-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Younis Khan
- Thread starter Agent Nationaux
- Start date
Saint Kopite
First Class Debutant
I would rate Younis as the second best test batsman, tied with Inzy and Hanif. Considering some of his innings under pressure, I would consider him higher than Abbas and Yousuf, two very aesthetic batsmen but no way close to being as reliable as Younis Khan has been, be it in home turf or away.
Miandad.
Inzy/Younis/Hanif.
Yousuf/Abbas/Anwar.
Miandad.
Inzy/Younis/Hanif.
Yousuf/Abbas/Anwar.
subshakerz
International Coach
Rate Anwar higher than Inzy, having seen both of them play. Anwar was more assured against high quality attacks, and Warne/Murali. Only problem is he didnt play enough cricket, but in the 90s when attacks were at the best, I remember him being more valued than Inzi.
Black_Warrior
Cricketer Of The Year
The most amazing thing about Younis Khan is that he has some of the best qualities that make him very unPakistani as a batsman.
He is patient, extremely hard working, does not mind getting beaten, he will continue to hang in there and fight it out and occupy the crease no matter how difficult the conditions and how dire the situation. These are qualities that you associate with players like Steve Waugh, Dravid, Chanderpaul, Kallis.. Hardly any Pakistani batsman is known for such traits..and it is for these traits I think it took him so long to be considered a superstar in a nation that adores Afridi.
His hunger for centuries, his drive to score big centuries is unmatched by any Pakistani batsman I have seen and it is for this quality alone that he has statistically surpassed more gifted batsmen like Inzy and Anwar.
He is patient, extremely hard working, does not mind getting beaten, he will continue to hang in there and fight it out and occupy the crease no matter how difficult the conditions and how dire the situation. These are qualities that you associate with players like Steve Waugh, Dravid, Chanderpaul, Kallis.. Hardly any Pakistani batsman is known for such traits..and it is for these traits I think it took him so long to be considered a superstar in a nation that adores Afridi.
His hunger for centuries, his drive to score big centuries is unmatched by any Pakistani batsman I have seen and it is for this quality alone that he has statistically surpassed more gifted batsmen like Inzy and Anwar.
Black_Warrior
Cricketer Of The Year
For me he is quite ahead of Dravid actually..the stats don't quite show it and I understand that why people will think differently but there is just far too many factors to consider here.
Dravid has only one century in Australia, as you mentioned, a 230 in Adelaide and we all know how flat Adelaide is..against Gillespie, Bichel, Brad Williams and MacGill..Macgill might be a decent bowler but his 2003 series was terrible..anyone who has seen that series should remember that he was bowling one full toss and one half tracker an over..
The main factor here is Dravid is associated with the famous 2001 test match which was undoubtedly a brilliant innings. However his overall record against Australia and South Africa aren't all that for someone who is supposed to have the best technique against pace bowling.
Inzamam on the other hand has a hundred in Australia against McGrath, Fleming and Warne in 99.
He has also not played against Australia at home since 1998.
So pretty much we have 3 test matches in 99 in Australia.
The 2004 series Inzamam was unfit and played only 1 game with an injury and got a pair if I am not mistaken.
Overall the stats are still in Dravid's favour and I totally understand if most people rate him higher. Personally I find him a tad overrated, not to say he is crap or anything but I feel he is considered a tad greater than he was because of the Kolkata test match.
Pakistan on the other hand didn't really get to play Australia as much in the same period, and certainly not at home. Younis for example would have had at least 5 more centuries had Pakistan been playing regular test cricket like India or Australia in the last few years.
Inzamam of course had other problems, his poor fitness being a major issue and he has only himself to blame for that. This is where Younis scores over Inzy for me..despite not being as good in terms of ability, his work ethic, his fitness, his hard work is what allowed him to surpass players better than him.
Last edited:
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Dravid's performances in England is what puts him ahead imo. Dravid did succeed v fast bowling like Pakistan, NZ and some success v Australia. Inzamam meanwhile has a poor record in swinging conditions of England. That's a bit of a gap when you compare it with RSD.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I don't think saying Inzi>Dravid is ridiculous, but this was a pretty biased post imo. Saying Dravid's double at Adelaide came on a flat track against a not so great attack and thus discounting it in favour of a hundred from Inzi just because it came against McWarne is just silly. No matter what conditions Dravid faced that day, the team was 4 wickets down and 500 runs behind Australia in the first innings. There's just no way to knock down that innings. Dire circumstances and anything less than a double hundred from him and we would've lost. We also probably would've lost if he hadn't followed it up with 72 in the 4th innings. I'd take that over whatever Inzi did against McWarne thanks. There's also Perth 2008, which no one except me seems to remember.
And if you're so intent on hundreds against great bowlers in the 90s, why do you ignore that Dravid got ne against Donald and Pollock while Inzi didn't? I'm not going to use that to say Dravid>inzi. Nor should you use Inzi's sole hundred against McGrath in Australia to say Inzi>Dravid.
Then you make all these excuses for Inzi saying that he was injured, etc, which may all be true, but also consider that for some inexplicable reason, Dravid was often made to openthe batting just because our openers were ***, and several times, this came against Australia (in the 2008 series especially), and against South Africa (I think in the 96 series). These are extenuating circumstances too, right?
And anyway, I do agree Dravid and inzi were both not quite as good against Australia and SA as they should've been, but for me, personally, my overall impression of Inzi was already made by the time I'd watched his first 50-60 tests, when he was nothing more than a mediocre batsman, for me. Was brilliant lattter on in his career, but my mind was rather unfairly, maybe, already made up.
Last edited:
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
And really, Dravid might have failed numerous times against Australia and SA, but on form, the England 2011 was incredible. And he made runs on green seamers, minefields with inconsistent bounce, and of course in some insane swinging conditions. I remember precious little from Inzi in truly tough conditions for batting.
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
An interesting topic for me is who was the better player of pace bowling. Inzamam had so much time v pace bowling, it was unreal. To play he kind of innings he did during 92 WC completely raw speaks volumes.
While Dravid is more prolific (he did play far more tests) and more dependable even, while Dravid was the wall, Inzamam was more at ease naturally against pace.
While Dravid is more prolific (he did play far more tests) and more dependable even, while Dravid was the wall, Inzamam was more at ease naturally against pace.
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
Yea Inzy had better raw talent. 92 WC was a good indication of that. Dravid was hardworking, more focussed, constantly worked on his technique. He was patient and didn't give up. He made the most of his talent. And, he knew how to run which is something that ca't be said about Inzy.
fredfertang
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Thee and me Pratters are always going to be impressed by guys like Inzy, who are built like us, yet still manage to look so light on their feet
Have always liked how cricket is one of the few sports which can be played by people of all shapes and sizes.
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
It is weird really. In the first tests India played, they had some of the best fast bowlers in Md. Nissar and Amar Singh. It has a lot to do with poor nutritional patterns and no culture to produce athletes. We just don't support an environment where athletes can develop. It is not that we do not have people with tall frames. We have loads of them in Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan at least, to just give you 3 states. It is just that we don't have a culture where we develop sports or sports people. Developing fast bowlers requires great care. I guess if cricket was a more 'athletic' sport, India would have had a much more average history in it.
smash84
The Tiger King
It has to do with role models. Pakistan never really had express fast bowlers until Imran came along. Fazal Mahmood and Khan Mohammad in the 50s were medium pacers. It is only after Imran that the line started.
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
No, that's not a reason. Even if you consider that, a large % of population is non vegetarian too. Punjabis are mostly non vegetarians for instance. The Haryanvi jats are strong people too. I was in Delhi recently and guy who drove me around was a tall guy whose height and built suprised me.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I'm definiely more prepared to accept smali's argument than the vegetarian one, which imo is just a weak excuse, and factually incorrect. Not saying we'll have a legion of quicks if one manages to achieve greatness, bu it'll certainly help. Everyone in gully cricket here fights for the bat ffs... that's the problem.
smash84
The Tiger King
Yep. Just get a wasim, waqar, shoaib, or an Imran leading the Indian attack and let 1 billion people look up to them as THE role models then sure as **** you'll get plenty of fast bowlers cropping up. Sure most of the crop will be ****e (just like in Pakistan) but some will obviously be good.