A statistical analysis of Younis Khan and his superior match winning ability over Sachin Tendulkar

[Hitman]

Maybe the next time WISDEN, Cricinfo, Bradman, etc will include Younis Khan, Javed Miandad and Imran Khan instead of the likes of Sachin when they create their 2nd 'All Time World XI'. Such a shame those 3 musketeers didn't find a place the first time around.

P.S. Sorry, Bradman is no more. He can't create a 2nd 'World XI'.

 

[Bilal7]

Indians are the most gullible people on this planet. All you need to do for them to start throwing rupees your way, is to say a few nice things about Sachin, the IPL or Kohli and Ashwin. Be prepared for a lot of garlands and a forced tilak.

A good way to make money for any cricketers out there. You can mock them afterwards, if you wish.

 

[Hitman]

Let the conspiracy theories start. That's the only way to counter those lists, after all.

 

[Boxer]

All hail mighty Khan. It is a disrespect comparing him to a mere mortal.

 

[Hitman]

Conspiracy theories exist only as long as an Indian player finds a place in a prestigious list. The moment someone like Allan Border speaks a few good words about Wasim Akram, it becomes a quote from the 'Bible'

 

[shaz619]

Indians are the most gullible people on this planet. All you need to do for them to start throwing rupees your way, is to say a few nice things about Sachin, the IPL or Kohli and Ashwin. Be prepared for a lot of garlands and a forced tilak.

A good way to make money for any cricketers out there. You can mock them afterwards, if you wish.

Exactly! besides, using the wisden list is incredibly hypocritical from their end as it is because they'd never rate The Don over Sachin. Anyhow actual performance provides a clearer picture over subjective opinions in children's magazines; it's easy to overlook match winning ability but Khan has a higher MOM award ratio, better record in the 3rd/4th innings and is more likely to impact a Test then Sachin.

 

[Bilal7]

Conspiracy theories exist only as long as an Indian player finds a place in a prestigious list. The moment someone like Allan Border speaks a few good words about Wasim Akram, it becomes a quote from the 'Bible'

I have never given much weight to the comments of these past cricketers. Especially those that haven't actually faced the cricketer in question. It is one parameter to gauge a player's quality but not the be all, end all.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Maybe the next time WISDEN, Cricinfo, Bradman, etc will include Younis Khan, Javed Miandad and Imran Khan instead of the likes of Sachin when they create their 2nd 'All Time World XI'. Such a shame those 3 musketeers didn't find a place the first time around.

P.S. Sorry, Bradman is no more. He can't create a 2nd 'World XI'.

Same Wisdon which did not include any of Sachin's test innings in their top 100 innings of all time?

 

[Hitman]

Same Wisdon which did not include any of Sachin's test innings in their top 100 innings of all time?

True, but the same WISDEN also rated him the 2nd greatest Test and ODI batsman of all time in 2002.

 

[Hitman]

I have never given much weight to the comments of these past cricketers. Especially those that haven't actually faced the cricketer in question. It is one parameter to gauge a player's quality but not the be all, end all.

Who cares whether you give weightage or not, cuz the rest of the world does.

 

[shaz619]

The SAME WISDEN did not have any of Sachin soft run scoring Tendulkar's innings in the top 100, also advocates his lack of impact in general. Given the emphasis to the Wisden source by the Indian elders there is no arguing against Sachin's lack of prowess as a match winner.

 

[shaz619]

Sachin probably is the bret hart of cricket, great workhorse but terrible in another area e.g in Bret's case his mic skills; couldn't sell you water even if you were dying of thirst. Likewise Sachin hung around/was-technically-sound and we commend that but he wasn't a great match winner.

 

[ethan hunt]

Its a great honor for sachin to be mentioned alongside younis and especially in a sentence that includes the term match winner .
Sachin would gladly give away his career to have the ability to win test matches for his country and score meaningful runs.

 

[boomboom6]

Khan's aura ? Drinking on the Birmingham kool aid much ? What aura does he have ? His presence in the side has been quite insignificant to Pakistan and to the cricketing fraternity in general. Never seen Younis khan as much of a bother

Younis has been the BEST Pak test batsman since 2005 over Inzi and Yousuf (exception of record breaking 2006). To say his presence has been insignificant to Pak test team is nothing short of delusional thinking. Infact Younis is top 5 in the last 10-12 years. That's an incredible peak for a guy who didn't have as much natural ability as his contemporaries.

Younis was and is a bigger impact player in test matches then Sachin whereas Sachin was light years ahead in ODIs, arguably the greatest ODI bat with Kohli on the horizon. YK's conversion ratio and frequency of scoring 100s is up there with the best of the best including cricketing fraternity's Golden boy Bradman.

So GTHO with your drivel !!

 

[boomboom6]

An aura that has been created by playing majority of cricket in Asia, crying his way to the PAK LOI squad.

YK has a match winning double in England in the twilight of his career. Had another 170+ on his only other England tour. Scored 175 in Sydney.

Pak doesn't play a lot overseas for various reasons, quite superficial to hold that against him. On his 2nd and last tour of SA in 2013, YK's scored 115 in a pressure situation. The man can deliver. His recent failure in NZ was an aberration compared to his career norm.

What this shows is that had YK played more in his prime in these places, there's a good chance he'd have succeeded given his mental make up and ability to score big more often then not.

Seriously it's like some of y'all can't even troll without being so damn salty.

A better comparison would be YK vs Dravid.

 

[Bilal7]

Who cares whether you give weightage or not, cuz the rest of the world does.

Then stop making posts about what Border said about Wasim.

 

[Napa]

After that, would there be any category where Sachin beats Younis?

Try longevity and runs scored.

 

[Snatch]

What? Do MOTM awards now replace batting statistics?

In the game of cricket we have some of the most detailed and selective stats of any sport with only baseball coming close, who cares about damn MOTM awards... they're decided by commentators half the time anyway.

 

[Rayyman]

Sachin probably is the bret hart of cricket, great workhorse but terrible in another area e.g in Bret's case his mic skills; couldn't sell you water even if you were dying of thirst. Likewise Sachin hung around/was-technically-sound and we commend that but he wasn't a great match winner.

Whenever I saw
Sachin bat, I didn't see a legend.
To me he looked like a bowler turned batsman.
Like Hashim Amla bowling off-spin.

Guys like Michael Clarke and Umar Akmal looked better to me.

There is got to be some conspiracy on how Sachin got so many runs...

 

[Mamoon]

[MENTION=139975]The_Odd_One[/MENTION]

In the 90's, India was a very weak Test team and thus, it could not win many matches due to which Tendulkar couldn't win enough MoM Awards. He was the best batsman of the decade alongside Lara and Steve Waugh, but India didn't have the bowlers to win Tests frequently away from home.

In the 2000's, India had a powerhouse batting unit with numerous match-winners. It is not easy to win many MoM Awards when you are playing alongside Sehwag, Dravid and Laxman. Look at some of the high profile series that Pakistan played between 2005-2007; he doesn't have many more MoM Awards compared to MoYo and Inzamam. In fact, MoYo has 7 MoM Awards and he hasn't played since 2010. This shows that he had a bigger impact than Younis when both played together, and that obvious if you look back at the major series that Pakistan played during the 2000's.

I don't have the numbers, but I believe that most of Younis' MoM Awards have come post 2010. He has been the only quality batsman in the team who has had the ability to score big 100s and 200s. Misbah has never been good enough, Shafiq is inconsistent + bats too low, Sarfraz hasn't scored a hundred since 2014-15 and Azhar didn't start scoring big since 2015. Hafeez has won a few himself but he is not consistent like Younis and a total failure overseas; can't even produce that one big knock like Younis.

Meanwhile, Pakistan hasn't been a world class team but they have been decent enough to win matches in favourable conditions. Winning MoM Awards becomes relatively easier when you are comfortably the best batsman in a team that is capable of winning matches when the sun shines.

Remove Younis and put MoYo or Inzamam in the 2010-2017 team, and their MoM Awards will soar up as well. Similarly, put both of them in 2010-2017 team alongside Younis and the latter's MoM Awards will dry up, because both MoYo and Inzamam had the capability of playing big knocks. Look at how many double-hundreds MoYo has; Misbah can barely cross 120.

More MoM Awards doesn't make Younis a better and more impactful player than Tendulkar. He is not even in the same league.

 

[shaz619]

Younis Khan

Test Matches
115

Man of the Match Awards
10

Match winning Ratio
0.0869

Sachin Tendulkar

Test Matches
200

Man of the Match Awards
14

Matching winning Ratio
0.07

Conclusion

If we multiply Younis Khan's match winning ratio by 200 games (the number of Tests Sachin has played) then the number of "Man of the Match" awards would equal to 17.39. On the other hand, it took Sachin Tendulkar roughly 112 Test matches to achieve the same number of MOM awards as Khan. And when you also factor in Sachin's lower MOM award ratio we can confirm without a doubt that Younis Khan is a bigger match winner then Sachin Tendulkar, the legends are indeed true with regards to Sachin's lack of making an impact and scoring runs in soft situations mostly.

Bump

[MENTION=47617]Red Devil[/MENTION] I have read many posters from a specific land hate on the one true king of asia, most are still bitter because he beat the Indians senseless and that has affecting their reasoning abilities [MENTION=97523]Buffet[/MENTION]. But this is just a friendly reminder little fellas!

 

[Rahul1]

Brilliant analysis @shaz619.

Stats don't lie.

Younis averages 3.50 in tests played in UAE against Australia including McGrath and Warne. Stats don't lie.

 

[Bilal7]

I won't say that Younis Khan was a better test batsman than Sachin Tendulker, I can't see one billion people cry simultaneously but one thing is for certain: Younis Khan is one of the greatest batsmen of all-time.

Top five from Asia:

1) Sachin Tendulker
2) Sunil Gavasker/Javed Miandad
3) Javed Miandad/Sunil Gavasker
4) Younis Khan
5) Kumar Sangakkara/Rahul Dravid

 

[Bilal7]

Sachin probably is the bret hart of cricket, great workhorse but terrible in another area e.g in Bret's case his mic skills; couldn't sell you water even if you were dying of thirst. Likewise Sachin hung around/was-technically-sound and we commend that but he wasn't a great match winner.

Some Indian posters always default to the 'ICC rankings' when talking about Kapil Dev but totally forget about it when it comes to Sachin.

Sachin never hit 900 ratings points throughout his entire career, in any format.

 

[Rahul1]

I won't say that Younis Khan was a better test batsman than Sachin Tendulker, I can't see one billion people cry simultaneously but one thing is for certain: Younis Khan is one of the greatest batsmen of all-time.

Top five from Asia:

1) Sachin Tendulker
2) Sunil Gavasker/Javed Miandad
3) Javed Miandad/Sunil Gavasker
4) Younis Khan
5) Kumar Sangakkara/Rahul Dravid

No one outside Pakistan cares about Younus khan. Feel free to live in your bubble anyway.

 

[bujhee kom]

Sachin was NOT a top tier match winner in Tests. Harsh facts. Reflected in his poor showing in Wisden's list of iconic innings. Great bat but a bit of a pea-hearted, sukky-la la.

 

[Rahul1]

Sachin was NOT a top tier match winner in Tests. Harsh facts. Reflected in his poor showing in Wisden's list of iconic innings. Great bat but a bit of a pea-hearted, sukky-la la.

How exactly can an individual be a match winner in a sport played with 11 players per side. Please explain this genius logic.

 

[shaz619]

Some Indian posters always default to the 'ICC rankings' when talking about Kapil Dev but totally forget about it when it comes to Sachin.

Sachin never hit 900 ratings points throughout his entire career, in any format.

Indians have always been obsessed with such superficial nonsense but as you say more often then not their very own narratives get exposed, he has played double the number of innings as Khan but still has just won 4 more MOM awards in comparison, great reflection of Khan's consistency and impact ability which I believe is the most desirable quality among the best. Squirrel is good but severely over rated by his fanbase. Having said that as far as the rankings argument goes, there is only one big idiot in these parts which uses them selectively in every argument, very one dimensional fella in thought but maybe I would be to after Khan beat my team senseless

 

[bujhee kom]

Indians have always been obsessed with such superficial nonsense but as you say more often then not their very own narratives get exposed, he has played double the number of innings as Khan but still has just won 4 more MOM awards in comparison, great reflection of Khan's consistency and impact ability which I believe is the most desirable quality among the best. Squirrel is good but severely over rated by his fanbase. Having said that as far as the rankings argument goes, there is only one big idiot in these parts which uses them selectively in every argument, very one dimensional fella in thought but maybe I would be to after Khan beat my team senseless

Brilliant point [MENTION=129948]Bilal7[/MENTION].

Why do rating points stop being a benchmark when SRT falls short?

The man did not hit match winning tons or turn it on in the 4th dig. A level below Lara in Test cricket. Speak not of Viv who he pales against.

 

[khan991]

Younis khan is the reason pak was no 1.very underrated i would pick him over tendu any day in tests

 

[Buffet]

Sachin never hit 900 ratings points throughout his entire career, in any format.

That simply means that he didn't have peak great enough in any format to cross 900.

Peak rating of 900 for 1 year + rating of 600-700 for rest of the career << some one with majority of career with 750-850 rating points.

It's not too hard to understand if you think about it. You are a bright person. Peak rating is your performance in 10-15 matches. Rating trend of entire career is your entire career. Both convey two totally different things.

 

[Buffet]

What? Do MOTM awards now replace batting statistics?

In the game of cricket we have some of the most detailed and selective stats of any sport with only baseball coming close, who cares about damn MOTM awards... they're decided by commentators half the time anyway.

Afridi with third highest MOM in ODI will seem extremely consistent to some posters.

You are absolutely right. Data is so detail that if you look at it closely, you can get a very good idea about players, but you do have to look closely. Some have not taken a close look and some are not capable to take a close look.

 

[rudra]

I won't say that Younis Khan was a better test batsman than Sachin Tendulker, I can't see one billion people cry simultaneously but one thing is for certain: Younis Khan is one of the greatest batsmen of all-time.

Top five from Asia:

1) Sachin Tendulker
2) Sunil Gavasker/Javed Miandad
3) Javed Miandad/Sunil Gavasker
4) Younis Khan
5) Kumar Sangakkara/Rahul Dravid

Dravid and sanga below younis ?? I am sure 90% of the experts wont agree with this. But fine if its your unbiased views.

 

[austerlitz]

The glorification of FTB inzi and minnow basher UAE specialist Younis continues.

 

[axis]

YK is definitely a very great batsman and a sure shot ATG.. but not better than Tendulkar.. please don't embarrass us..

 

[Bilal7]

That simply means that he didn't have peak great enough in any format to cross 900.

Peak rating of 900 for 1 year + rating of 600-700 for rest of the career << some one with majority of career with 750-850 rating points.

It's not too hard to understand if you think about it. You are a bright person. Peak rating is your performance in 10-15 matches. Rating trend of entire career is your entire career. Both convey two totally different things.

I know exactly what the ratings system tries (and fails) to convey. I just find it funny that the ratings show that Javed Miandad at his best was a better ODI batsman than Sachin Tendulker and AB de Villiers, at his best, was a better test batsman than Sachin Tendulker.

Dravid and sanga below younis ?? I am sure 90% of the experts wont agree with this. But fine if its your unbiased views.

Dravid has averages of 29 and 40 in South Africa and Australia, respectively. Sangakkara similarly failed in a couple of the toughest places to bat.

Khan's averages against the big four in their own backyard (AUS, ENG, IND and SA) are very good.

 

[axis]

I know exactly what the ratings system tries (and fails) to convey. I just find it funny that the ratings show that Javed Miandad at his best was a better ODI batsman than Sachin Tendulker and AB de Villiers, at his best, was a better test batsman than Sachin Tendulker.



Dravid has averages of 29 and 40 in South Africa and Australia, respectively. Sangakkara similarly failed in a couple of the toughest places to bat.

Khan's averages against the big four in their own backyard (AUS, ENG, IND and SA) are very good.

Kindly correct the spelling of his name.

Averages mislead. Dravid only had one good tour of Australia in 2003-04 (with an exception in Perth 2008 where he scored 90 in a match winning cause) where he was a monster.. in that period he was the best Test batsman of India, better than Tendulkar.. with centuries in NZ.. match winning century on 1st day swing in Eng, match/series winning double hundreds in Aus and Pakistan.

He was an utter failure in SA.. one of the reasons India could never win a series in SA was due to his failure.. the only good Test he played..(scored 140+ and 81 in the two innings in 1997) India came close to win the Test and only a defiant innings from Cullinan and bad light saved SA.

 

[Peshwa]

YK is definitely a very great batsman and a sure shot ATG.. but not better than Tendulkar.. please don't embarrass us..

Tendulkar was FTB
Younis Bhai miles ahead of tendu in every aspect

 

[Oligochaetes]

I love how he just won the T20 World Cup smiling throughout the tournament. Such a nice guy!

 

[axis]

tendulkar was ftb
younis bhai miles ahead of tendu in every aspect

ok.

 

[Indiafan]

I am convinced

 

[Indiafan]

Exactly! besides, using the wisden list is incredibly hypocritical from their end as it is because they'd never rate The Don over Sachin. Anyhow actual performance provides a clearer picture over subjective opinions in children's magazines; it's easy to overlook match winning ability but Khan has a higher MOM award ratio, better record in the 3rd/4th innings and is more likely to impact a Test then Sachin.

I know you are half joking but i dunno how team results are used to compare individuals. We learn in 4th grade that in order to compare two things all other things should be equal

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

Test matches are usually decided in first two innings, i"ll always take a batsman who avgs more in 1st and 2nd innings than in 4th.

 

[Hitman]

Test matches are usually decided in first two innings, i"ll always take a batsman who avgs more in 1st and 2nd innings than in 4th.

On another topic, do you know Imran Khan's bowling average and strike rate in 4th innings of Tests?

A bowling average of 42.09 at an SR of 91.3

 

[Proactive_]

I'm actually surprised that Tendulkar even had 14 MOTM awards. For more than half his career, he wasn't even the best batsman in his own team, forget the world. I have a hearty laugh when people label a talented young batsman like Prithvi Shaw as the next Tendulkar. I hope to god that he isn't. Because unlike Tendulkar, Shaw actually isn't selfish.

 

[axis]

I'm actually surprised that Tendulkar even had 14 MOTM awards. For more than half his career, he wasn't even the best batsman in his own team, forget the world. I have a hearty laugh when people label a talented young batsman like Prithvi Shaw as the next Tendulkar. I hope to god that he isn't. Because unlike Tendulkar, Shaw actually isn't selfish.

Yes, for 2001-2006 Dravid was better than Tendulkar.

 

[MenInG]

If you have nothing useful to say about the topic or a proper reply to a post, then dont post and waste everyone's time.

 

[axis]

Test matches are usually decided in first two innings, i"ll always take a batsman who avgs more in 1st and 2nd innings than in 4th.

To some extent it is true.. most of the 4th innings exploits, usually are in a lost cause which just delay the inevitables.. like KL Rahul or Pant scoring 100s .. bowlers usually get tired if the team forced follow on.. and can't get the batsmen out as easily as they did the first time around..

Many times we see that a team gets out in it's first dig at 180.. not able to handle the swing etc.. but when following on, they make a better start.. and score 250/300.. still losing... shows that it is sometimes much easier batting the second time.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Younis Khan is the best.

Tendulkar was not special. Anyone can score a lot of rund if allowed to play for 24 years.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

To some extent it is true.. most of the 4th innings exploits, usually are in a lost cause which just delay the inevitables.. like KL Rahul or Pant scoring 100s .. bowlers usually get tired if the team forced follow on.. and can't get the batsmen out as easily as they did the first time around..

Many times we see that a team gets out in it's first dig at 180.. not able to handle the swing etc.. but when following on, they make a better start.. and score 250/300.. still losing... shows that it is sometimes much easier batting the second time.

Hence, first and second innings exploits are more useful and thus the batsman should be judged more on his first and second innings stats rather than 4th innings.

 

[Oligochaetes]

How many MOM's do both have in SENA countries?

 

[WengerOut]

Younis Khan > Viv, according to a convenient PP fourth innings logic.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Match winning ability depends on the team, especially bowlers where historically Pakistan had an edge. There is a reason why India has more draws while Pakistan has more wins as well as losses.

You put a Bradman in current Zimbabwe team, still won't win a test match. Similarly now that India has a great bowling unit, expect many batsmen to feature in winning matches, doesn't mean they are better than Sachin or Gavaskar.

 

[Hitman]

Match winning ability depends on the team, especially bowlers where historically Pakistan had an edge. There is a reason why India has more draws while Pakistan has more wins as well as losses.

You put a Bradman in current Zimbabwe team, still won't win a test match. Similarly now that India has a great bowling unit, expect many batsmen to feature in winning matches, doesn't mean they are better than Sachin or Gavaskar.

You think they don't realize or understand this? Of course they do. Why do you think the rest of the cricketing world doesn't ever consider this criteria as significant? The reason they keep bringing this up is to boost their ego.

 

[KP From India]

Sachin was an average batsman at best. No comparisons with Younis Khan.

 

[the_outsider]

[MENTION=46929]shaz619[/MENTION]

A fundamentally flawed argument because of the logic you have used.

MOM awards are not the yardstick of measuring impact on wins.

A better way would be to compare batting averages in wins and draws to batting average in losses.

But even then, it would be a flawed assessment. Because significance of runs is not just dependant on volume of runs but also at what point during the match the runs are scored.

Scoring a fifty/hundred when the team is 140/2 is very different to scoring a fifty/hundred when the team is 40/3.

 

[the_outsider]

I have never given much weight to the comments of these past cricketers. Especially those that haven't actually faced the cricketer in question. It is one parameter to gauge a player's quality but not the be all, end all.

Of course. Why listen to people who have actually played international cricket?

When it's obvious to everybody that you are the sole custodian of cricket.

Billu knows best!

 

[axis]

Match winning ability depends on the team, especially bowlers where historically Pakistan had an edge. There is a reason why India has more draws while Pakistan has more wins as well as losses.

You put a Bradman in current Zimbabwe team, still won't win a test match. Similarly now that India has a great bowling unit, expect many batsmen to feature in winning matches, doesn't mean they are better than Sachin or Gavaskar.

Not necessarily true.. Dravid had more match winning innings in 2003-04 time than Tendulkar while playing with the same bowling unit.

 

[axis]

Hence, first and second innings exploits are more useful and thus the batsman should be judged more on his first and second innings stats rather than 4th innings.

Actually not always.. sometimes indeed the 4th innings chase defines the match.. it certainly looks more heroic than a 1st innings hundred.

It's like a relay race of 4*100 .. in Jamaica team, Usain Bolt always ran the last leg .. and he was always seen as completing the victory. Were the other 3 less important ? Many times Bolt got an early baton.. such is the life.. the last leg of the race is seen as more important.

In WC also, is QF or SF less important matches than the final ?

 

[axis]

Sachin was an average batsman at best. No comparisons with Younis Khan.

Are you saying YK was below average ?

 

[shaz619]

[MENTION=46929]shaz619[/MENTION]

A fundamentally flawed argument because of the logic you have used.

MOM awards are not the yardstick of measuring impact on wins.

A better way would be to compare batting averages in wins and draws to batting average in losses.

But even then, it would be a flawed assessment. Because significance of runs is not just dependant on volume of runs but also at what point during the match the runs are scored.

Scoring a fifty/hundred when the team is 140/2 is very different to scoring a fifty/hundred when the team is 40/3.

The numbers don't lie, only children who haven't developed yet and Sachin fans will overlook this but he was the king of soft run scoring and Younis is the superior match winner and when it comes to 50+ averaging batsman I'd take him over Sachin any day of the week and twice on Sundays!

 

[Swashbuckler]

The numbers don't lie, only children who haven't developed yet and Sachin fans will overlook this but he was the king of soft run scoring and Younis is the superior match winner and when it comes to 50+ averaging batsman I'd take him over Sachin any day of the week and twice on Sundays!

King of soft runs who scored 20 international tons against ATG Australia and outperformed every Asian batsman outside Asia which is the real test for Asian batsmen. And majority in an era which featured world class bowling. Soft runs meaning average 59 in 90s, the toughest decade in test batting history which featured only 3 batsmen with 50+ average and where 2nd best Lara averaged 52. Soft runs meaning 100s in his 1st series in Aus, Eng, SA as teenager and many more later.

I respect your opinion, you are perfectly entitles to rate Younis as the better batsman. But to throw around casual terms like 'King of Soft Runs' to describe a colossus who gave his everything for 24 years and left such a mark on the game is unnecessary.

 

[Dead Ball]

The reason YK has a high match winning century/MoM percentage is because SRT usually saved his best performances against SA/Aus where the rest of the Indian team capitulated and India ended up losing. I think SRT has 18 test tons against SA/Aus? And around 11 of them away from home. YK has how many, 2 centuries in SA/Aus? And both in losing causes (and one in a dead rubber)

I would rate YK a slightly better player of spin than Tendulkar, probably. And definitely a better player in the 4th innings of a test. In all other aspects of batsmanship, Tendulkar was well ahead.

 

[vandokkum]

Younis khan is by far the better player.

 

[barah_admi]

I would not say Khan is superior to tendulkar but he is without a doubt superior to Dravid, Laxman and Sehwag, the otherg reat Indian batsmen of his generation and still superior to modern day batsmen such as Amla, Kohli and and possibly ABD. In tests that is.

Khan is the greatest Asian number 3 and the third greatest after Bradman and Ponting. Who knows, Kane Williamson may overtake him at some stage but none of the others will.

 

[rhony]

He played a few clutch innings and is the best batsman that Pakistan produced in tests after Miandad. Thats about it. Peer evaluation is considered a standard and nobody had Younis in their top 10 ever. Great player of spin but wasn't as good against pace mainly due to that crouch before facing the ball.

 

[srh]

If you want to win a test match then its debatable who would you pick YK or SRT.

If you want to save a test match then you would definitely pick YK over SRT. YK was a cornered tiger.

 

[cr7great]

yk is uae khan

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

I would not say Khan is superior to tendulkar but he is without a doubt superior to Dravid, Laxman and Sehwag, the otherg reat Indian batsmen of his generation and still superior to modern day batsmen such as Amla, Kohli and and possibly ABD. In tests that is.

Khan is the greatest Asian number 3 and the third greatest after Bradman and Ponting. Who knows, Kane Williamson may overtake him at some stage but none of the others will.

Do u know? Sanga also played at no. 3.
Secondly dravid is considered a better batsman than khan by nearly 90% of fans, even pakistanis.
As for comparison with tendulkar,, tendulkar was a prodigy khan had his limitations, he is nowhere near SRT.

 

[Mp812]

Good for Yoenis. Too bad whenever commentators and fans over the world talk of top 20 cricket players his name never gets mentioned but sachin is always mentioned in top 5 names. Unfair biased world ..
Right? World conspiracy

 

[Bhaijaan]

Good for Yoenis. Too bad whenever commentators and fans over the world talk of top 20 cricket players his name never gets mentioned but sachin is always mentioned in top 5 names. Unfair biased world ..
Right? World conspiracy

5 years ago that’s what I told every fan hyped up about Kallis and Sangakkara’s statistics. I told them just wait a couple of years, let them all retire and then let’s see which names are remembered and which ones are forgotten.

Numbers mean nothing for top players if they haven’t dominated in big games and against big opponents.

 

[QalandarFan]

Younis Khan > Sachin Tendulkar when it comes to chips down and pressure situations.

Overall stats and ability vs pace srt is better.

YK miles ahead in playing spin.

I agree!

 

[Buffet]

Younis khan is by far the better player.

+1

Khan is a better batsman.

 

[Etherealistic]

Younis Khan is just a Pakistani great, nothing more than that. How many upcoming young Pakistani cricketers want to be a Younis Khan? Only a handful. He fared poorly in Test matches in SENA countries and was only good at slow and low pitches.
Whereas Sachin Tendulkar is world-renowned cricketer who is idolised by not just Indians but by people from all over the world. I don't even need to bring up the stats to compare, everyone knows who will stand out.
You are just a keyboard warrior who is just interested in bringing up stats which somehow undermine the great cricketer. If by MOMs Younis Khan is better, why dont you bring up more stats and compare? There is nothing else to gloat about besides MOMs.

 

[amax]

Khan is better Batsman

 

[jagatk]

On this forum i am sure Chris martin will be considered a better batsman than tendulkar.

 

[latecut]

Since Younis Khan had a superior match winning ability over Sachin Tendulkar, may I know how many times the two faced off in matches and what was the result of these matches ? By memory, I can tell that Younis Khan was the second best in all World cup matches whenever the two sides met.

 

[Oligochaetes]

Since Younis Khan had a superior match winning ability over Sachin Tendulkar, may I know how many times the two faced off in matches and what was the result of these matches ? By memory, I can tell that Younis Khan was the second best in all World cup matches whenever the two sides met.

I think this thread is only for test matches. ODI comparison would be laughable...

 

[AMSS]

What a convincing OP.

Never been convinced so convincingly. How about you guys? Convinced?

 

[Rahul1]

What a convincing OP.

Never been convinced so convincingly. How about you guys? Convinced?

I'm convinced. Younis Khan is much better than Sachin Tendulkar.