Mohammad Yousuf the best pakistani batsmen ever?

[Richard]

The fact is that it IS normal to get dropped catches. It happens. Nothing strange about it.

So you see a ball hit in the air to a fielder and you don't expect it to be caught? O...K...

Really, mate, sometimes I feel you've never picked up a bat or a ball. Your theories or arguments are not only tedious they're very silly. I feel that you love the sport so much you go looking for such fine points that you tend to miss out the bigger picture. Sorry, if this is patronising.

I can assure you I have picked-up bats, balls and stumps.

Dropped catches are some of the least "fine", most obvious, points in cricket, they really are. There are some things which you could make said accusation at me and look like you had a point, but this isn't one of them.

 

[Richard]

How could someone who says that he loved playing in bowling friendly conditions of England & has an excellent record in County Cricket be a FTB? Yes,he almost always had problems facing WI pace attack but which Pakistani batsmen in those days faced them with some confidence apart from Waseem Raja?

Really, people who say "he didn't do so well against Marshall and co" is missing the point for mine. Hardly anyone did. It's no crime to have been unable to score with your normal proficiency against them.

 

[Richard]

Re catches and stuff, ultimately that all evens out if they've played enough Tests.

It's a nice thing to believe if you want to try to trivialise the matter, yes. In reality, though, it's complete nonsense.

 

[Ikki]

So you see a ball hit in the air to a fielder and you don't expect it to be caught? O...K...

Firstly, it doesn't matter what I expect, just what happens. Secondly, it's not unusual to see dropped catches.

Thirdly, if you want to be that accurate, how about we talk about decisions that go the wrong way...or plays and misses which were lucky because that batsman luckily missed a ball that he should have gotten out for. Because remember, every ball is a potential wicket and just because it wasn't doesn't mean that the failure should be ignored and the batsman's average dropped.

I can assure you I have picked-up bats, balls and stumps.

Dropped catches are some of the least "fine", most obvious, points in cricket, they really are. There are some things which you could make said accusation at me and look like you had a point, but this isn't one of them.

I am not talking about dropped catches, I am talking about your assumption that there needs to be first-chance average. Anyway, by your own standard, if it isn't a fine point, how come no one collects such a statistic. I mean, it wouldn't be that hard to at all. Maybe the fact that it isn't is enough answer for you.

I mean really, do you think you could give this theory of yours to any respectable cricketer and have them merit you for it? It's a rather silly point and the more you harp on about it the more I see people respect you less because of it. I mean, when something like this has been a running joke in the forums and used to tease you, I think that should give you some hint.

 

[Richard]

Firstly, it doesn't matter what I expect, just what happens. Secondly, it's not unusual to see dropped catches.

It's not especially unusual, no (certainly hasn't been of late) but a dropped catch is still far, far less common than a caught one. It's not about you specifically, it's about everyone - when someone who understands cricket sees a catch go, they expect it to be taken. That's pretty well irrefutable.

Thirdly, if you want to be that accurate, how about we talk about decisions that go the wrong way...or plays and misses which were lucky because that batsman luckily missed a ball that he should have gotten out for. Because remember, every ball is a potential wicket and just because it wasn't doesn't mean that the failure should be ignored and the batsman's average dropped.

Umpiring decisions, certainly; play-and-misses (and all those other little things) no way, because they really do happen all the time.

There's a substantial difference between something which always should result in a wicket (a catch being given, and a batsman being rapped on the pads in front of the stumps) and something which can never result in a wicket (a play-and-miss, a ball falling just short of a fielder).

I am not talking about dropped catches, I am talking about your assumption that there needs to be first-chance average. Anyway, by your own standard, if it isn't a fine point, how come no one collects such a statistic. I mean, it wouldn't be that hard to at all. Maybe the fact that it isn't is enough answer for you.

I mean really, do you think you could give this theory of yours to any respectable cricketer and have them merit you for it? It's a rather silly point and the more you harp on about it the more I see people respect you less because of it. I mean, when something like this has been a running joke in the forums and used to tease you, I think that should give you some hint.

For every person who regards it as a running joke (and those people generally tend to follow a common theme), there is someone who has said they see some merit in it.

It's never going to gain any credence, meanwhile, unless someone pushes it. I fully intend to do that towards everyone I come across in a cricketing guise. Plenty will reject it out-of-hand because they refuse to accept what is not the convention. But the fact that there have been enough who have been willing to let it into their hearts and minds suggests that it's not a fruitless cause.

 

[Ikki]

It's not especially unusual, no (certainly hasn't been of late) but a dropped catch is still far, far less common than a caught one. It's not about you specifically, it's about everyone - when someone who understands cricket sees a catch go, they expect it to be taken. That's pretty well irrefutable.

What are you talking about? No one is refuting that expectation. Whether the expectation itself is enough is the point. And no, just because you expect a catch to be taken doesn't mean you can notch it up as if it were.

Umpiring decisions, certainly; play-and-misses (and all those other little things) no way, because they really do happen all the time.

So, the difference is just expectation?

There's a substantial difference between something which always should result in a wicket (a catch being given, and a batsman being rapped on the pads in front of the stumps) and something which can never result in a wicket (a play-and-miss, a ball falling just short of a fielder).

There is no 'should'. If a catch is made, it's made. If it isn't, it isn't. Certainly, the ineptitude is not on the part of that batsman but the catcher for not taking the supposed chance. There is no fault here with that batsman. Otherwise, every ball in cricket is an opportunity to take a wicket and just because the fielding/bowling team doesn't, doesn't mean we can denigrate a batsman's record.

For every person who regards it as a running joke (and those people generally tend to follow a common theme), there is someone who has said they see some merit in it.

Really seems like an uphill battle to me. Much like Hayden V Hussain.

It's never going to gain any credence, meanwhile, unless someone pushes it. I fully intend to do that towards everyone I come across in a cricketing guise. Plenty will reject it out-of-hand because they refuse to accept what is not the convention. But the fact that there have been enough who have been willing to let it into their hearts and minds suggests that it's not a fruitless cause.

They will reject it and rightly. A supposition formulated by someone who hasn't even played at the highest level. It's laughed at amongst your peers, I don't dare to imagine what people who actually played test cricket would say about it.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

First chance averages have no merit whatsoever. A batsman might edge a ball to third slip and be dropped or he might edge it to where third slip would be but there's no fielder there. It's the same false shot but in one case his average drops and in the other it doesn't.

 

[Jono]

FFS, I don't even blame Richard anymore for the first chance average crap. I blame you all for encouraging him every few months If you just ignore it, it'll go away eventually.

And I agree with those that also say Yousuf cops a bit too much crap. He's obviously not yet better than Miandad, Hanif and Inzy (and I doubt he'll ever take over those three), but he's certainly building his career up to be a brilliant one. There's obviously the usual 'flat track era/**** bowlers/bigger bats/smaller grounds' etc. reasoning, which do ring true, and that's why he's not an all-time great or anything, but at his best he is an absolute run machine akin to Hayden, Ponting, Kallis and Rahul of the post-2000 era.

With regards to him being a FTB only (which he and Hayden get, whilst Kallis, Rahul and Ponting don't), I do think its still a concern, but far less now than it was 3 years back. He's a much better player nowadays, and has improved out of sight. Some of his recent knocks (like his recent 80+ against SA where all batsman struggled bar him who looked as fluent as ever) show that he can play when conditions aren't any good still.

And theres no doubting that his 2006 was absolutely phenomenal. Everytime I'd check Cricinfo he'd have another ton to his name. Ridiculous run of form.

 

[Richard]

First chance averages have no merit whatsoever. A batsman might edge a ball to third slip and be dropped or he might edge it to where third slip would be but there's no fielder there. It's the same false shot but in one case his average drops and in the other it doesn't.

And it's also the same false shot if he edges it to third-slip and he catches it as it is if he edges it through a vacant third-slip.

It's not difficult to tell that being dropped at third-slip is vastly different to edging though a vacant position. You're never going to get caught when there's no fielder there - you're usually going to get caught when there is one.

Once a ball goes to a fielder in the air, the result as far as the batsman is concerned was the same.

 

[Richard]

FFS, I don't even blame Richard anymore for the first chance average crap. I blame you all for encouraging him every few months If you just ignore it, it'll go away eventually.

Nah, no chance. You of all people should have learned this by now. And the two of us have come on leaps-and-bounds despite the issue.

 

[Jono]

You'll always believe it, I've accepted that fact. But we'll see less of these tedious arguments on the board if people don't go on and on about it with you.

 

[Richard]

What are you talking about? No one is refuting that expectation. Whether the expectation itself is enough is the point.

If that expectation is there, for a catch to be taken is the "norm". For it to not be is not the "norm".

And no, just because you expect a catch to be taken doesn't mean you can notch it up as if it were.

And I'm not doing so. I'm simply saying that the batsman has done the same thing regardless of whether it's caught or dropped.

So, the difference is just expectation?

The difference is the amount of luck it makes sense to take out. If you want a batsman to play an innings without any good fortune at all you're going to be waiting a long time. It's perfectly realistic, however, to expect someone to score runs without let-offs.

There is no 'should'. If a catch is made, it's made. If it isn't, it isn't. Certainly, the ineptitude is not on the part of that batsman but the catcher for not taking the supposed chance. There is no fault here with that batsman. Otherwise, every ball in cricket is an opportunity to take a wicket and just because the fielding/bowling team doesn't, doesn't mean we can denigrate a batsman's record.

So there's no fault with the batsman when he hits a ball straight to a fielder and is caught?

Really seems like an uphill battle to me. Much like Hayden V Hussain.

Not at all, in fact. I'll never convince the majority of ninconpoops there, but there's far more support on this issue than that.

They will reject it and rightly. A supposition formulated by someone who hasn't even played at the highest level. It's laughed at amongst your peers, I don't dare to imagine what people who actually played test cricket would say about it.

Whether you have played at the highest level makes no odds. It's no supposition to say that when a chance is given, whether it's caught or dropped has nothing to do with the batsman. Playing, at any level, won't alter any perception on this.

 

[Richard]

You'll always believe it, I've accepted that fact. But we'll see less of these tedious arguments on the board if people don't go on and on about it with you.

Much of it is n00b related TBH, that's almost always how it starts - then some of the usual crowd join the foray and decide to bash their heads endlessly once again.

 

[andruid]

Much of it is n00b related TBH, that's almost always how it starts - then some of the usual crowd join the foray and decide to bash their heads endlessly once again.

Like this?

 

[Perm]

what i was imploying there was that it isn't a bad idea to speculate about his future considering his recent form..

i don't agree that yousuf faced weaker side to make those runs.. he scored double handred in lords against.. hoggard, harmison and other top England bowlers when other pakistani batsman were failing.. not to forget in bouncy pitches..he faced murali in SL tour... and it comes to the mater of "if" if u want to say that his score might have been different if he was to face Aus and SA bowling attack..

It's only speculation thought, there can be no solid basis for any sort of prediction. The other batsman that are ahead of Yousuf IMO have all ended their careers and a fair judgement can be made, whereas with Mohammad Yousuf it's all still speculation as to how much he will have acheived by the time he retires.

173 vs India - Made on an absolute road of a pitch where Ajit Agarkar and Irfan Pathan were the two fast bowlers.
65 & 126 vs India - Again on a road, better bowling attack this time though.
0 & 97 vs India - Succumbed to sensational swing bowling of Irfan Pathan, made runs when the pitch flattened out in the second innings.
17 & 14* vs Sri Lanka - Came unstuck against Muralitharan, saw his side home with a small knock.
202 & 48 vs England - Pretty flat deck, mediocre bowling attack.
38 & 15 vs England - Countered Harmison well in the first innings, nothing in the second.
192 and 8 against England - Flattish deck, cashed in against Harmison and Mahmood.
128 against England - Again feasted on rubbish from Harmison and Mahmood.
192 vs West Indies - Average attack, pretty good batting deck.
56 and 191 vs West Indies - Flat deck.
102 and 124 vs West Indies - Average bowling attack.

There we go, that's the breakdown of Mohammad Yousuf's prolific 2006. He made lots of runs against a weak West Indies team, cashed in on flat decks in India and dealt with a couple of average bowlers from England.

 

[Perm]

one more thing to consider is that he has played under the shadow of Inzi most of his career... now that inzi has gone.. there is more responsibility on him.. this again goes to my point that if he plays like this another couple of years then he should be considered in the best player list.

Yes, there will be more responsibility of Yousuf's shoulders as the senior batsman in the Pakistan team. Let's see how he handles it though, before making comments about how 'great' he is.

 

[Ikki]

If that expectation is there, for a catch to be taken is the "norm". For it to not be is not the "norm".

Again, expectation=irrelevant.

And I'm not doing so. I'm simply saying that the batsman has done the same thing regardless of whether it's caught or dropped.

So?

The difference is the amount of luck it makes sense to take out. If you want a batsman to play an innings without any good fortune at all you're going to be waiting a long time. It's perfectly realistic, however, to expect someone to score runs without let-offs.

So?

So there's no fault with the batsman when he hits a ball straight to a fielder and is caught?

When he is caught...sure. Not when he is dropped. A batsman can hit a great shot, which means he wasn't deserving to be out yet someone catches a screamer and is out. Just because of expectations...should we notch that not out?

Not at all, in fact. I'll never convince the majority of ninconpoops there, but there's far more support on this issue than that.

As I've said before, I think that when usually you're always on the brunt of some jokes, and usually by yourself in an opinion, you should try to loosen your grip and consider what others are actually telling you.

Whether you have played at the highest level makes no odds. It's no supposition to say that when a chance is given, whether it's caught or dropped has nothing to do with the batsman. Playing, at any level, won't alter any perception on this.

It makes complete sense. How will you know what it takes to continue an innings after being dropped? Do they regard drop catches in the same sense you do? And what would they think?

 

[Jono]

That 102 vs. the WI was a really good knock Perm. When you look at how the rest of the team were batting, he kept the innings together whilst still scoring at a decent pace.

I understand that Yousuf hardly played against quality opposition in that year, but he still toured England, and I'm sure if you look at Viv's year, he would have played against on some flat tracks and/or mediocre opposition as well.

Again, not for one second am I putting Yousuf even in the same ball park as Sir Viv. I personally was hoping Yousuf wouldn't break the record in that test vs. WI (but you have to respect the way he batted in that last test, both for his team and knowing he needed two tons to break the record (or something like that)), but for any player to score so many runs in a calendar year they would have played against some mediocre teams, and in some good batting conditions.

 

[haroon510]

It's only speculation thought, there can be no solid basis for any sort of prediction. The other batsman that are ahead of Yousuf IMO have all ended their careers and a fair judgement can be made, whereas with Mohammad Yousuf it's all still speculation as to how much he will have acheived by the time he retires.

173 vs India - Made on an absolute road of a pitch where Ajit Agarkar and Irfan Pathan were the two fast bowlers.
65 & 126 vs India - Again on a road, better bowling attack this time though.
0 & 97 vs India - Succumbed to sensational swing bowling of Irfan Pathan, made runs when the pitch flattened out in the second innings.
17 & 14* vs Sri Lanka - Came unstuck against Muralitharan, saw his side home with a small knock.
202 & 48 vs England - Pretty flat deck, mediocre bowling attack.
38 & 15 vs England - Countered Harmison well in the first innings, nothing in the second.
192 and 8 against England - Flattish deck, cashed in against Harmison and Mahmood.
128 against England - Again feasted on rubbish from Harmison and Mahmood.
192 vs West Indies - Average attack, pretty good batting deck.
56 and 191 vs West Indies - Flat deck.
102 and 124 vs West Indies - Average bowling attack.

There we go, that's the breakdown of Mohammad Yousuf's prolific 2006. He made lots of runs against a weak West Indies team, cashed in on flat decks in India and dealt with a couple of average bowlers from England.

what? Harmison and Hoggard are mediocre.. i don't agree here.. i remember Harmison was the one who give england the series victory along with monty and Hoggard.. and u r calling them mediocre..

 

[Lillian Thomson]

And it's also the same false shot if he edges it to third-slip and he catches it as it is if he edges it through a vacant third-slip.

It's not difficult to tell that being dropped at third-slip is vastly different to edging though a vacant position. You're never going to get caught when there's no fielder there - you're usually going to get caught when there is one.

Once a ball goes to a fielder in the air, the result as far as the batsman is concerned was the same.

It's not different from the point of view of the batsman's ability, which is what this nonsense seems to be trying to have some bearing on.

I really hope Richard's a very clever troll on a massive wind-up and doesn't believe what he writes or society could be in great danger.