Mohammad Yousuf the best pakistani batsmen ever?

[CrazY GirL]

yusuf is gr8 and for sure the best batsman of pakistani team at the moment but i think inzy overall is inzy is the best

 

[Richard]

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..

Harmison is mediocre - worse, in fact.

Harmison will bowl reasonably (not even exceptionally) in the occasional Test here and there and utter rubbish for another 7 or 8.

 

[Perm]

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..

Matthew Hoggard is a good bowler, as is Monty Panesar. Steve Harmison is pretty poor and Liam Plunkett should have been nowhere near a Test side.

 

[SJS]

Harmison is mediocre - worse, in fact.

Harmison will bowl reasonably (not even exceptionally) in the occasional Test here and there and utter rubbish for another 7 or 8.

Richards, tell me, have you always felt like that about his bowling ?

 

[Richard]

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.

It is. For all you know the strokeplay could be different according to where fielders are.

There's no difference between what a batsman's done when he hits the ball in the air to a fielder and it is caught as he has when he hits the ball in the air to a fielder and it is dropped. However, there is something different - hugely so - when he hits the ball in the air to a fielder and hits the ball in the air away from a fielder.

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.

Good.

 

[Richard]

Richards, tell me, have you always felt like that about his bowling ?

Yes. I said he was poor back in 2003 when I first started on CW, I said he wasn't bowling particularly remarkably when everyone was raving about him in early 2004 (though obviously he was better in those 7 Tests than he has been for most of his career) and I said he was crap when he started to bowl utter crap again in the home West Indies series.

I've never, ever rated Harmison. He is not accurate enough to be a Test-standard bowler, and almost never has been.

 

[Perm]

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.

I'm not denying that some of his innings were good, because you have to be an exceptional player to score as many runs as Mohammad Yousuf did during 2006 and I've tried to give full credit to him for being such a consisent run machine. Fact of the matter is though, that he hardly came up against a quality bowling attack on a sporting deck so his acheivement isn't as phenominal as some are making it out to be. It's certainly not something that would propel him above Inzamam-ul-Haq, Hanif Mohammad and Javed Miandad as the best Test batsman that Pakistan have produced.

 

[Richard]

Again, expectation=irrelevant.

So why did you say it is normal to get dropped catches? This means you expect them? If so, I don't know why.

So?

So therefore I judge a batsman on whether he gives a chance, not whether that chance is accepted.

So?

So therefore saying "he played and missed" would just be ridiculous; saying "he was dropped" isn't.

When he is caught...sure. Not when he is dropped.

That makes no sense. He's done the exact same thing in both cases. If he is to be criticised for one, he should be criticised for the other, or neither.

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 really. Catching screamers is unusual, and it is unfortunate for the batsman, but it's just one of those things. Screamers being caught is a few-times-in-a-career occurrance, drops happen far too much.

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.

I'm not usually by myself in an opinion, at all. Even the Hayden-Hussain thing there are a few like-thinkers.

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?

Absolutely everyone regards dropped catches as something hated. Everyone who's ever played cricket, pretty much, will tell you there's no worse feeling in the game than dropping a catch.

What it takes to continue an innings after being dropped is exactly the same as what it takes to start one when you first walk out. And it's not impossible to do, but the chance should never arise to do it.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It is. For all you know the strokeplay could be different according to where fielders are.

There's no difference between what a batsman's done when he hits the ball in the air to a fielder and it is caught as he has when he hits the ball in the air to a fielder and it is dropped. However, there is something different - hugely so - when he hits the ball in the air to a fielder and hits the ball in the air away from a fielder.

If a batsman plays a defensive shot he's trying to hit it in the middle of bat and the number of slips has no bearing on his shot, it does have a bearing on the result if he mis-hits it.
Maybe we should have "The opposition captain can't set a field averages as well."

(I know we shouldn't indulge in this but the performing bear has been banned from the circus.)

 

[Ikki]

So why did you say it is normal to get dropped catches? This means you expect them? If so, I don't know why.

I was giving you another perspective. You said expectation can be there for a batsman to be caught, and I said expectation can also be there for batsmen to get dropped - as they regularly are. Therefore, expectation means nothing.

So therefore I judge a batsman on whether he gives a chance, not whether that chance is accepted.

It doesn't matter whether he gives that chance or not, because every ball is virtually a chance.

Furthermore, you're essentially rewarding a batsman that does not take a risk to one that takes risks in his shot selection to benefit his team. Stupid, if you ask me.

So therefore saying "he played and missed" would just be ridiculous; saying "he was dropped" isn't.

Saying he was dropped, as long as it is matter-of-factly stated is fine. To say he was dropped, hence his innings is worth less is stupid.

That makes no sense. He's done the exact same thing in both cases. If he is to be criticised for one, he should be criticised for the other, or neither.

It makes total sense. The fielders/bowlers have a job to get the batsman out, at any ball, at any time, not doing so is their responsibility...not that batsman's.

Not really. Catching screamers is unusual, and it is unfortunate for the batsman, but it's just one of those things. Screamers being caught is a few-times-in-a-career occurrance, drops happen far too much.

No it's not that rare either. Let's just say a great catch you normally wouldn't expect to be held, but was. That happens enough. Therefore the same reasoning applied makes it stupid. Just as the original reasoning is.

I'm not usually by myself in an opinion, at all. Even the Hayden-Hussain thing there are a few like-thinkers.

I really didn't catch anyone saying Hussain > Hayden. Would you like to point it out? Some gave your thinking some credence, the rest still lambasted it. And just because you weren't alone doesn't mean anything. There is a general trend with you where a big majority is always against your assertion. As I've said countless times, you should really look into that and why.

Absolutely everyone regards dropped catches as something hated. Everyone who's ever played cricket, pretty much, will tell you there's no worse feeling in the game than dropping a catch.

Yes, dropped catches are hated on the side of fielders, not on the side of batsmen. It just depends what you're doing at the time. Generally, it's a part of the game and it's not something you use to denigrate a batsman's innings, let alone his career record - as you seem to love doing.

What it takes to continue an innings after being dropped is exactly the same as what it takes to start one when you first walk out. And it's not impossible to do, but the chance should never arise to do it.

Nope, it isn't. And that's the mental difference you seem to neglect. When you play a poor shot it's different to not having played one at all. IF you can continue batting as if nothing is happened is where the mental steel comes in. And that's something you don't give too much credit for. Which is why I questioned whether you really played the game that much.

 

[SJS]

Yes. I said he was poor back in 2003 when I first started on CW, I said he wasn't bowling particularly remarkably when everyone was raving about him in early 2004 (though obviously he was better in those 7 Tests than he has been for most of his career) and I said he was crap when he started to bowl utter crap again in the home West Indies series.

I've never, ever rated Harmison. He is not accurate enough to be a Test-standard bowler, and almost never has been.

Thats right actually. I had started a thread sometimes in 2004 about how good are harmison and Flintoof sonce I did not think they, particularly Harmison were in the top class tradition of English fast bowlers by a fair distance and you were one of the rare people who spoke poorly of Harmison.

 

[Richard]

If a batsman plays a defensive shot he's trying to hit it in the middle of bat and the number of slips has no bearing on his shot, it does have a bearing on the result if he mis-hits it.

This is an intangible, however - dropped catches aren't, they're either a chance or they're not.

Maybe we should have "The opposition captain can't set a field averages as well."

This too is an intangible.

 

[Richard]

I was giving you another perspective. You said expectation can be there for a batsman to be caught, and I said expectation can also be there for batsmen to get dropped - as they regularly are. Therefore, expectation means nothing.

If you say so. I'm happy with the fact that most people expect a catch to be taken.

It doesn't matter whether he gives that chance or not, because every ball is virtually a chance.

It's not virtually a chance. It's a chance if the bowler is good enough to make it one. This is totally different to something that happens after the ball is bowled.

Furthermore, you're essentially rewarding a batsman that does not take a risk to one that takes risks in his shot selection to benefit his team. Stupid, if you ask me.

No, you're not. Dropped catches are every bit as likely however many risks you take. And if you want to say that every ball is a chance, every stroke is a risk.

Saying he was dropped, as long as it is matter-of-factly stated is fine. To say he was dropped, hence his innings is worth less is stupid.

I've never once said an innings is worthless after a dropped catch - I've many times acknowledged someone who scored 140 after being dropped on 10 has played well after the drop.

It makes total sense. The fielders/bowlers have a job to get the batsman out, at any ball, at any time, not doing so is their responsibility...not that batsman's.

And if the batsman has given a chance to the fielder, it's his responsibility. If the catch is caught, he is penalised. It's not right to allow him not to be because the fielder has dropped it.

No it's not that rare either. Let's just say a great catch you normally wouldn't expect to be held, but was. That happens enough. Therefore the same reasoning applied makes it stupid. Just as the original reasoning is.

It doesn't happen often, at all. A "wow, what an amazing catch" is a rare thing indeed.

I really didn't catch anyone saying Hussain > Hayden. Would you like to point it out? Some gave your thinking some credence, the rest still lambasted it. And just because you weren't alone doesn't mean anything. There is a general trend with you where a big majority is always against your assertion. As I've said countless times, you should really look into that and why.

I'm well aware of why it is - it's because I think out of the box. Those too rigid and simplistic in their thinking cannot accept this, and hence lambast. Even when there's a big majority, there's pretty well always some who say they "see some credence in the thinking" as you put it.

Yes, dropped catches are hated on the side of fielders, not on the side of batsmen.

Every batsman is also a fielder. Sure, I bet a batsman would love to never drop something himself and still be dropped when batting, but if you gave pretty much anyone the choice they'd cut-out the drops theirselves and take the consequences of not being dropped themselves.

Nope, it isn't. And that's the mental difference you seem to neglect. When you play a poor shot it's different to not having played one at all. IF you can continue batting as if nothing is happened is where the mental steel comes in. And that's something you don't give too much credit for. Which is why I questioned whether you really played the game that much.

The ability to put a poor stroke behind you is a basic skill of batting - without it you'll get nowhere whatsoever. To praise someone for having this is like praising them for taking a bat out to the middle.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

This is an intangible, however - dropped catches aren't, they're either a chance or they're not.

It's not intangible, the batsman has played the same false shot whether's he caught, dropped or there's no fielder there. Presumably the point of this first chance nonsense is to lower a batsman average and prove that he's not as good as he's made out to be (Yousuf for example). But in this case his ability level is is seen to be identical.

 

[Richard]

It's not intangible, the batsman has played the same false shot whether's he caught, dropped or there's no fielder there.

And players play false shots all the time - there's no way of saying "there should have been a fielder there" every time a ball goes in the air. There is always a way of saying "that should have been caught".

Presumably the point of this first chance nonsense is to lower a batsman average and prove that he's not as good as he's made out to be (Yousuf for example). But in this case his ability level is is seen to be identical.

A first-chance average gives a more accurate reflection of what a batsman's actually done than does a scorebook one. The point of it is nothing more, nothing less than this. But obviously, it can also be used to prove a batsman's actually done better than he appears to have done (Strauss in Tests in 2006\07 for instance, or Flintoff in the opening Test-series in 2002).

Obviously, many people would like to believe it to be used purely to prove what "I'd like" to prove, because that makes a nice straw-man to try and shoot down.

 

[White Lightning]

And players play false shots all the time - there's no way of saying "there should have been a fielder there" every time a ball goes in the air. There is always a way of saying "that should have been caught".

but it doesn't make a batsman any better or any worse if a fieldsmen is there or not...

the batsman had no control over the shot so it could've gone anywhere.... he didn't "misplace" the shot into the gap so to speak...

 

[Richard]

No, he didn't, and if you want to start saying batsmen should be out every time they hit the ball in the air you're welcome to - but you're not going to have any batsmen bar Don Bradman and Everton Weekes who average much.

On the other hand, it is possible to make unequivocal records of when someone gave a chance, and realising that giving a chance is the same as far as what the batsman has done regardless of whether it's caught or dropped, you can spot the fact that the first-chance record gives you a better indication of how a batsman's played than the scorebook one.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

No, he didn't, and if you want to start saying batsmen should be out every time they hit the ball in the air you're welcome to - but you're not going to have any batsmen bar Don Bradman and Everton Weekes who average much.

On the other hand, it is possible to make unequivocal records of when someone gave a chance, and realising that giving a chance is the same as far as what the batsman has done regardless of whether it's caught or dropped, you can spot the fact that the first-chance record gives you a better indication of how a batsman's played than the scorebook one.

Okay, we'll accept that you believe in this but 99% of the cricketing population think it's complete drivel and argue no more.
One final question though. How does the famous Dhoni/Panesar incident get marked down in the book? It was a simple catch but he didn't drop it. (Of course ignoring for this purpose the fact that Dhoni did the same thing a few balls later.)

 

[Richard]

Okay, we'll accept that you believe in this but 99% of the cricketing population think it's complete drivel and argue no more.

Not even close. 40 or 50% at the absolute best.

One final question though. How does the famous Dhoni/Panesar incident get marked down in the book? It was a simple catch but he didn't drop it. (Of course ignoring for this purpose the fact that Dhoni did the same thing a few balls later.)

Something doesn't have to hit the hands to be a chance of a catch. It's really not very difficult to work-out what should be caught and what shouldn't be.

Congratulations, BTW - that was possibly the most polite post I've ever seen from you.

 

[Perm]

Not even close. 40 or 50% at the absolute best.

Haha, rating yourself a bit there I think Richard.