Inzi was massively underated and you just proved it
.
aye, agree.Inzi was massively underated and you just proved it
He is a class above the two Ys.Easily the finest match winning batsmen we ever had.Incredible player of fast bowler,as good as if not better than Ponting in that regard,and great against spinners too.
Hmm... gotta strongly disagree with that, as much of an Inzamam fan as I am.Inzi was massively underated and you just proved it
He is a class above the two Ys.Easily the finest match winning batsmen we ever had.Incredible player of fast bowler,as good as if not better than Ponting in that regard, and great against spinners too.
He was very good.. but I had his stats against Australia and SA in mind. Perhaps I'm being a bit too harsh on him. He did have heaps of time to play the ball though and was brilliant to watch.
Exactly.He was brilliant under pressure.He was not as glamorous as Sachin,Lara or Ponting,but he could play any sort of innings.Incredible levels of concentration,aided by the ability to hit big shots at will.I daresay,i don't think anyone played big shots under pressure better than him.Just came across this clip.I wasn't aware of the 1993 century : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RE1ItAMd_xg
Like Fusion said.
I wasn't trying to use Imran's judgement of Inzamam as the final word.But anyway,you are correct when you say that our bowling won us matches.That's always been the case with our sides.But our views on Inzamam are pretty different.So i agree with the final line of your postI did not say the 2 Ys were better than Inzamam. I said there isn't a lot that separates him from the 2 Ys. The way I see it, the difference between Miandad and Inzamam > the difference between Inzamam and the 2 Ys.
Inzamam being a very good player of fast bowling is a bit of a myth. As much as I like Imran Khan - and believe me when I say I'm a big fan - all his views don't necessarily have to be correct. He also said Mohammad Asif was the best bowler of his generation and, IIRC, he also said Irfan Pathan would make it big in Indian cricket.
As far as playing fast bowling goes, I would rate Saeed Anwar higher than him despite him having an inferior overall record. Like Beleg says, you've got to look beyond stats (and in any case, Inzamam's record outside the subcontinent is hardly what you'd expect from someone who was supposedly the best player of fast bowling since Viv Richards).
As regards the infamous "match winning" discussion - yes, I am well aware that Pakistan have gone on to win many matches in which he has scored a hundred, but that doesn't necessarily mean they won the matches because he scored a century. Pakistan had a brilliant bowling attack almost throughout Inzamam's career, so it's no surprise that he scored a lot of his runs in winning causes. As an example, Brian Lara scored an insane number of runs in a series in Sri Lanka in 2001, a series in which he dominated Muralitharan like no-one before or after. Unfortunately for Lara, West Indies ended up getting whitewashed in that series IIRC. Does that mean he wasn't a match-winner? Nah, he was arguably the biggest match-winner of his generation. It only means he had a pathetic side alongside him, and more particularly, a pathetic bowling attack.
I'm talking exclusively about tests here FTR. Don't get me wrong, Inzamam was a very good player but not in the class of Javed Miandad. Has a case for being Pakistan's second best batsman ever, but I'd personally have Javed Miandad, Hanif Mohammad, Zaheer Abbas and Saeed Anwar over him. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
. I wouldn't say he struggled woefully against pace post 1999.Infact,only 7 of his 25 Test tons were before or in 1999.His batting saw a great run of form,the best of his career perhaps,when he became captain in 2003.Ofcourse i'm not taking into consideration the quality of pace bowling he faced after 1999,but the difference in the quality would not have been huge to call his ability against pace woeful,least of all against Harmison.A lot is being said here about Inzamam with some strong opinions from either side. Before I start let me make a very clear distinction between eye-players (for lack of a better term) and technically sound players.
The former set of players rely on a very powerful hand-eye coordination and even having a less-than-great technqiue sometimes sees them through. You can say these folks are the best naturals when it comes to picking a ball's length and are seldom bothered by extreme pace. V. Richards, Ponting, Inzamam, Aravinda and Kallicharan are some examples.
Since the lynchpin of their game is based on reflexes, these men suffer more than the others when their natural assets dimnish with age. Richards was a shadow of his former self after 1987/88 and perhaps, we are seeing Ponting in that stage right now.
The issue is that they do not have a powerful technique to fall back on. Their batting is based more on feeling right rather than mechanical feet and hand movements.
Inzamam, IMHO, went through that and after 1999/2000 his game against sheer pace wasn't as good as in the 90s. I saw him struggle woefully against Harmison's pace and bounce in 2006. The same Inzamam who had all the time in the world to cart men of the pace of Bishop, Ambrose and Patterson in the early/mid 90s!
No wonder we see so polarised opinions on Inzy's ability against pace. At the height of his power when his reflexes were at their peak, he was one of the finest players of raw pace you could imagine. Obviously, people who saw him post 2001 or so would tend to rely on the evidence of their eyes more.
Just putting things in perspective here. I apologise for the length of this post but it was required!
IIRC he got 197 that innings...
We had a member here once who thought Inzamam was better than Bradman, so under-rated isn't a word I'd ever use to describe him.Inzi was massively underated and you just proved it
He is a class above the two Ys.Easily the finest match winning batsmen we ever had.Incredible player of fast bowler,as good as if not better than Ponting in that regard,and great against spinners too.
But it was a deeply troubled 197.
