Yousuf's first game back and he's already the Test #1

[Howsie]

He was number 1 when he left I think.

He should still have to work his way back up though.

 

[SciD]

In period he was gone Pakistan hardly played test cricket.

 

[nightprowler10]

I think the reason he's number 1 after one match is that his rating was so high when he left that even after losing so many points for missing matches he still comes out as number 1. I don't agree with it but there it is.

 

[SciD]

I think the reason he's number 1 after one match is that his rating was so high when he left that even after losing so many points for missing matches he still comes out as number 1. I don't agree with it but there it is.

Bingo. Exactly my point. How many matches did he miss. 2 against Sri Lanka. Any more I am missing.

 

[King Pietersen]

Yousuf rarely plays a match winning innings, much like Sachin. They both have a lot of 100's but in losing causes. Steve Waugh on the other hand....

Add to that the fact that his average drops to 51 when you take out games against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, with averages against the 3 strongest bowling attacks of his generation (Australia, Sri Lanka and South Africa) working out at 29, 28 and 29 respectively. Then if you look at his away record with Bangladesh and Zimbabwe taken out his average drops to a very Ian Bell-esque 43, with his 2 highest averages against arguably the 2 worst non-minnow sides in modern Test cricket, West Indies and New Zealand. Think he's pretty much the definition of Ben's 'flat track subcontinental bully' idea. I didn't agree with it in the main, but Yousuf is definitely a fine example of benefitting from playing the majority of his cricket on flat subcontinental tracks. I rate Younis Khan far higher.

 

[Howsie]

Add to that the fact that his average drops to 51 when you take out games against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, with averages against the 3 strongest bowling attacks of his generation (Australia, Sri Lanka and South Africa) working out at 29, 28 and 29 respectively. Then if you look at his away record with Bangladesh and Zimbabwe taken out his average drops to a very Ian Bell-esque 43, with his 2 highest averages against arguably the 2 worst non-minnow sides in modern Test cricket, West Indies and New Zealand. Think he's pretty much the definition of Ben's 'flat track subcontinental bully' idea. I didn't agree with it in the main, but Yousuf is definitely a fine example of benefitting from playing the majority of his cricket on flat subcontinental tracks. I rate Younis Khan far higher.

Harsh

Yousuf<Khan

 

[King Pietersen]

Haha, sorry Don't worry though, England aren't far behind you (Y)

Definitely agree with Khan > Yousuf as well. Khan deserves a better overall average than Yousuf. The only places Younis has really struggled are South Africa and West Indies. The poor Windies average is fair enough though, as he did play 3 Tests against Walsh and Ambrose.

 

[sohum]

and how many of those matches did they lose? over 60% i would bet.

Sachin didn't really have the ability to take 20 wickets. It doesn't matter if you score a 1000 runs in every innings of a Test match, you need 20 wickets to win a freaking game. Weak bowling attack = lessened ability to win.

As for the rankings, they've always been and they're always going to be flawed.

 

[King Pietersen]

I dunno. Wasn't he supposed to be as talented as Warne with the ball? He should really have been taking 20 wickets a game easy

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Yousuf rarely plays a match winning innings, much like Sachin. They both have a lot of 100's but in losing causes. Steve Waugh on the other hand....

I fail to see why:

a) Bringing Sachin into the discussion and
b) Comparing him to Steve Waugh

Are relevant in anyway to discussing whether or not Yousuf should be number one or not. Add to that this:

and how many of those matches did they lose? over 60% i would bet. Its no point arguing anything about Sachin with Indian people. They all have a raging hard on for him

And it seems you are just intent on baiting Indians and starting a heated debate for the heck of it instead of discussing the topic.


As per the topic - Yousuf did miss just two tests, right?

 

[evertonfan]

Swann should be #1 now.

 

[shravi]

and how many of those matches did they lose? over 60% i would bet. Its no point arguing anything about Sachin with Indian people. They all have a raging hard on for him

As opposed to your totally unbiased views and unparalleled cricketing knowledge?

It's a fact that Sachin is one of the best alltime batsman and I just proved that playing outside the subcontinent doesn't affect him yet you've completely ignored that because you have 2 preconceived notions you're unwilling to let go of, those being:

1) Sachin can't bat outside the subcontinent.
2) All Indians have biased views of Sachin Tendulkar and are so blinded by him that they can't see the truth.

Maybe you should make some more all-encompassing statements...

As for Yousuf, I don't rate him as the #1 batsman but I disproved your point when it comes to playing outside the subcontinent. Now don't give me crap about England being crap or something of the sort. You made a point and I disproved it.

As for the win ratio. That's a highly illogical argument. There are 10 other players in the team and by saying that it matters so much, you are already admitting that you think that batting is a more important component than bowling. That's the first flaw in your argument. They are of equal importance in test cricket. As sohum mentioned, you need bowlers to take 20 wickets. India did not have that for a majority of Sachin's career and probably still don't (despite a few surprising performances. We'll see if it's consistent). Also, how do you know that that one batsman was the one to win the match for his team? How do you know that it is his performance, or lack of, was game-changing. Even if it was, how do you know it was the game-changing performance in the entire match. You do know that a test match spans 5 days, right?

Plus, don't act like you know me. I'm not some Sachin fanatic. I rate Dravid above him in test cricket, so there. Stop labeling an entire race. That's so prejudiced it's unbelievable.

 

[ali_ed2001]

It's funny how people say that subcontinent wickets are flat and easy scoring and all that, yet the players from outside subcontinent still struggle on those flat wickets. Ponting got a century in India after like what playing 10-15 matches there? I remember he used to average in 20's before scoring a century last time around. Yousuf has not only played in flat wickets on Pakistan, he has also played on turning wickets in India and Sri Lanka against bowlers like Murali, Mendis, Kumble and Harbhajan.

 

[Cricketdude]

He doesn't deserve to be number 1. For all I know he could be the greatest batsman in the world but he's got to prove it and these rankings show how rubbish they are.

 

[sohum]

Well, to be fair, Sri Lanka isn't in the subcontinent . But I agree with you.

I'm pretty sure Sri Lanka is considered part of the Indian Subcontinent.