No Inzi on world xi

[Zainub]

Originally Posted by Orchid

Now who would have thought of Dravid getting into an ODI team ahead of Inzi?

I'll tell you who...there can be only one person...Mr Useless aka Sunny G, the chairman of ICC's selection comittee ...not that I care, I think it's great, I really want to see Inzi come back from Australia as quickly as he can, fit and with runs under his belt, but it does (for the umpteenth time) show you how partial a man Gavaskar is

[Orchid]

Originally Posted by Zainub

I'll tell you who...there can be only one person...Mr Useless aka Sunny G

There are quite a number of people who believe that Sunny cannot be that biased against Pakistan, giving examples of his support for the Pakistan team during 1992 etc etc. I was seriously falling for that argument and since there is more than Sunny in that panel, it was quite believable. But now when it comes to Dravid vs Inzi and Dravid gets selected, I am beginning to go back to my original position of blaming Sunny.

[Rachael]

Here's a curious stat for you: last 10 matches vs. Australia....

                     Mat    I  NO  Runs HS1  HS2  HS3     Ave 100  50   0
Dravid               10    9   0   269  74   59   49   29.88   0   2   1
Inzi                 10   10   0   296  72   68   51   29.60   0   4   2

Strict comparison suggests we should use 10 innings...

Dravid               12   10   0   316  74   59   49   31.60   0   2   1

[Orchid]

I don't think Stats has much do here. In an ODI format, you would want a batsman who can pace an inning based on the situation. Yes, Dravid may be consistent but how many times has Dravid led his team to a successful run chase? Can Dravid tear an attack apart in the last 10/15 overs? Some people even compare how many times Inzi was MOM compared to Dravid to get a better picture; some also ask the question of 'who would you want in the middle when the asking rate is 7?' The answer mostly is Inzi not Dravid.

I understand that Dravid probably puts in a decent performance regulary and can consolidate an inning, but when you have the line up of the probably the best openers, one down etc batsmen playing in the team, why would there be need for a consolidator?

[Rachael]

I agree entirely.. though don't know the intended batting order for the RoW side. Thing is... if I wanted a no 2/3 batsman I'd choose Dravid and if I wanted a no 4-5 I'd choose Inzi: reasonable? Picking Inzi at 3... or just dropping Dravid and going in without a "consolidator" would not really be showing Australia the respect they deserve. Likewise.. it would have been pretty negative to pick Dravid at 4 or 5!

ps. just checked and it looks like the original plan was for Smith, Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar and Lara as a top 5... which seems fair enough. I guess Inzi would also have been 1st choice replacement for Lara as well.

[Orchid]

Originally Posted by Rachael

ps. just checked and it looks like the original plan was for Smith, Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar and Lara as a top 5... which seems fair enough. I guess Inzi would also have been 1st choice replacement for Lara as well.

Dravid wasn't in the original ODI team was he?

[Zainub]

That's fairly even Rachael, no arguing that. But there is also no arguing that over a period of the last10 years (not 10 matches) Inzamam has shown him self to be better adapted to one-day cricket then Dravid. I guess it’s also about reputation. Sachin Tendulkar it seemed was initially selected into both the world eleven squads purely on grounds of his commercial value, his super star status and all that. And that is what you would expect to apply to the Dravid vs. Inzi scenario for a one-day team as well. Dravid plays one-day cricket like he plays test cricket, in a work-man like fashion, working around his singles, and couples and getting the odd boundary, probably scoring around four runs every six balls faced or so. Inzi on the other hands does not take that many singles, and hits far more proportion of boundaries, something that would make him more viewers friendly I suppose. And entertainment as we've been discussing in the other thread counts for quite a lot these days, especially in LOIs.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Zainub

Inzi on the other hands does not take that many singles, and hits far more proportion of boundaries, something that would make him more viewers friendly I suppose. And entertainment as we've been discussing in the other thread counts for quite a lot these days, especially in LOIs.[/font]

Hmmm. The uncharitable (if unaware of Inzi's new waif-like look and more vigorous approach to runing between the wickets and outfielding) might say there's a damn good reason why he'd not want to take singles (think tub of lard) and that the entertainment in seeing Inzi haul his ass (and more significantly, perhaps, his gut) from one end of a cricket pitch to the other was not really very viewer-friendly :-)

On the more serious point.. I'd have thought Inzi was the ultimate ODI nudger and nurdler: I think of Dravid as quite classical, playing straight and waiting for the bad ball to which he can play a full-blooded but perfectly orthodox shot. I tend to think of Inzi as having great hands, being a great improviser, scoring by opening the face or flicking the ball away with his bottom hand....

ps. quick survey seriously inconclusive - I picked one game where Inzi had scored 50+ vs. Aus... with 1x4 and 1x6 to his name.. and a couple where Dravid had done the same with 4x4 in each.

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Hmmm. The uncharitable .

Would never have thought you were among them Rachael ;-)

Originally Posted by Rachael

I'd have thought Inzi was the ultimate ODI nudger and nurdler.

He is, but he is also much more than that. For me, ODI batting has three modes:

1. The Consolidators, men who absorb the pressure, have good technique, face the new ball or the difficult bowlers. Sometimes also relied upon to bat for the initial 30/40 overs. Most teams only have, at most, one of these nowadays. Examples would be Dravid, Kallis and Atapattu; in the recent past, players such as Ramiz Raja performed this role admirably. These are the men of crisis, relied upon to steady the ship on the odd instance when bowling gets on top of batting in an ODI.

2. The Improvisers, players who may not have ideal technique but have a very good cricketing brain and the skill to keep the score moving without taking undue risks. Would also be able to manage the run-chase or the target setting, and ensure that 5 or 6 are scored off bowling at all times. This category could include finishers such as Collingwood, Kaif, Thorpe and Bevan, as well as top-order nudgers and nurdlers, eg Younis Khan (when he plays there).

3. The Power-players - these days, could play at any stage of the innings, though mostly used in the first 15 and the last 15 overs. Examples are many, the Gayles, Sehwags, Gilchrists, Pietersens, Afridis, and Symonds of this world. I think one thing that sets this group apart is their ability to score at 10-15 an over for 10+ overs, not just in short cameos.

Of course, most quality ODI batsmen are not mono-dimensional and are hard to place in a box; many of the better players have success at fulfilling at least two of the above roles; however, only the best ODI batsmen can fulfil all three roles with aplomb. In my view, Inzamam, Lara and Tendulkar are probably the only ones from the current lot, who can, and have, performed excellently using all three styles, often performing the three roles in the same innings! Sure, there are others who can do most of three, eg Ponting and Trescothick but do not routinely excel in all three the way, for instance, SRT has done. Even Nick Knight, one of the best English one-day batsmen, combined all three for me, but excelled mainly as an improviser, someone who could judge the run-rate, read the match and manage the innings to perfection.

Based on all of the above, Inzamam's name would probably be one of the first names on any normal one-day team-sheet, due to his verstality and sheer track record at match-winning and match-changing innings. There are no arguments under which Dravid or Gayle or Smith or Sehwag can be considered more valuable ODI players than Inzi.

Except this: A World XI, by definition, is show-casing the best talents of the world. There is no need for multi-dimensional and versatile players, merely the best in each and every role and position - if they require the best power players, they would select Afridi and Pietersen. If they need the best consolidator, it would be Dravid, and if they need a nudger/nurdler, it should, by rights, be someone like Youhana or Collingwood. I would not buy this, since Inzi is still as good an improvisor as Youhana and much better than Chanderpaul or Collingwood, and is probably more consistent in his power-hitting than many so-called pinch-hitters. However, this remain, in my view, is the only rational argument for not including Inzi.

[ahsan32]

Well Friends here we go again, inzi has said NO to ICC once again and very rightly so, just read the News copied from Cricinfo.com

Inzamam is going to snub the ICC Super Series

Inzamam-ul-Haq has refused to represent the World XI in next month's Super Test against Australia, after an apparent mix-up in communication with the Pakistan board.


The Pakistan board announced that Inzamam would be in both teams on Wednesday, but two days later the ICC said that he would feature in the six-day Super Test squad only, and as a replacement for Sachin Tendulkar at that. He was omitted from the one-dayers, with the ICC instead naming Chris Gayle and Rahul Dravid as replacements for Sachin Tendulkar and Herschelle Gibbs.

"At this stage of my career, I deserve respect and nothing else," said Inzamam. "I am not pleased at all with whatever has happened. Having played cricket with respect and distinction, I don't deserve this at the fag end of my career."

Full story