. I can't think of any Pakistani batsman, with the exception of Miandad, who could have played the innings Inzamam did. He preserved his wicket, rotated the strike and scored at a reasonable clip against an opposition with their backs up in helpful conditions.

The 59 against australia in front of his home crowd was a perfectly fine innings in context of the game situation. Pakistan had lost two early wicket and they were in the process of negotiating the front line bowlers and early morning seam. The philosophy in the mid 90's was to preserve the wickets through the middle overs before accelerating in the last ten.
Unfortunately, Inzamam was run-out later on but by keeping his wicket intact and scoring at 4 runs an over he provided Pakistan with an ideal platform to launch - the lower order just failed to capitalise on it. Take his contribution away and the team would have fallen down like a pack of cards.

Inzy's not too bad really- Dravid is probably the worst I've seen for losing matches by batting too slowly- but the idea of someone having a negative impact on his side's chances really puts me off them as players.

I don't think you've seen enough of Inzamam's batting. I consider Dravid and extremely good batsman, but Inzamam was a totally different type of player. At different times in his career, he played the anchor role, took the fight to the opposition and became the mainstay around which the Pakistani batting line-up organised itself. He was as selfless a batsman as I've ever seen.

ODI cricket in the 90's was VERY different in terms of prevailing tactics and cricketing styles. Players had to play in line with the team strategy, and the best batsman in the team was expected to preserve his wicket at all costs - this is true of Pakistan in particular and other cricketing nations in general.

 

[Uppercut]

ODI cricket in the 90's was VERY different in terms of prevailing tactics and cricketing styles. Players had to play in line with the team strategy, and the best batsman in the team was expected to preserve his wicket at all costs - this is true of Pakistan in particular and other cricketing nations in general.

I think you're taking my criticisms of Inzy as too much of an attack on the player. It's this particular tactic, used extensively during the 90s but seemingly going out of fashion, that i don't agree with. If i were to have one criticism of him it would be that he too often got out for a half-century when trying to bat through.

You make a few good points though. He's not really as good an example as Dravid in any case.

 

[Uppercut]

What the... he scored half his teams runs and faced half the balls at a good strike rate Raja obviously was the disappointing one there. Inzi even got Player of the Match in this one.

In all these instances Pakistan entirely collapsed and Inzamam rebuilt the whole innings while still batting at a very decent nick.

Raja was even worse, but a strike rate of 80 in a 40-over match is pretty inadequate anyway, even for that era. Pakistan hardly "entirely collapsed" in that innings considering Inzy and Raja opened. You can't go backs-to-the-wall before even losing a wicket.

It's fair enough when he's batting at 5 and rebuilding, but even then you have to look at other players who do the same job. IMO it's been recognised that a sensible but positive player like Dhoni or Hussey is much more useful than the "anchor man" of Inzy and teams have slowly adapted to that as a result.

 

[Beleg]

Raja was even worse, but a strike rate of 80 in a 40-over match is pretty inadequate anyway, even for that era.

No, it is not. For starters, the 'adequacy' of a strike-rate is determined by opposition bowling quality, pitch/match conditions and driven by the needs of the team.
Secondly, batting first and opening the innings, a strike rate of eighty over the course of a hundred runs was considered superlative enough to accord him the honour of the man of the match. Forty over games weren't considered any different from fifty over ones and were a function of the limited daylight available in Pakistan during the winter months.

It's fair enough when he's batting at 5 and rebuilding, but even then you have to look at other players who do the same job. IMO it's been recognised that a sensible but positive player like Dhoni or Hussey is much more useful than the "anchor man" of Inzy and teams have slowly adapted to that as a result.

I disagree. A player like Inzamam is inherently more useful simply because he has the technical ability and the required mental skills to negotiate a wider variety of circumstances.

Players like Dhoni (I haven't seen enough of Hussey to comment) are limited (to an extent) in the role they can successfully play and are very much the product of their times/teams. Dhoni is an extremely effective ODI batsman for the Indian team in the modern era because his batting style is suited to the types of pitches on offer, the strategies common in today's game and the bowling he's facing. Inzamam's biggest virtue was his ability to adapt his game to the situation and pull his team through, either by dint of an anchorman's role or by pummelling the opposition to subjugation. Or both.
Funnily enough, the three innings you highlighted serve as perfect examples of how he accomplished what his team wanted of him.

I daresay, and I don't mean it as a slight to Dhoni, if Dhoni had to carry the team like Inzamam did, or play in the circumstances/pitches he played on, he certainly wouldn't be as successful as he currently is. Inzamam's change of gears was something every Pakistani fan looked forward to while we were batting. (the 92 world cup semi-final/final being the most obvious examples)

I think the anchorman role was certainly a far more difficult and skillful job than biffing a few around the park for a few overs. There's a reason why so few batsmen were successful at it. You had to be able to change gears at will, negotiate great bowling, tricky pitches and preserve your wicket to provide the lower order whackers the required leverage to go bonkers. This was pretty much the standard Pakistani policy: win the toss, bat first - hope Saeed hits off and Inzamam negotiates the middle overs, put a modest/good total on board and defend it (often successfully - specially when the two W's and Saqlain were on form).

re: inzy's conversion rate - ultimately, I'll put that down to his selflessness and his tendency to put the team before him. A half century, by the way, is a more than useful contribution in a ODI match. It usually ensured that the Pakistanis crossed the two hundred mark - anything over and the supporters generally fancied the team's chances.

PS: Inzamam's 93 scores of 50+ over 350 innings is a hell of a lot of important contribution. In test matches, he averages over 77 (IIRC) in 40+ games Pakistan won. That's a huge sample size and this particular statistic serves to underscore his reputation as one of the biggest match winners of his generation.

 

[Smith]

Inzamam lost Pakistan matches too though. Innings like 101 off 121 in a 40 over match, 59 off 86, 85 off 116 are often counter-productive. In some cases you could even go as far to say the team would have been better off with 10 batsmen.

Inzy's not too bad really- Dravid is probably the worst I've seen for losing matches by batting too slowly- but the idea of someone having a negative impact on his side's chances really puts me off them as players.

Reasonable argument but poor choice of examples. Especially the 85(116), he rebuilt the innings from 9 for 4 and yet Pakistan lost only by 9 runs chasing 272. Also the other innings you listed belong to the early 90s period, when a SR of 75 was considered very good.

 

[Smith]

Raja was even worse, but a strike rate of 80 in a 40-over match is pretty inadequate anyway, even for that era. Pakistan hardly "entirely collapsed" in that innings considering Inzy and Raja opened. You can't go backs-to-the-wall before even losing a wicket.

It's fair enough when he's batting at 5 and rebuilding, but even then you have to look at other players who do the same job. IMO it's been recognised that a sensible but positive player like Dhoni or Hussey is much more useful than the "anchor man" of Inzy and teams have slowly adapted to that as a result.

In that comparison, you completely ignore the difference of more than a decade, during which the complexion of ODIs have changed completely.

From 1990-1995, the average SR of a batsman in ODIs was 66.67

From 1995-2000, the average SR jumped to 71.71

From 2000-2005, there was another jump to 72.80

Since 2005, the average SR is 76.72.

So from the first half of 90s to second half of 00s, there has been a quantum jump in SR by over 10 points (I think even more it will be if the minnow nations were ignored).

So it is a bit like comparing apples to oranges. Had Inzy been born 10 years later, and with the same skill sets, he'd been performing much like a Hussey or a Dhoni. I doubt you are making these claims without having closely followed Inzy over his career, which I was fortunate to. He was all class, and hardly slogged, yet did the job.

Edit : For more homogeneity of data compared, I decided to restrict the analysis to only the 10 test teams. The SR for every 5-yr period since 90 is as follows;

90-94 - 66.76

95-99 - 72.03

00-04 - 73.10

05-date - 77.47

 

[Uppercut]

In that comparison, you completely ignore the difference of more than a decade, during which the complexion of ODIs have changed completely.

From 1990-1995, the average SR of a batsman in ODIs was 66.67

From 1995-2000, the average SR jumped to 71.71

From 2000-2005, there was another jump to 72.80

Since 2005, the average SR is 76.72.

So from the first half of 90s to second half of 00s, there has been a quantum jump in SR by over 10 points (I think even more it will be if the minnow nations were ignored).

So it is a bit like comparing apples to oranges. Had Inzy been born 10 years later, and with the same skill sets, he'd been performing much like a Hussey or a Dhoni. I doubt you are making these claims without having closely followed Inzy over his career, which I was fortunate to. He was all class, and hardly slogged, yet did the job.

I quite liked Inzy, truth be told. I'm not sure how he was the man that i got picked up on for mentioning.

Anyway, i think the recent improvements in strike rate is to do with the general recognition of the fact that an anchor man is not normally a useful role at this level of ODI cricket.

 

[Smith]

I quite liked Inzy, truth be told. I'm not sure how he was the man that i got picked up on for mentioning.

Anyway, i think the recent improvements in strike rate is to do with the general recognition of the fact that an anchor man is not normally a useful role at this level of ODI cricket.

The reasons could be anything from perceptions, to pitches, to conditions, to equipment etc. Inzy deserves praise for what he did to Pakistani team during the 1990s and I don't think many players would have done a better job than what he did at that time. I am just pointing out that it is not a realistic comparison when you judge them on the basis of just SRs across eras.

Sometimes, the SRs are inflated plainly because the batsmen today are under more pressure to score fast than in the 90s, simply because they are chasing better totals than they used to in the 90s. I feel it is a bit like comparing the annual financial statements of Sony in 1990 to that of Apple in 2008. It makes no sense. Nothing personal at you, though.

 

[Uppercut]

The reasons could be anything from perceptions, to pitches, to conditions, to equipment etc. Inzy deserves praise for what he did to Pakistani team during the 1990s and I don't think many players would have done a better job than what he did at that time. I am just pointing out that it is not a realistic comparison when you judge them on the basis of just SRs across eras.

Sometimes, the SRs are inflated plainly because the batsmen today are under more pressure to score fast than in the 90s, simply because they are chasing better totals than they used to in the 90s. I feel it is a bit like comparing the annual financial statements of Sony in 1990 to that of Apple in 2008. It makes no sense. Nothing personal at you, though.

I wasn't meaning to criticise Inzy. He was merely the victim of a poor tactic that was used in the nineties- it's the tactic I'm being critical of.

Anyway, the bolded bit doesn't really make sense to me? They're scoring faster because they're chasing bigger totals? Surely the bigger totals are the result of faster scoring?

 

[Beleg]

I wasn't meaning to criticise Inzy. He was merely the victim of a poor tactic that was used in the nineties- it's the tactic I'm being critical of.

Anyway, the bolded bit doesn't really make sense to me? They're scoring faster because they're chasing bigger totals? Surely the bigger totals are the result of faster scoring?

The tactic didn't work in isolation though. It developed, at least partly, in response to the pitch and playing conditions of the era. I understand that you are critical of the 'see-the-middle-overs-through-and-hedge-your-bets' mentality, however, for that particular era, it was often the best policy.

 

[Jono]

Inzy's not too bad really- Dravid is probably the worst I've seen for losing matches by batting too slowly- but the idea of someone having a negative impact on his side's chances really puts me off them as players.

Curious to see your examples where Rahul solely lost matches.

 

[Smith]

I wasn't meaning to criticise Inzy. He was merely the victim of a poor tactic that was used in the nineties- it's the tactic I'm being critical of.

Anyway, the bolded bit doesn't really make sense to me? They're scoring faster because they're chasing bigger totals? Surely the bigger totals are the result of faster scoring?

When you are 4 down for 9 these days also, batsmen tend to do exactly the same as Inzy did then. It is to Inzy's credit that he sometimes singlehandedly orchests great escapes for Pakistan out of seemingly impossible situations even during those days.

I get your point though. I am not sure whether we can call them exactly "victims" because such cricket suits that age and style. That's precisely why I am willing to bet my best shoe that Inzy will be a great ODI player if he plays today.

You are true to some extent in contending that bigger chases were due to bigger targets set. But the sentiment of the 90s and preceding eras is that once you score around 250+, the match is as good as lost. There is no impetus to chase it down. But that is not the case today. Even 400+ targets are chased down and 300 is no more safe by any means.

 

[Jono]

85 off 116 are often counter-productive. In some cases you could even go as far to say the team would have been better off with 10 batsmen.

No offence meant here Uppercut, but its hard to take you seriously when you point to a match where Pakistan were 4-9, and say Pakistan would have been better with 10 batsmen, and no Inzy.

 

[Uppercut]

Examples?

Lots of examples. My personal favourite is the 33 off 86 balls setting a target for Pakistan. There's also 31 off 48 chasing 306, 54 off 96 setting a target, 47 off 57 chasing 359. The common feature is that India lost each match. In some of the matches he even top-scored, making him look like some kind of a lone ranger. I propose that a collapse is the inevitable result when someone lets the run rate rise so dramatically that following batsmen have to score at a run a ball to have any chance of making the total.