2nd Test: West Indies v Pakistan: Jamaica 2-6 June

[Paoli]

No-Browne's record doesn't inspire confidence at all. He has played about two worthy knocks in his career. I really think Jacobs should be playing, even though he retired. The only thing that stopped Jacobs from playing alot of cricket was the fact that he was grossly unfit. He was a safe keeper, and someone who you could be more confident of than Browne to make runs. On his lack of fitness, I think its fair to say his weight contributed to it.

Browne, I don't think, is that bad a keeper. He kept immaculately throughout the VB Series, even made the odd sneaky catch or stumping, yet his batting is probably the worst by any current keeper.

[Maranello]

Flattering to see my wherabouts were the focus of such (relatively) feverish speculation. Thank you Rachael, at least someone reads my posts...

Just logged on to read the cricket reviews and check the waether forecasts for Kingston; hopefully we will get enough cricket there to complete this riveting Test. Though a bit slow; this GPRS thing is as bad as using dial-up, ie quite slow and the mobile signals out here in the wilderness is not exactly London-standard either.

On to more important matter... well... haven't we done well ;-) An excellent Test, and it bears out, yet again, all that I have been saying here, on other boards and in PMs about Inzamam's batting over the past two years. The raw numbers do not do this guy justice; most of his innings are under extreme pressure, when his team is 7/2 and up against it, and he personifies grace under pressure, exuding this aura of calmness under extreme fire, and manages to come out on top. A guy who not only scores runs, but does so when his team needs them the most, and does them in such a sublime manner, a true pleasure to watch.

Kaneria has once again proven his mettle, but really, this has been a fabulous Test in many other ways too; two evenly matched teams generally playing good cricket (for their 'standard' anyway), some great performances by world-class players (Lara, Inzi), and many other excellent contributions from players playing well above their 'potential' (Younis, Collymore, Kaneria). Again, a three or four Test series would have been much more interesting for any neutral followers, much more so than the SA-WI and Eng-BA mismatches we have seen of late.

Here's hoping for a good fifth day, and that Pakistan wrap up these four last wickets soon.


PS: OF, the Central Asian sojourn didn't materialise in the end, I decided that horse-meat washed down with vodka was not my thing, so ended up working with some Western Europeans, altogether more civilised, and there's the Teutonic efficiency to rely on too!

[Zainub]

So you didn't get hickup did you?

ps: agree all the way about Inzi, he's class. And I also agree that it's been a great test. If only Inzi was availble for the first test too...

[Milo]

Let's not forget the West Indies clearly looked like they missed Edwards - if only he'd not got injured. Contrary to Rachael's suggestion that Pakistan and West Indies are lucky to have their test status, this series has shown once again that these two teams rely heavily on 3-4 (very good) players to perform. If they don't (and they can't in every test match) they will always lose.

[Occasional Fan]

Pakistan won the match by 136 runs.

[Zainub]

Yes, we did win, and West Indies didn't actually take too long to fold over (See, I told you, didn't I )

Amazing fact from Cricinfo Review of the match

Originally Posted by Anand Vasu

This was Inzamam's 22nd Test century, and it is worth noting that 17 of these centuries have resulted in Pakistan wins. To take it one step further - two more of his centuries have resulted in draws. When Inzamam scores, and scores big, Pakistan just don't lose.

Quite remarkable this I would say, and another thing that I consistently insist on is that this is where Inzi takes my vote ahead of other modern greats. His win-loss-draw record for 100s scored is head and shoulders better then both Brian Lara and Sachin Tendulkar. Of Lara's 30 test match tons only 8 have contributed to victory, and 10 to draws, and as many as 12 to losses (including 3 of 4 hundreds this season). Tendulkar's record is better, but still not as good as Inzi's, of his 34 test hundreds only 11 have contributed to victory, 15 to draws and 8 to losses. Compare that with Inzi's 22 test tons of which 17 have resulted in victory, 2 in draws and only a mere 3 in losses. I'm too lazy to go and find out the stats for others, but I'm pretty certain the leader in this is Steve Waugh, I remember reading this somewhere. But one does have the feeling that only other Aussies (Langer, Hayden, Ponting and both the Waugh brother have 20 or more test tons after all) could rival or better this sort of win-loss-draw record.

Originally Posted by Milo

this series has shown once again that these two teams rely heavily on 3-4 (very good) players to perform. If they don't (and they can't in every test match) they will always lose.

While I would be hesistant to admit that you're right, I do have to. We do rely on Inzi overwhelmingly, not only for runs, but psychologicaly his presence makes a big difference. He brings in with him self a cool, calm temprement which enables the team to get through tricky situations, especially when the pressure is high. He's a got a tremendous influence on the team, especially the younger players, who look up to him as a model. I don't like to think of times when we'll have to adjust to life without him, and as much as I hate to admit, looking at his fitness I get really worried at times. Inzi get's tired easily, even during his century in the 2nd innings, I don't think he was feeling 100% at all times.

His back is a long standing problem, and now his hamstring is also more prone then before. As they say, when you're at the wrong side of 30 you can't expect things to get better - they'll always get worse. This is obviously not a cricticism, but rather just an observation. And perhaps a reminder that we need to start prepairing for life without Inzi from right now - otherwise collapses like those in the first test will be much more common. Hopefully for us, he can hang around for at least another couple of years, by which time I hope the likes of Younis Khan and Yousuf Youhanna have matured enough to take over the burden. Filling in his boots would be impossible even then. Great players, are after all, irreplaceable. You just have to adapt without them when they're gone - replacement is out of the question.

[Ninjaman]

Originally Posted by Zainub Razvi

Quite remarkable this I would say, and another thing that I consistently insist on is that this is where Inzi takes my vote ahead of other modern greats. His win-loss-draw record for 100s scored is head and shoulders better then both Brian Lara and Sachin Tendulkar. Of Lara's 30 test match tons only 8 have contributed to victory, and 10 to draws, and as many as 12 to losses (including 3 of 4 hundreds this season). Tendulkar's record is better, but still not as good as Inzi's, of his 34 test hundreds only 11 have contributed to victory, 15 to draws and 8 to losses. Compare that with Inzi's 22 test tons of which 17 have resulted in victory, 2 in draws and only a mere 3 in losses. I'm too lazy to go and find out the stats for others, but I'm pretty certain the leader in this is Steve Waugh, I remember reading this somewhere. But one does have the feeling that only other Aussies (Langer, Hayden, Ponting and both the Waugh brother have 20 or more test tons after all) could rival or better this sort of win-loss-draw record.

Is it a remarkable record and one that should be complemented.

But win-loss records are primarily dependent on bowling attacks and who you are playing against.

Lara, for example, is penalised in that respect because he has recently been playing in a side that has had a poor bowling attack.

Thus a batsman who scores 500 off 200 balls is going to be on the losing side if his team can't take 20 wickets in 5 days.

Using the stat of centuries scored in winning causes is a huge red herring as it is heavily dependent on your team's bowling attack.

Lara scored 221 and 130 in one game and still lost (the only time in Test history and only the second time in FC cricket (Don Bradman) that a player has scored a double and a single century and been on the losing side).

Thus it is no surprise that of recent players someone like S Waugh (25 centuries in wins from 32), a good batsman with a winning bowling attack comes out very high on that list.

Indicatively, Inzy has never scored a century in a winning effort versus Australia or South Africa.

In a run chase, that is in the 4th innings of a match when your batsman have to win the game after the bowlers have set up the condition for victory, Inzy has only one century vs Bangladesh at Multan

Lara also has one, his 153 not out vs Australia.

Tendulkar or Steve Waugh have none.

Not slights on anyone's ability at all because I rate them all highly. Just that as a stat alone it is interesting but dependent on factors outside the control of a batsman's bat

I love how Inzy always looks like he has time. Class player.

[Zainub]

All very good points you make Ninjman. I'd agree that the 100s in wins record does not do justice to Lara's ability. He's an extra ordinary player, naturally more talented then any I have seen.

[Maranello]

Ninjaman, you make some very sensible points, and I agree that the stat of centuries contributing to wins is somewhat meaningless in isolation.

Lara played throughout the 1990s with the best new ball attack of the decade in his side, and for some of that period, the Windies were a side to be actually reckoned with, when the likes of Ambrose and Walsh et al were playing. Yes, Inzamam played in a side which often had Wasim and Waqar, but the same argument could be made for Lara. Similarly, Tendulkar played most of the decade with Kumble in his side and very helpful home tracks. Hence, though this stat is somewhat flaky, the wider issue it addresses is by no means trivial. I don't think any serious observer of cricket would argue that Tendulkar is a better finisher than Inzi, or that he handles pressure better. Whilst Tendulkar, in isolation, and in laboratory conditions, may have been peerless, he falls behind Inzi and Lara when it cames to winning and saving important Tests and ODIs.

Of course, it goes without saying that Lara, as a talented performer, is in a different class to Inzi and to Tendulkar. Some of my best most memorable cricket evenings have been watching a Brian Lara masterclass, where the genius would take the Pakistani/Australian/South African bowling attacks apart and score a hundred that would be an absolute delight to watch. When he bats like that, there are few better sights for cricket fans, and as Milo has said elsewhere, makes the Sky subscription worthwhile in one go!


Ninjaman, Inzi may not have many fourth innings hundreds (thought the 138 n.o. vs Bangladesh at Multan was probably more of a pressure innings than any other fourth innings knock I have ever seen), but he does have a lot of meaningful contributions. In almost all of Pakistan's Test wins over the past two years, either Inzi has scored a century, or he has been around at the end, guiding the team home - and often, he has managed to do both. Away against New Zealand, at home against SA, Pakistan have ended up winning Test series thanks to very solid fourth innings batting performances, chasing just under 300 odd with ease, thanks in part to Inzi being there at the end to see his side home with his calm assurance, unbeaten and unflappable at 70 odd.


An interesting comparison would be between Inzi and Youhana - both have played in the same team, and have benefitted from the same bowling attack, so the "win ratio" might be more meaningful.

Youhana has played 59 Tests. From these Pakistan has won 17 Tests, if we exclude the wins against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. And Yoyo's average in these 17 Tests is 38, which really is rather low. Youhana has 13 Test hundreds - of these, only ONE was scored in a winning Test (excluding tons against minnows) - that was the 146 vs WI in Sharjah in the series when Pakistan led by Akram won 3-0. Out of Youhana's three highest scores (204* - 203 - 159 ) NONE were in winning causes, or helped the team to win against anyone other than the minnows.

Compare this with Inzamam, pre the current Jamaica Test: Total 100 matches, of which 29 were won by Pakistan (excl. wins against Zim and Bangla). Similar win % for the team then, as Youhana, since their careers have coincided for a great part.

But while Youhana averages 38 in the Tests that Pakistan won, Inzi's avg in these 29 Tests is very impressive 88. That is why we say that relative to his peers, Inzi is a big match player, and a match winner; someone whom you rely on when the chips are down. Inzi and Yoyo might appear to be peers based on their averages and records, but in terms of winning performances, in terms of guiding their teams to wins, and providing stability where none exists without them, they are poles apart.

The above stats for Inzi of course exclude the Jamaica Test, but that's another Test that Pak won, and Inzi's average there was 167 - so that will further augment that 88. Just to round off the comparison, Inzi's three highest Test scores (329 - 200* - 184) were all in Pakistan victories, and none were against Minnows. I could go on and on, but this should suffice for the time being.

[Shaka]

Originally Posted by Milo

I think the fact that so few people have (and many appear to morally detest) Sky Sports makes a difference. I also suspect many people are only interested in test matches that include England.

I have no problem with Sky Sports, it's thanks to them I am able to watch what has been a fascinating series between West Indies and Pakistan. I am on another forum as well which is far more populated by Pakistan fans although the quality control isn't as well maintained as here, but still some good posters there though you have to put up with the dross.

Here there is Maranello and Zainub and that's pretty much it, so responses can be quite few and intermitent, though I think you guys do a good job to keep things going.

Incidentally I thought it was ridiculous to give Kaneria MoM in this series, I would have give it to Collymore. Looks like a player who will produce when required to me, and they are few and far between.