True, but Sanga's record in Aust, Eng, NZ & SA stands on it's own. Australia in particular, Sanga averaged 60 there, with one hundred and 5 fifties (in 10 innings), whereas Khan's hardly played there, and has just 1 fifty from 6 innings. It's not his fault that he's only played 6 innings there, but it's fair to say the jury is still out on his ability to succeed in the country generally most difficult for SC batsmen. The sample is so insignificant for Younis.Do you apply this same criteria for Sanga though? His proportion will be just as low if not even lower.
Don't really have a horse in this race, or an axe to grind, but this is eerily similar to, say, using Lillee's record in the subcontinent against him.Think you've got to look a little deeper than that tbf. Younis has played only 3 tests in Aust (out of 101 test) and has no hundreds, & averages 43 in that very small sample.
I would say for a subcontinent player, Younis' record does flatter him a little. And I say that because he's played just 21 out of 101 tests (20% of his tests) in the toughest conditions for most sub-continental players; that being in Aust, SA, NZ & Eng conditions.
That's not saying I don't rate Younis, because I do, but i think it's fair to point out this is a fairly small number in those countries across a 101 test career.
I don''t even think I'm saying that much though tbh, because unlike Lillee in the SC (and never touring India), Younis still did okay in Aust. I'm just making the point that because the sample set is so low, the jury is still out.Don't really have a horse in this race, or an axe to grind, but this is eerily similar to, say, using Lillee's record in the subcontinent against him.
That's just how things work out sometimes.
KP and Jayawardene?Interesting poll results.
Of the 6 batsmen, four of them have reached the no1 test batting ranking during their careers. Of the remaining two batsmen, one reached no2 in the rankings while the other got to no3.
Without cheating, which two do you think missed out on the top ranking?
That's true - his omission was an oversight. Probably the most dominant batsman (when ball striking and effect on bowlers is considered) since Isaac Vivian.Sehwag could have easily been added to this poll.
i too can read averages and base everything on thatThey're really not.
Younis averages over 50 against Australia. Smith 32.
Younis averages over 88 against India. Smith less than 38.
Younis averages over 50 v Sri Lanka. Smith 35.
Smith averages over 50 in England. So does Younis.
Probably better than all of them (bar Younis, maybe?)Sehwag could have easily been added to this poll.
Not a chance. Averages 25 in England, New Zealand and South Africa.Probably better than all of them (bar Younis, maybe?)
I'm so split on the Sehwag vs.G Smith question, especially when thinking about openers of this era. They're just so so different as batsmen which makes it difficult to compare. Smith, so so calculated and mentally tough and Sehwag, absolutely devastating when on song.Probably better than all of them (bar Younis, maybe?)
Whatever. Triple hundreds against Steyn, Morkel, Saqlain, Akhtar. A near triple hundred against Murali in 80 overs. And yet you throw boring outside SC stats at us.Not a chance. Averages 25 in England, New Zealand and South Africa.
They're really not.
Younis averages over 50 against Australia. Smith 32.
Younis averages over 88 against India. Smith less than 38.
Younis averages over 50 v Sri Lanka. Smith 35.
Smith averages over 50 in England. So does Younis.
smith is the best of the lot
i too can read averages and base everything on that
Ha.it's graeme by a mile. was a beast everywhere against everyone.