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

[Ninjaman]

Originally Posted by Maranello

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

And that was the only point I was making.

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.[/b]

But the same point is not being made. No one is praising Lara for scoring centuries when his team wins.

If you praise that, then you are actually, by extension, criticising scoring runs when your team loses. Which is just silly seeing as losing has a lot to do with what happens when your side bowls too.

I am fully aware that Lara played with Ambrose and Waugh in his earlier career but if I remember, it was usually Walsh and Ambrose who did the "winning" for the WI with numerous times they bowled the other side out.

Remember when Ambrose got 7 wickets for 1 run in 25 balls in Perth?? Or when he destroyed England for 46 all out at Trinidad??

Now if a WI batsman had scored a century in that match, it really wouldn't be worth jumping up and down as if that century was the main reason behind the winning effort.

It might have set up the conditions for winning but ultimately it was out of his control.

For example, since Walsh retired, Lara has played 37 Test matches and made 15 centuries (half his tally of 30) averaging 68 and scoring over 4200 runs.

And yet he is still criticised

My point to you is that the likelihood that Lara's centuries (whenever or whoever against they are scored) is less likely seeing as he has had a set of idiots bowling for his side. unlike Inzi

Case in point, prior to Walsh leaving, he also had hit 15 centuries and only 3 had occured in losses and 5 in wins. SInce that time 9 of his 100s have come in 8 losses with 3 wins. And 2 of those wins were BAN and ZIM. The recent one vs Pakistan being the 3rd.

And those losses are against Sri Lanka and Australia twice, SA three times and Pakistan once.

My initial point was to show that Inzi's side whilst not worldbeaters have been more competitive than Lara's side and thus coupled with his (Inzi's) good form and the relative superiority of Pakistan's bowling attack, then he is always going to have a better % in this stat.

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.

The point about fourth innings hundreds was not to belittle Inzi.

The last thing I would do.

The point is that a century in the game's last innings is the only century that you can really say "won" the match. All other innings "set up" a winning situation.


When Lara hit 196 and 176 against SA in April, he did so to save WI from an even worse fate. The fact those did not result in victory should not be used against him or any other player.

He made 80 not out (and Sarwan 82 out) vs Sri Lanka to win two years ago at Sabina. WI won with the highest score ever made to win a Test at Sabina 212-3.

Those innings were as good as centuries in my opinion as I am sure Inzi's fifties not out were as good.

SO I repeat, my point was not to belittle Inzi at all but just to show that, by itself, it is a stat that isn't just about how well the batsman bats.

[Milo]

While contributing to a win (with a century) should be applauded, so should helping a team save off defeat (with a century). This may in fact be a draw. It may actually end in defeat because you did not get support. This (as well as the bowling's ineffectiveness) should not take anything away from the batsman. Take Lara's 153* at Bridgetown v Australia. If Curtley hadn't hung around for 40 minutes, allowing Lara to lead them home, would this have been any worse a knock? Of course not. Same could be said for Inzi's last wicket stand with Mushtaq in Karachi. Although the result of the game is imperative, some times some players have absolutely no influence over it on their own.

Apart from the gift centuries (scored in losing causes) - like Youhana v India, Flintoff's 142 v SA and Afridi century last month, all these centuries show different levels of skill and temperament.

As a thought. What is Inzi's average like in losses? And what does this mean? Does it mean that when Pakistan have to fight to save a game, he simply does not deliver???? Statistics can be used to argue anything. This might actually show that he has a lack of fight (like in the test match I mention above where Youhana smashed his century v India - I think he got a duck)

[Maranello]

You are absolutely right Milo, statistics can be used to make almost any point. My initial position in this discussion is that Inzi is a batsman who responds well to pressure, and who is often the backbone for Pakistan's batting, and hence I have found stats which support the subjective way I appraise batsmen. My preference for Inzi over Youhana or Waugh, for instance, or my admiration for Lara over Tendulkar, are very subjective things, and we could quote stats either way till we are blue in the face and still not reach a conclusion, as you point out.

I would say that Pakistan rely on Inzi to score runs - so when he gets out cheaply, more often than not we lose or end up as a very weak side. Our batting is weak without him, because he allows the others to bat around him. Even in the recent Bangalore Test, it was Inzi's 184, and his taking the attack to the Indian bowlers, which allowed Younis to play himself in securely, and then set out scoring his 267. That's the point - Inzi provides the backbone, which is worth a lot more than the mere runs he scores; without him scoring, the others seem clueless. Hence, at Multan against India last year, when he got out cheaply, the others fared no better, the team ended up losing. At Lahore, when he played well and got a century, Pakistan's victory was set-up (though of course Umar Gul and others played a key role).

This is because in Pakistan's case, though the bowlers do win matches, its the batsmen who actually make us a team of any note - we have for the past 20 years generally had decent Test bowling attacks, but have often been let down by our batsmen. As such we have only been a competitive Test side when our batsmen have scored runs, and over the past ten years, our batsmen have unfortunately relied heavily on Inzi to set the example and take the lead. For me, that is only substantive point I can take from this discussion, and that too is subjective.

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Ninjaman

But the same point is not being made. No one is praising Lara for scoring centuries when his team wins.

I would praise Lara for most of his centuries; they are generally collector's items and afternoons to savour, regardless of whether the rest of the team is good enough to win the Test or not. Both his tons in the current Pak-WI series were splendid knocks; the fact that only one was in a winning cause, is, as you point, neither here nor there, and not his fault.

If you praise that, then you are actually, by extension, criticising scoring runs when your team loses. Which is just silly seeing as losing has a lot to do with what happens when your side bowls too.

I am not, hopefully my post above has addressed this point and clarified the point I was making.

For example, since Walsh retired, Lara has played 37 Test matches and made 15 centuries (half his tally of 30) averaging 68 and scoring over 4200 runs.

And yet he is still criticised

There are some people who will always criticise, no matter what Lara achieves; that's just life unfortunately.

SO I repeat, my point was not to belittle Inzi at all but just to show that, by itself, it is a stat that isn't just about how well the batsman bats.

Undoubtedly true.

[Milo]

I agree with this Maranello - and excellent analysis of who inspires Pakistan. I think the 'centuries to win' statistics fit perfectly for Inzamam and do suggest more than mere subjectivity with regards to Pakistan. I do not however think that this same statistical analysis holds up less well when discussing other teams.

You make a very strong case for Inzi's importance to the team (he is clearly head and shoulders above ever batsman Pakistan have had during his career - and that includes Javed's final post World cup years). But when we start comparing players from different teams this way it does become highly subjective. Lara's average in wins should be compared with Sarwan's, Chanderpaul's and Gayle's.

I started compiling some statistics to find out which player scores most centuries on their own in innings. It started to take a long time. I will continue it when I get the chance. The results were inteesting.

Gavaksar - 34 100s - in those innings there were 17 other centuries (this is a total that could include more than one other) - 50%
Tendulkar - 34 - 25 - 74%
Waugh - 32 - 24 - 75%
Lara - 30 - 11 - 37%
Bradman - 29 -18 - 62%

I've now just added in Inzi's
22 - 19 - 86% (There were two innings that actually accounted for six of these)

Ok, two ways of looking at this. A batsman can instill confidence in others so that they can achieve when he is still at the wicket. Inzamam averages 80 odd when Pakistan win, but hs usually does not win the games on his own. Other people often score centuries as well. Lara has scored an amazing number of centuries with absolutely no support. At least 19 of his centuries have been the only one in the innings (probably more than 19 due to the occasions when there are more than one other in the innings).

Maybe that would be a better indication. How many of their centuries were the only one in the innings (or maybe even the match).