Where does Inzamam rank among Asia's batting greats?

[Migara]

I don't understand the denominator in both fractions, how did you get that?

That is number of players who have bowled and number of players who have batted respectively in all the test matches ever played

 

[wfdu_ben91]

I disagree.

The reason that there have been more 10fers then double centuries is because ball has dominated bat for the better part of a century which therefore leads to more bowlers that average in the low 20's compared to batsman averaging in the high 50's / low 60's.

Since January 1st, 1990, 138 double-centuries have been scored and 136 10fer's have been taken.

 

[Top_Cat]

The problem is that it's a massive statistical (hell, logical) leap to say that because there were a similar number of double tons vs 10-fers that they're equivalent. Aside from that, what criteria are you comparing them on to even have a look at whether they're equivalent?

 

[Athlai]

That is number of players who have bowled and number of players who have batted respectively in all the test matches ever played

What about a guy who bowls one over or a guy like Martin. Should just be specialists taken into account IMO.

 

[Athlai]

There have been 292 double centuries scored opposed to 372 10fers taken in test cricket.

372 / 37651 vs 282 / 68876, some stats noob could compare the proportions and come up with the t value. I am sure the difference is significant.

In the 2000s just counting the top 7 we get

96 doubles from 11549 innings (885 NOs)

and just counting the first 4 bowlers we get

81 10fers (but that'd be 162 innings bowled) from 6843 bowling spells

Still don't like the comparison considering bowling and batting are so very very different. Have always personally thought 10 wickets more special than a double. The above figures of course show exactly the same amount of matches and doubles are slightly more common in that context.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

The problem is that it's a massive statistical (hell, logical) leap to say that because there were a similar number of double tons vs 10-fers that they're equivalent. Aside from that, what criteria are you comparing them on to even have a look at whether they're equivalent?

Well, it's pretty simple. When a bowler takes a 5fer, it's like a batsman making a century. Obviously, 200 is twice as much as 100, much like 10 is twice as much as 5, not to mention that the rarity between a double-ton and a 10fer is very similar. And a hattrick is as bout as rare as a triple-century.

 

[Athlai]

Well, it's pretty simple. When a bowler takes a 5fer, it's like a batsman making a century. Obviously, 200 is twice as much as 100, much like 10 is twice as much as 5, not to mention that the rarity between a double-ton and a 10fer is very similar. And a hattrick is as bout as rare as a triple-century.

A hattrick is closer to 3-4 sixes in a row than a triple-century. No way you can compare the often flukey hattrick to 300 runs. One takes five minutes the other a day.

 

[Top_Cat]

Well, it's pretty simple.

Yeah nah, in this instance it really isn't. Comparing relative rarity of the events isn't really going to cut it as a measure.

 

[Top_Cat]

A hattrick is closer to 3-4 sixes in a row than a triple-century. No way you can compare the often flukey hattrick to 300 runs. One takes five minutes the other a day.

Exactly.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Comparing 3 sixes to 3 wickets isn't right. 3 sixes = 18 runs, whilst 3 wickets is worth a hell of allot more then that.

A bowler taking 3 wickets in a row (hattrick), can/most likely will completely blow away the opposition in the same vain as what a triple century would.

 

[Top_Cat]

Comparing 3 sixes to 3 wickets isn't right. 3 sixes = 18 runs, whilst 3 wickets is worth a hell of allot more then that.

You're just making his point for him now. The point is that the respective numbers by themselves don't prove anything serious.

A bowler taking 3 wickets in a row (hattrick), can/most likely will completely blow away the opposition in the same vain as what a triple century would.

Well if you're going to define solely it by the effect on a match, I'd hazard a guess without checking that there are heaps more match-winning 10-fers than double tons. Ergo, they're not equivalent.

 

[Migara]

What about a guy who bowls one over or a guy like Martin. Should just be specialists taken into account IMO.

Figure out a way to do it. I don't know how to do it.

 

[Migara]

The reason that there have been more 10fers then double centuries is because ball has dominated bat for the better part of a century which therefore leads to more bowlers that average in the low 20's compared to batsman averaging in the high 50's / low 60's.

Since January 1st, 1990, 138 double-centuries have been scored and 136 10fer's have been taken.

The number of test matches have risen exponentially. So "much of the 20th century" is meaningless.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Greatest Asian batsmen


Tendulkar
Gavaskar
Inzamam
Hanif Mohammad
Dravid
Miandad

 

[smash84]

Inzy above Dravid and Miandad?

 

[Black_Warrior]

Yes. I have very very high regard for Inzy and it makes me livid that he never did justice to his talent and did not end his career with 10000 test runs.

 

[smash84]

Yes. I have very very high regard for Inzy and it makes me livid that he never did justice to his talent and did not end his career with 10000 test runs.

Garry Sobers didn't make 10000 runs either and neither did Bradman. Closer to home neither did Miandad. All better batsmen than him I would venture

 

[Black_Warrior]

Garry Sobers didn't make 10000 runs either and neither did Bradman. Closer to home neither did Miandad. All better batsmen than him I would venture

Well that is a different issue altogether..they played in different eras when they just didn't play as many test matches as people do now. Sobers and Bradman are miles ahead of Inzamam in my view too.

Batsmen of this era, play well over 120 test matches hence the criteria is different. The reason that it makes me livid is when someone like Jayawardene gets 10000 test runs and Inzamam who I believe is a far better batsman does not. Personally it does not diminish his value in my books but you want your favourite players to have achievements like that.

 

[Prince EWS]

I actually think Jaywardene was/is better than Inzamam. So there you go.

 

[Black_Warrior]

I actually think Jaywardene was/is better than Inzamam. So there you go.

And that's fine. You are totally entitled to that view. I am not going to start a Jayawardene vs Inzamam thread.

My point was that it makes me livid with Inzamam that he didn't score enough runs and centuries as he should have based on his talent and ability according to me.