Where did Inzamam-ul-Haq rank as a match-winner amongst batsmen - Best of his era?

[Harsh Thakor]

His average was not high against the best teams but in games won he was the ultimate champion.If criteria was matches won then Inzamam was the equivalent of an emperor boasting an average of over 78 in tests won and scoring 17 centuries in wining causes.To steer a ship to victory Inzy was arguably a greater contributor than Lara,Tendulkar or Ponting.Even in tests won away in West Indies and England Inzy's batting played major role in shaping the cause.His record is truly staggering in winning causes.His match-winning knock in a 58 run last wicket stand against Australia at Karachi in 1994 testified his prowess as a match-winner when he retrieved a sinking ship.So was his 138 in last wicket stand against Bangladesh that ressurected his team from the grave i.

Statistically Inzy was giant in championing a wining cause but the game is more than just statistics.I feel it was his manner of execution of strokes that gave him that cutting edge.It must be stated that the majority of his winning runs were in home tests.Still I feel there was a higher psychological effect on a team's morale by a fifty or century by Inzamam over that of even Tendulkar or Lara.even if they were no doubt better batsmen overall.Inzamam statistically ranks as the 2nd best match-winner of all -time in terms of batting average ,better than Sobers,Viv Richards,Ricky Ponting etc.Lara and Tendulkar averaged around 17 runs less in winning causes.Tendulkar averages around 61.23 while Lara averages 61.02.

I consider Inzamam with Brian Lara the best match-winner as a batsmen of his era and arguably amongst the top 10 batsmen as a match-winner of all time.Arguably only Viv Richards ,Bradman,Sobers,Barry Richards ,Weekes,Kanhai and Hammond would overshadow Inzamam as a match-winner.I rate Lara because he championed the cause of a relatively weak batting team and still single-handedly turned games.Ponting has a better record in terms of runs and centuries but had the advantage of playing for a champion team like Steve Waugh.Inzy is neck to neck with Greg Chappell and Brian Lara as a match-winner,a little ahead of Tendulkar.Morally I am still convinced that Viv Richards,Hammond Sobers were ahead as match-winners.

STATISTICS COMPILED FROM CRICINFO by S.RAJESH


Highest averages in matches won (Minimum 3000 runs) Player Matches Runs Average 100s 50s
Don Bradman 30 4813 130.08 23 4
Inzamam-ul-Haq 49 4690 78.16 17 20
Garry Sobers 31 3097 77.42 12 11
Kumar sangakaara 54 5449 71.69 19 20

Most hundreds in matches won Player Matches 100s 50s
Ricky Ponting 78 26 25
Steve Waugh 86 25 25
Don Bradman 30 23 4
Matthew Hayden 64 21 19
Inzamam-ul-Haq 49 17 20
Sachin Tendulkar 72 20 24


Highest averages in home Tests won (Minimum 1000 runs) Player Matches Runs Average 100s 50s
Don Bradman 21 3361 152.77 17 2
Inzamam-ul-Haq 20 1983 94.42 7 9
Garry Sobers 11 1322 94.42 5 3

 

[Proactive_]

Greatest ever. The likes of Sobers and Viv got nothing on the great Inzy.

 

[Cuts_and_cuts_hard]

Average in matches won= useless statistic. Younis is a better match winner.

 

[King-Misbah]

Inzi is under rated on PP; he was a great match winner for Pakistan and fundamental to our batting.

 

[Lefthanded]

Ponting, Waugh and Hayden count for a lot less for me. They played in the best team of their era, and the best bowling attack of the late 90s and early 2000s. Waqar/Wasim and Walsh/Ambrose were on the wane. McGrath and Warne were just better. And they had match winner through their XI.

To me then, Inzi has the claim of being better because of that.

Just fantastic to watch and Younis

 

[Buffet]

If you score lots of runs against top 2 teams of your era there is good chance that lots of runs will not result in wins.

If you don't score any tons against the top 2 teams of your era then pretty much all tons should result in win.

 

[Cuts_and_cuts_hard]

If you score lots of runs against top 2 teams of your era there is good chance that lots of runs will not result in wins.

If you don't score any tons against the top 2 teams of your era then pretty much all tons should result in win.

Exactly. This is why it's a rubbish, misleading stat.

 

[thehub]

If you score lots of runs against top 2 teams of your era there is good chance that lots of runs will not result in wins.

If you don't score any tons against the top 2 teams of your era then pretty much all tons should result in win.

Absolutely spot on. Sachin scored so many centuries against Aus and SA away. But India lost most of the matches. that only reduced his matchwinning percentage. If he had got out in single digit scores like Inzi, Sachin's percentage would have been far better.

 

[Robert]

Steve Waugh.

 

[Rightarmfast]

Absolutely spot on. Sachin scored so many centuries against Aus and SA away. But India lost most of the matches. that only reduced his matchwinning percentage. If he had got out in single digit scores like Inzi, Sachin's percentage would have been far better.

Let's not forget Inzi Bhai ' the team man'. He ensured nobody got run out and none misfields either. Sachin loses hands down.
Why should anybody consider Sachin as the best batsman ever anyway? Just because he scored plenty more than others and plenty more than others in unhelpful conditions where he did not have proper batting partners and he couldnt even stand properly because of his back problems and had negligible bowlers in the team to get opposition out?
These are laughable reasons to say Sachin was the best. Inzi wins easily. There never has been anyone like Inzi in the entire history of any sports.. Be it gilly danda or football or mma

 

[todfod 11]

Inzy was one of the best finishers.. do hell with the stats.. stats for fools.
Inzy won 92 semi final si gle handedly
inzy chased 316 against india single handedly with hitting a boundary of last ball to sachin.
Inzy saved blushes against bangladesh.
Inzy scored 184 agaist india in bangalore.
one of the best players to play ever. Inzy was a genious