Talk:Inzamam-ul-Haq/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Praises section

One of the most ridiculous sections possible. The section itself violates NPOV & is completely uncited. I think most (logical) cricket participants will agree.

Thanks

Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 18:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

:Yes, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Humour section

The section provides very little information & violates NPOV. It is also totally unreferenced. After letting it stay for a long time without any improvement, I am removing it. --Srikeit ^{(Talk | Email)} 08:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Name

Is there a story behind the freaky name? He's often referred to as just Inzamam- is that his family name? Henry ^Flower 18:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative project. No one can claim ownership of an article just because they say so. Sam Vimes | Address me 21:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, it appears somebody has been using my Wikipedia account, I accidentally left it logged in on a public conmputer so I guess that's causing all the trouble, it looks like several articles have been vandalised due to stuff coming from my account. I've logged out of the public computer so hopefully no more harm can be done, so I apologise for this discussion page being vandalised. Stephen Dalbiac 18:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Quality of Contents and Use of English

Poorly written article
Needs major overhaul
Please don't translate word-by-word from a foreign language
Who wrote the following? It gives me heart attack:

Inzamam has scored 25 Test centuries and Pakistan has won 17 of the matches in which he has scored 100s. That can be contrasted that with some other modern day great players, like Sachin Tendulkar, who has scored only 12 centuries in won matches out of his overall 35, and Brian Lara who has only 8 out of his 32 hundreds in won matches; however, it is highly regarded that Inzamam is not quite at the level of these players, due to his inability to convert half centuries into centuries, especially in ODIs for which Inzamam's poor physical fitness has come under criticism. Also, both Tendulkar and Lara have suffered from playing in teams with weak attacks at stages in their careers, especially Tendulkar, while Inzamam has played in teams with devastating fast bowlers like Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis and Shoaib Akhtar, allowing for a better chance for him to play in victorious Test matches, irrespective of whether or not he scored a hundred. Inzamam's average in won Test matches is over 80 which is second best only to Don Bradman.

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Idleguy 03:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I think this article attacks Sachin Tendulkar (comparing his 'non-match winning hundreds' so to speak) because Imran Khan has tried from the early 90s to prove Inzy is better than Sachin. Remain neutral I say, and compare with subtlety if at all. After all, how would it sound if there was an article on Sachin which undermined Inzaman, mentioning Sachin as superior pound for pound for fielding and bowling abilities, not to mention converting singles into twos. Not warranted.

Typical Indian supporter - failing to read until the end of the paragraph. My friend it is you are attacking Inzy and not the article that is attacking your great Tendulker. If you had bothered to read to the next sentence, let alone the end of the paragraph you would have relaised that the article states that he is not highly regarded as Tendulker and Lara. It is people like you who get the wrong end of the stick and have fights over silly little things. Might I add, Indian supporters also diss their star players when the do not perform - Ganguly the most recent and Tendulker on occassion. Nevermind.

This article seems to be getting less NPOV and more anecdotal with each edit. He's just had a great series against England, and suddenly he can do no wrong. Except for his run outs, of couse, although even that is largely anecdotal — my memory is that he has a bad record in ODIs but hasn't been run out very often in Test matches (and the most recent one of them was when merely evading the ball!). Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

THE Article does mention that his record is lacking against the more formidable pace attacks of south africa and australia.so its not like hes being immortalized here.however a critcism of his footwork might be added as he tends to get caught on the crease now and then, as far as i know him. but when he applies himself hes right up there with the great batsmen of world cricket. and its quite true that he always comes good in pressure situations. Hes saved pakistan on countless occassions and although he hasnt got the overall highest number of hundreds, he has 82 fifties in ODI's - the highest in the world-which means that more often than not he's been the backbone and setup the launching pad for pakistan. Look at the amount of runs that hes got.And his averages, for the record are higher than gavaskar in both formats of the game.he can play aggressive,defensive according to the situation,although i wont say he has the 'slogger' touch to him-he's a class act and its his job not only to score but to preserve his wicket out there.plus, he dislikes running so we may infer that he scores mostly through boundries and drives -all goes to show his greatness as a player and his ability to face pressure and hold the innings all on his own. plus hes got 25 hundreds in test cricket and thats bound to increase considering his current form, which means that he definitely ranks among the great batsman - both past and present. the anecdotes in the article are there to illustrate the above and to emphasise just how valuable his role has been for pakistan over the years and his role in the new-look pakistan team of today.

in recent times people have noticed that captaincy has improved his batting and so it remains to be seen whether he can be more consistent against the big guns of cricket in their own back yards.i hope that he does well because he has the potential and remember that even imran khan reached his peak as a fast bowler only when he got to around 30.

  - A Pakistani

I think its an article written by someone who really hates the success of the pakistanis. It was ok to say that Inzimam is a lazy guy, but its because of his bulky figure. Its not that he intends to do so. He is no joke to any commentator and I know that they all have a fair degree of respect for his abilities and skills. He is quoted by Saurabh Ganguly the most succecssful captain of India, as a very nice person and he says this much often as he said he believes that he is a nice and a humble guy.

  - An Indian and a proud Pakistani cricket supporter.

The Aloo incident is disputed for no references? http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2001/may/16inzi.htm There you go

<3 Cricket Fan

but is rediff a reliable source

Hussain 18:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Well not always. A lot of masala appear there in the guise of news. http://ia.rediff.com/news/2006/oct/29bose.htm?q=tp&file=.htm is a recent sample. Tintin (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting story. But I don't think rediff were saying that he IS Bose, just reporting on a person claiming to be Bose. Rediff however uses catchy news titles to draw attention sometimes sounding like a tabloid. Idleguy 05:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

But newspapers like Hindu wouldn't even consider reporting the Bose story. Tintin (talk) 06:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Since it has been shown that it does not attack Tendulkar I don't think there's any reason to keep to NPOV tag, although this article definately needs a cleanup.

popularity

detail about inzy's popularity in pakistan and india —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.141.70.39 (talk) 10:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Controversies section

some problems I see in the section -

(a) his being interviewed by Jamaican police following the murder of Woolmer. What is controversial about the captain of the team Woolmer was coaching being interviewed by the police? The team as a whole was interviewed too, and Inzamam was one of the first to reach the room following the discovery of the death.

(b) no citations (let alone primary, reliable, sources) for the March 2007 throwing match allegations, his dictatorial approach or the one about forcing the team to pray.

Apart from this section, quite a bit of the article sounds like a hagiography. Can't we document his career without resorting to superlatives and eliminating content that doesn't flatter him? Sdsouza 19:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

There is some discontinuity in this section. Looks like 2 different incidents are mixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishwesh.prabhudessai (talk • contribs) 07:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Inzamam-ul-Haq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Inzamam-ul-Haq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)