All-Time Test XI for the Top 8 Nations.

[drainpipe32]

ou were joking with that part right?

Lmao, I meant the best partnership ever during my time

And as for the Rod Marsh thing, I chose him more for being the better wicketkeeper.

 

[ballers101]

Well firstly i think its debatable whether MoYo is a better batsman than Iqbal. Mohammad Yousuf unfortunately although he is quality player has been one of the premier "Flat-track Bullies" of the 2000s era. He has never really dominated a quality pace attack in this 2000s era. Even Zaheer Abbas & Saleem Malik would be ahead of MoYo in the pecking order TBF.

While Iqbal made runs - tough runs in a quality bowling era. Iqbal also is picked as a batsman - rather than a "all-rounder". Him being able to bowl is just a bonus. So his all-round package makes him a more valuable asset in the PAK ATXI than Yousuf IMO.

"Flat Track Bullies" wow really, a guy that got the record for test runs in a year is apart of the "Flat Track Bullies". Okay first off, Yousuf is not a "Flat Track Bully" reason being that he is one of the best batsmen in West Indies, he does have a century against Walsh and Ambrose mind you. Iqbal played well in Australia where Yousuf was not so successful. Other than that Yousuf has been a significantly better batsmen, I think by calling him "Flat Track Bully" is not fair because you are not giving credit to great players. Yousuf has an average of 53 and Iqbal has an average of 39, along with the fact that Yousuf has a major record. He is one of the best batsmen in Pakistan along with England and West Indies.

I cannot believe there is a discussion going on for this, Yousuf is by far a better batsmen than Iqbal he is easily the top 3 batsmen in Pakistan history along with Miandad and Inzi.

 

[stereotype]

Flat track bully is the most overused and often incorrect label you can use for a batsman.

 

[drainpipe32]

Agreed.It's like sasying a spinner can only bowl well on turning pitches, when they've taken wickets on roads.

 

[War]

"Flat Track Bullies" wow really, a guy that got the record for test runs in a year is apart of the "Flat Track Bullies". Okay first off, Yousuf is not a "Flat Track Bully" reason being that he is one of the best batsmen in West Indies, he does have a century against Walsh and Ambrose mind you. Iqbal played well in Australia where Yousuf was not so successful. Other than that Yousuf has been a significantly better batsmen, I think by calling him "Flat Track Bully" is not fair because you are not giving credit to great players. Yousuf has an average of 53 and Iqbal has an average of 39, along with the fact that Yousuf has a major record. He is one of the best batsmen in Pakistan along with England and West Indies.

I cannot believe there is a discussion going on for this, Yousuf is by far a better batsmen than Iqbal he is easily the top 3 batsmen in Pakistan history along with Miandad and Inzi.

I disagree. I used to be a member of another cricketchat website. This is how another Pakistan fan once summarised Yousuf as a batsman:

Take Mohammad Yousuf.
His average is 53.
During the recent Pak-Aus series, the Aussie commentators kept saying how he is one of the best batsmen in the world, and he is so good, and they kept mentioning that he averages 54 (he did at the start of the series). Shane Warne kept saying "anyone who averages 54 is a dam good player" On the other hand, a Chris Gayle, who does not average 54, and is not considered one of the best batsmen in the world blasted two centuries against the same attack against whom Yousuf failed so miserably.

Now I am not trying to say they are talking crap. What I am saying is, they are obviously being diplomatic and nice to talk up the competition and using his average of 54 to back themselves up. That is the misleading bit. It is misleading because it is incomplete.
Mohammad Yousuf started playing in 98, and I was already an avid follower of cricket by then. So I have followed his career all through. For most part, until 2006, he was never considered in the big league of the best batsmen of his time. He was seen as someone who times the ball well, is stylish, looks very good at times, will score a brisk 40-50 and get out. That was used as a criticism and a reason why he is not considered in the big league.
Then came 2005, when Pakistan started playing a lot of cricket at home. They played England, India, West Indies. Yousuf scored heavily against these teams, and on pitches that were flat as anything. Some of the totals notched up in these matches will tell you how flat the pitches were. Needless to say, neither of these 3 teams had a great bowler at that time. Harmisson was useless on dead pitches. Flintoff was decent at best.

It was during this time that he broke Vivian Richards' record in 2006, and all of a sudden people started taking notice. I think he scored 9 centuries and his heavy scored boosted his average. At the end of the year, Pakistan toured South Africa for 3 test matches, and Yousuf was in the form of his life..but considering how South Africa had a slightly better bowling attack than what he had faced all year, he was back to being the old Yousuf. He scored two 80s in the 3 match series that Pakistan lost 1-2.

The point is, his average of 53 places him as an equal of Lara, Tendulkar, Kallis, Ponting when it is clear he is quite below them. I am sure with more test matches against quality opponents, his average will fall more and maybe at the end of his career, his average will be 49-50.

So once again, it is not the number, it is the interpretation of that number which is misleading. I am not saying stats are crap. But to say Mohammad Yousuf average 53 is providing incomplete information. It should also add that he averages 30 and 29 against two of the best teams in the world ( Australia and South Africa). I am using stats to make my point, just adding a factor to put things in perspective.

I still remember a test match against India in 2004, where Sehwag got his 300. Pakistan were following on and the match had already gone out of their hands. Yousuf had failed in the first innings, and in the second innings, score a brisk but completely inconsequential century, and unlike Sachin's 100 in the first test against SA, his 100 came when it was clear Pakistan were going to suffer an innings defeat.
The commentators Sanjay Manjrekar and Imran Khan remarked how he could not play the same innings in the first innings against the same attack when there was a bit more pressure on him, and how Yousuf had so far (2004) managed to fail when put under pressure, but bat freely when there is nothing to lose. So that 100 will obviously boost his average and runs, and rightly so, because he did get that a 100, but we would be misleading ourselves if we fail to acknowledge the context.

Yousuf doesn't deserve his 50 plus average & i dont believe he would have average 50+ in past bowler-friendly era. Plus when it comes to "top 3" PAK batsmen of all-time behind the big two of Inzamam & Javed. I would certainly rate Zaheer Abbas, Saleem Malik, Hanif Mohammad, Saeed Anwar, M Mohammad ahead of Yousuf.

Going back Iqbal. He was better player than his 38 average suggest & played in tougher batting era than Yousuf. Maybe Yousuf was a slightly better player than Iqbal ever so slightly - but thats stats dont tell the whole truth here. Even so as i mentioned before Iqbal's his all-round package makes him a more valuable asset in the PAK All-time XI than Yousuf IMO.

 

[sifter132]

That post you quoted doesn't consider the matchups. Yousuf has a game that can be exploited on Australian bouncy pitches eg. gloving through to the keeper. With his technique it's not surprising that his 2 worst countries to bat in are Australia and South Africa. Just because he can't play at his best in Australia doesn't mean he's unworthy of a 50 plus average. Almost every great batsman has a hole in their record somewhere. Even Don Bradman barely cracked a 50 average against Bodyline.

 

[Fatal Shot]

I have seen Yousuf play some good knocks against quality teams. He has had some really good knocks against England in England. Also most Pakistani batsman are judged by their performances against India, and he has also played well against them.

 

[War]

That post you quoted doesn't consider the matchups. Yousuf has a game that can be exploited on Australian bouncy pitches eg. gloving through to the keeper. With his technique it's not surprising that his 2 worst countries to bat in are Australia and South Africa. Just because he can't play at his best in Australia doesn't mean he's unworthy of a 50 plus average.

Thats why he is unworthy of his 50 average. Since the greatest of batsmen have scored runs in all countries. If when Yousuf had hit his "purple patch" (breaking Viv Richards record for most runs in a calendar year) in the middle of the last decade & then when he had faced AUS & SA he had looked equally dominant. I think once can say for sure he was great & deserved his 50 average.

But he didn't & Yousuf will have to unfortunately go down has the many FTB of the 2000s era who plundered runs againts joke attacks on flat pitches & didn't dominate againts the quality attacks. Thus ending up with inflated averages.

Almost every great batsman has a hole in their record somewhere. Even Don Bradman barely cracked a 50 average against Bodyline.

The difference is bodyline was a ridiculously ultra defensive bowling tactic that was employed specifically to try to fail Bradman. But yet Bradman averaged 50+ againts it:laugh. That shows how legendary Bradman was since a 50+ average under no circumstances can be considered a failure..

But all the great batsmen like Tendulkar, Lara, G Chappell, Gavaskar, Sobers, Richards, Ponting, Miandad etc hard have any legitimate holes in their records..

 

[ben94]

Lmao, I meant the best partnership ever during my time

And as for the Rod Marsh thing, I chose him more for being the better wicketkeeper.

Surely you would want to go with Healy then? He would be a much better keeper of spin, considering he had to keep to Warne for most of his career.

 

[mdoggie]

South Africa

Graeme Smith
Barry Richards
Jacques Kallis
Graeme Pollock
Dudley Nourse
Aubrey Faulkner
Dennis Lindsay +
Clive Rice
Mike Procter
Shaun Pollock
Allan Donald

England

Herbert Succlife
Jack Hobbs
Len Hutton
Wally Hammond
Ken Barrington
Alan Knott +
Ian Botham
Jim Laker
Fred Trumen
John Snow
Sydny Barnes

Australia

Aurthur Morris
Mathew Hayden
Donald Bradman
Greg Chappel
Ricky Ponting
Steve Waugh
Keith Miller
Adam Gilchrist +
Shane Warne
Dennis Lilee
Glen McGrath

 

[drainpipe32]

Surely you would want to go with Healy then? He would be a much better keeper of spin, considering he had to keep to Warne for most of his career.

I was also trying to be different

 

[ballers101]

Yousuf doesn't deserve his 50 plus average & i dont believe he would have average 50+ in past bowler-friendly era. Plus when it comes to "top 3" PAK batsmen of all-time behind the big two of Inzamam & Javed. I would certainly rate Zaheer Abbas, Saleem Malik, Hanif Mohammad, Saeed Anwar, M Mohammad ahead of Yousuf.

Going back Iqbal. He was better player than his 38 average suggest & played in tougher batting era than Yousuf. Maybe Yousuf was a slightly better player than Iqbal ever so slightly - but thats stats dont tell the whole truth here. Even so as i mentioned before Iqbal's his all-round package makes him a more valuable asset in the PAK All-time XI than Yousuf IMO.

3rd Test: Pakistan v England at Lahore, Nov 29-Dec 3, 2005 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com
1st Test: England v Pakistan at Lord's, Jul 13-17, 2006 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com
2nd Test: Pakistan v West Indies at Multan, Nov 19-23, 2006 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com
3rd Test: Pakistan v West Indies at Karachi, Nov 27-Dec 1, 2006 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

Here are a couple of innings where because of Yousuf Pakistan won the match or drew the match because of Yousuf's batting. Now Yousuf played extremely well in England and India where Iqbal played horribly in India, West Indies and England. Where Yousuf had trouble in Australia, but every player has troubles in certain places of the world, just because he played bad against Australia doesn't mean he is one of the best batsmen in Pakistan ever. BTW you started by comparing the two of them but in the last posts you were comparing the greatest batsmen ever to Yousuf and even there I would say that Yousuf can hold his own.

He is a run machine that's it, Iqbal isn't, Yousuf deserves a spot instead of him especially with the strong bowling attack of Pakistan you don't need 6 bowlers you only need 5.

 

[War]

3rd Test: Pakistan v England at Lahore, Nov 29-Dec 3, 2005 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com
1st Test: England v Pakistan at Lord's, Jul 13-17, 2006 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com
2nd Test: Pakistan v West Indies at Multan, Nov 19-23, 2006 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com
3rd Test: Pakistan v West Indies at Karachi, Nov 27-Dec 1, 2006 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

All of these innings where either on extremely flat pitches or againts joke attacks though.

Here are a couple of innings where because of Yousuf Pakistan won the match or drew the match because of Yousuf's batting. Now Yousuf played extremely well in England and India where Iqbal played horribly in India, West Indies and England. Where Yousuf had trouble in Australia, but every player has troubles in certain places of the world, just because he played bad against Australia doesn't mean he is one of the best batsmen in Pakistan ever.

He is indeed one of the best PAK batsmen ever. I'm just saying he isn't as good as his 50+ average suggest, since he has a average record againts the AUS & SA - which had the best bowling attacks in his career.

He is a run machine that's it, Iqbal isn't, Yousuf deserves a spot instead of him especially with the strong bowling attack of Pakistan you don't need 6 bowlers you only need 5.

If you want to drop Iqbal. Abbas should be picked ahead of Yousuf still.

 

[ballers101]

If you want to drop Iqbal. Abbas should be picked ahead of Yousuf still.

Yousuf plays better in all the countries, Abhas only played well in Pakistan, England and Australia. However, Yousuf has a better average in every nation other except Australia. There really is no way you can tell me Abhas is better especially because Yousuf has played better in every nation except Australia.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

 

[sifter132]

Thats why he is unworthy of his 50 average.

But all the great batsmen like Tendulkar, Lara, G Chappell, Gavaskar, Sobers, Richards, Ponting, Miandad etc hard have any legitimate holes in their records..

You say Yousuf "is unworthy of his 50 average" because he can't play in Australia. Yet all the guys you list have holes too. Lara, Sobers and Richards all have bad averages in New Zealand, Ponting had big strive in India. And what makes Sachin's 39 in SA, Chappell's 40 and Gavaskar's 41 average in England SO much better than Yousuf's 33 in Australia?

It's really easy to pick apart a guy's record - and that's my whole point. ALL these guys have played for 10+ years and have had lots of time to straighten out any discrepancies in their records - yet they ALL have some relative weakness.

For what's it worth I agree with you that Yousuf's average is a little inflated from what I'd judge it's true value, but that's no reason to slight him entirely and to imply he's got big flaws that your 'complete' players don't.