Younis Khan

[OverratedSanity]

Younis Khan just said that he'd like to thank all of Younis Khan's fans. One of the few men in world cricket awesome enough to refer to himself in the third person.

 

[OverratedSanity]

well, tbf Miandad's record against the WI wasn't all that flash either although he did almost carry through Pakistan to a series victory in the caribbean in 1988. But Miandad definitely the more mentally strong individual. He wouldn't be cowed down by even the mighty WI.

It's more the fact that Inzi had hardly any good,memorable innings against Australia, more than just his average against him imo. Miandad certainly had several fine innings against the Windies. Atleast Miandad had that amazing 1988 series. Hundred at Georgetown a truly great one.

 

[Prince EWS]

Of course you could look at it that way, and there might be some merit to it. However, I think what I took from it is: If Inzi played well, Pakistan usually won. If he failed, we sucked. That's a lot of pressure to carry your team's fortunes on your shoulders. Especially when the lineup around you is dog ****.

It's a bit chicken/egg though. You could just as easily say that Pakistan carried Inzamam and that when Pakistan won, he played well, and when they lost he sucked. I don't think it's a meaningful stat within itself either way you choose to look at it; needs more context.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Younis also referred to his fans as 'followers'. WAG

 

[Howe_zat]

It's a bit chicken/egg though. You could just as easily say that Pakistan carried Inzamam and that when Pakistan won, he played well, and when they lost he sucked. I don't think it's a meaningful stat within itself either way you choose to look at it; needs more context.

Yeah I've seen similar stats levelled at players like Broad and Bell in particular to suggest they're coat tail riders. It's the sort of thing you need to list examples for to mean much.

(incidentally Ravi Bopara averages 70 in wins)

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah, of all those useless stats out there, I particularly hate the average/centuries in wins, which are provided as evidence of a batsman being a matchwinner.

 

[the big bambino]

Congrats to YK and in the list of best Pakistani bats I'd still have him behind Javed, Majid Khan, Asif Iqbal and Zaheer Abbas.

 

[Fusion]

It's a bit chicken/egg though. You could just as easily say that Pakistan carried Inzamam and that when Pakistan won, he played well, and when they lost he sucked. I don't think it's a meaningful stat within itself either way you choose to look at it; needs more context.

Well of course additional context would be needed for any stat. I could say player X has a 100 average and it wouldn't tell you anything about his abilities unless you knew a multitude of other stats (games played, strength of opposition etc), along with perhaps actually watching said player play. I have seen Inzi play, and I can guarantee you Pakistan didn't carry him in wins, it was the other way around (not that you were implying that, I get you were merely making a point).

In terms of stats, that article I quoted is really interesting. They came up with a methodology to measure an "impact index". Based on their methodology, they found this:

"As it transpires, no batsman in Test history has more series-defining performances (SDs) in his career than Inzamam-ul-Haq and Rahul Dravid – seven each. Dravid did it in 164 Tests, Inzamam in 120."

Again, you can quibble with their methodology and conclusions, but if one has watched Inzi play, I think it would be hard to argue that he didn't carry Pakistan more often than not. And back to subject of this thread, I think he's had more impact innings and was a better batsman than Younis. To quote from the same article again:

"In conventional terms, Javed Miandad (53), Mohammed Yousuf (52) and Younis Khan (51) all have higher batting averages than Inzamam (50).

But it wasn’t just the difference in number of series-defining performances or Inzamam’s big match quality that made him higher impact.

He also absorbed the most pressure in Pakistan Test history (minimum 50 Tests).

He built the most partnerships. Interestingly, his renowned propensity to get his partner run out (often in delightfully ludicrous ways) more than any other contemporary batsman in the world did not come in the way of this quality.

He had the second-highest Strike Rate Impact (higher strike rate than match standard in winning Tests) after Wasim Akram.

He had the second-lowest failure rate (when a batsman is unable to even register an impact of 1, suggesting that he could not do the job of even one player) among Pakistani Test batsmen, after Mohammad Yousuf."

 

[Pratters]

I love Inzy. Rate him higher than Younis. I think he was of a higher caliber. There can be millions of stats to tell x or y to me but I can't quantify such things. Having seen them both a fair bit, I feel more confident about Inzy's skill level.

I do agree with Fusion that Inzamam was severely underrated. Isn't that far behind Dravid, really.

 

[smalishah84]

I love Inzy. Rate him higher than Younis. I think he was of a higher caliber. There can be millions of stats to tell x or y to me but I can't quantify such things. Having seen them both a fair bit, I feel more confident about Inzy's skill level.

I do agree with Fusion that Inzamam was severely underrated. Isn't that far behind Dravid, really.

This

 

[Jono]

Younis Khan just said that he'd like to thank all of Younis Khan's fans. One of the few men in world cricket awesome enough to refer to himself in the third person.

KP does that too.

What a duo - KP and Younis. Polar opposites.

 

[Jono]

I do agree with Fusion that Inzamam was severely underrated. Isn't that far behind Dravid, really.

He really is a fair way behind Dravid imo.

 

[Pratters]

He really is a fair way behind Dravid imo.

I am not that sure actually. Dravid has a superior record to Inzamam in England and that puts him ahead. Other than that, there isn't much. If you look at the averages, Dravid has an average of 40 in Australia while Inzamam has an average of 30. However, Dravid has a terrible record in Australia except 2003 when Australian bowling wasn't very good.

Inzamam has a great record in Sri Lanka (averages 60 in 20 tests) compared to Dravid's average of 33 in 12 tests there. Sri Lanka is also the subcontinent but would one not hold such a wide difference in favour of Inzamam?

Dravid could play swing better but against bounce both coped better than most subcontinent batsmen.

I would say he is behind Dravid but not that far behind. It is a matter of degrees but it is the degrees where one feels Inzamam is underrated.

 

[Jono]

Obviously Australia 2003 wasn't as good as Warne/McGrath, but Gillespie, Bichel and MacGill is better than a lot of attacks floating around today. Lee played some of those tests too.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I am not that sure actually. Dravid has a superior record to Inzamam in England and that puts him ahead. Other than that, there isn't much. If you look at the averages, Dravid has an average of 40 in Australia while Inzamam has an average of 30. However, Dravid has a terrible record in Australia except 2003 when Australian bowling wasn't very good.

Inzamam has a great record in Sri Lanka (averages 60 in 20 tests) compared to Dravid's average of 33 in 12 tests there. Sri Lanka is also the subcontinent but would one not hold such a wide difference in favour of Inzamam?

Dravid could play swing better but against bounce both coped better than most subcontinent batsmen.

I would say he is behind Dravid but not that far behind. It is a matter of degrees but it is the degrees where one feels Inzamam is underrated.

Yeah, fair enough, but Ive never bought why the Astralia attack of that 2003/04 series is always called terrible. Yeah, yeah it had Brad Williams, but as far as I know, Gillespie and Macgill were quality bwolers. Sure it wasn't a patch on McWarne, but I'd guess it wasn't any worse than any most other attacks of the time.

And unlike Dravid, who did produce the goods on numerous occasions against Australia, I can only remember Inzi doing it maybe once, at Karachi in that partnership with Mushtaq. Don't think he did anthing else that significant. Inzi not too far behind though, I agree.

 

[Pratters]

The Aussie attack had MacGill who wasn't a huge threat. It had Lee who isn't half the test bowler he could have been. Brad Williams. Only one quality bowler in Gillespie. You cannot sustain pressure with that.

 

[OverratedSanity]

MacGill was a quality bowler. As was Bichel imo. Lee, though was pretty terrible back then.

 

[Pratters]

I do rate Bichel. Quality bowler. However, if you have 2 good bowlers in a 4 pronged attack, it is not effective as the pressure is not sustained. Windies in the late 90s had Ambrose and Walsh and two mediocre bowlers along with them and their attack wasn't very good at that time, was it.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Lee and Gillespie were both injury affected during the series too.

 

[Pratters]

And unlike Dravid, who did produce the goods on numerous occasions against Australia, I can only remember Inzi doing it maybe once, at Karachi in that partnership with Mushtaq. Don't think he did anthing else that significant. Inzi not too far behind though, I agree.

Inzamam averages 30 v Australia which doesn't look very good at all.

However, in Australia, he does fairly ok in the two full series he did play there.

- In 1995/96 averages 38.6 in 3 tests including 2 50s.
- In 1999/00 averages 43.3 in 3 tests including 1 100 and 1 50.

Most batsmen have average records against the best sides. Even the best batsmen fail against the very best bowling. Gavaskar has a great record v West Indies but when you break it down (as SJS did a few years ago), when Gavaskar played v the very best attacks of West Indies, he has a mediocre record. That doesn't stop people from putting Gavaskar among the best openers the game has seen.

Considering this, averaging 40 in two full series in Australia is pretty good actually.