Inzamam - horribly over-rated?

[Perm]

A test average of 49.60 suggests a very successful career, and that can't be denied. However a fair few members of this site seem to suggest that Inzamam was in the top-tier of Test batsmen we've had in the last 10 years, but was he really?

He has extremely noticeable holes in his career against both Australia and South Africa, the two best sides during his Test career, while he consistently dominated weaker sides like Bangladesh and New Zealand. Surely for a bloke who played most of his cricket in Pakistan on fairly dead tracks, an average of 50 isn't as impressive as it normally would be? He doesn't deserve to be ranked alongside Kallis, Ponting, Dravid etc as the premier batsmen of this era and there are many, many other batsmen who can lay fair claims to being better Test batsmen than Inzamam.

 

[Craig]

Has a worse conversion rate then Stephen Fleming in ODIs. For 120 Tests, thought he would of got more runs.

Lacks a poll TBH.

 

[James90]

Never struck me as a great so I'd be inclined to say he's over-rated. Decent bat though.

 

[Glacier]

He actually has an average of 50 if you dont count the ICC World XI crap. And I think almost every good batsmen has holes against certain teams. Besides all the names you've mentioned have also cashed in against weaker sides so I'm not sure how that is all that relevant.

P.S. Name the "many, many other batsmen" you feel were better then Inzamam in this era.

 

[Perm]

Has a worse conversion rate then Stephen Fleming in ODIs. For 120 Tests, thought he would of got more runs.

Lacks a poll TBH.

He did spend most of his ODI career at #4 and #5, so didn't have as many chances as other batsmen at scoring centuries.

I wanted discussion, rather than lots of people coming in and voting. Still, a poll is a decent idea. Feel a bit silly now.

 

[Craig]

Rahul Dravid, Ricky Ponting, Jacques Kallis, Mahela Jayawardene, Kumar Sangakkara. Michael Hussey is in his 20th Test, so I didn't add him, regardless how gun he has been thus far.

 

[Prince EWS]

Never scored any runs when I watched him bat, and always piled them on when I didn't. Was a somewhat strange phenomena and proves nothing really, but it does mean I'll be inclined to under-rated him a bit.

 

[Craig]

He did spend most of his ODI career at #4 and #5, so didn't have as many chances as other batsmen at scoring centuries.

I wanted discussion, rather than lots of people coming in and voting. Still, a poll is a decent idea. Feel a bit silly now.

Don't give a 3rd option. Is such a thing able to be edited in by a mod?

 

[Perm]

He actually has an average of 50 if you dont count the ICC World XI crap. And I think almost every good batsmen has holes against certain teams. Besides all the names you've mentioned have also cashed in against weaker sides so I'm not sure how that is all that relevant.

P.S. Name the "many, many other batsmen" you feel were better then Inzamam in this era.

What I'm saying is that Inzamam struggles against the two best sides in the world, surely that means his career isn't as impressive as some would have you beleive? Good batsmen do cash in against weak teams, but in this case he didn't have performances against the better teams to back them up. Great batsmen don't have major holes in their careers, that's what sets them apart from good ones.

Since 2000 I think Ricky Ponting, Rahul Dravid, Matthew Hayden, Jacques Kallis, Brian Lara, Mohammad Yousuf and Kumar Sangakkara are/were all better than Inzamam while batsmen like Mahela Jayawardene, Steve Waugh, Graeme Thorpe, Sachin Tendulkar, Shivnarine Chanderpaul and a couple others are more than fair competition.

 

[NUFAN]

Never scored any runs when I watched him bat, and always piled them on when I didn't. Was a somewhat strange phenomena and proves nothing really, but it does mean I'll be inclined to under-rated him a bit.

Agreed. In fact we've talked about this before. Very bizarre cricketer is Ul Haq.

 

[Evermind]

Never scored any runs when I watched him bat, and always piled them on when I didn't. Was a somewhat strange phenomena and proves nothing really, but it does mean I'll be inclined to under-rated him a bit.

Hey that's strange - same here. I've never seen him bat very well, and was pretty shocked to find out he averages 50 in tests!!! When did that happen? Never seen him score a century.

 

[Glacier]

What I'm saying is that Inzamam struggles against the two best sides in the world, surely that means his career isn't as impressive as some would have you beleive? Good batsmen do cash in against weak teams, but in this case he didn't have performances against the better teams to back them up. Great batsmen don't have major holes in their careers, that's what sets them apart from good ones.

Since 2000 I think Ricky Ponting, Rahul Dravid, Matthew Hayden, Jacques Kallis, Brian Lara, Mohammad Yousuf and Kumar Sangakkara are/were all better than Inzamam while batsmen like Mahela Jayawardene, Steve Waugh, Graeme Thorpe, Sachin Tendulkar, Shivnarine Chanderpaul and a couple others are more than fair competition.

Except Ponting I think you'll find that most of the batsmen on your list have had at least one team they have consistently struggled against. Kallis for example averages in the low 30s against Sri Lanka.

 

[Perm]

Don't give a 3rd option. Is such a thing able to be edited in by a mod?

James to the rescue

 

[Perm]

Except Ponting I think you'll find that most of the batsmen on your list have had at least one team they have consistently struggled against. Kallis for example averages in the low 30s against Sri Lanka.

My point is that not many 'great' batsmen average 31.40 and 32.27 against the two best teams during their career, and it's one thing that sets great Test batsmen apart from good Test batsmen.

 

[Craig]

James to the rescue

James = legend.

 

[haroon510]

if u compare inzi with dravid and kallis then he is pretty under rated...

the fact that he single handedly won alot of matches to pakistan is being ignored here.. he averages 69 in pakistan's win in test matches, he averages 56 in draws and averages only 26 in pakistan's losses.. this means when he played good pakistan won matches and wining matches maters the most then having the average of over 50 and playing innings that put people in to sleep..

he averages 35 against Aus and SA but that would hardly prove him average, mediocar or over rated..

the same in one day he averages 52 in winning and 29 in losses..

 

[Goughy]

Quality cricketer and as he went so did Pakistan.

Very different to so many players as the 'when' he scored his runs (as discussed in another thread) was key.

He never wasted runs in a losing effort, he didnt boost his stats in bore draws.

What he did was capitalise in match winning situations and average an amazing 80 in games Pakistan won.

Was the player that was the most important in terms of success for his team in the last 20 years.

I rank him very highly as a player (captain less so, but thats another story)

 

[pasag]

For consistencies sake then, you'd have to say Murali is overrated as he averages 36.50 (excluding WXI) against Australia, the best side in the world, an argument I don't care for tbh.

 

[Goughy]

For consistencies sake then, you'd have to say Murali is overrated as he averages 36.50 (excluding WXI) against Australia, the best side in the world, an argument I don't care for tbh.

Neither do I, am in the middle of making a point on that topic

 

[Richard]

Inzamam's poor record against Australia and South Africa is indeed disappointing (though it's not really quite what it seems and I've argued this before). I really wish he'd have done better. Beyond question, had he done better (say, averaged 43 against each) he'd have had a far better Test career than he did.

Is he better than Jacques Kallis and Rahul Dravid? No. Is he better than Mohammad Yousuf and Younis Khan? Undoubtedly.