[VIDEO] Mohammad Yousuf - Was he really a great?

ali.rizwan

Debutant
Joined
Jan 20, 2014
Runs
136
I have heard this guy on tv as if he was the batting coach of Don Bradman but a closer look at his test stats show that despite averaging above 52 in test career his performance against top bowling attacks was woeful to say the least. out of his so many centuries only 2 came against Australia, South Africa and Srilanka combined. He struggled against Muralitharan ( 9 dismissal) and Herath (6 dismissals). Lets see what Yousaf fans have to say about this
 

Attachments

  • yousaf.jpg
    yousaf.jpg
    80.2 KB · Views: 529
Can you please post performance of other players against same opposition(s)
 
ya i will. infact against same oppositions yousaf's average comes at 52nd no. among pakistani batsmen. all others including inzimam younus and even ijaz ahmed have done much better than him
 
who says he is a great? A pakistani great maybe but just a good batsman overall.
 
I have heard this guy on tv as if he was the batting coach of Don Bradman but a closer look at his test stats show that despite averaging above 52 in test career his performance against top bowling attacks was woeful to say the least. out of his so many centuries only 2 came against Australia, South Africa and Srilanka combined. He struggled against Muralitharan ( 9 dismissal) and Herath (6 dismissals). Lets see what Yousaf fans have to say about this

India,England,WI,NZ ??? what about them ?
 
A good player who had one very great year.
 
Re: Mohammad Yousuf - Was he really a great?

all had poor bowling attacks during yousaf's time.

England's attack wasn't that poor and it is tough for SC batsmen to play in England when the ball is swinging around even greats like Laxman and Sanga struggled there Yousuf couldn't play in bouncy conditions he isn't an ATG but he's a pakistani great for sure

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk
 
He was good for Pakistan.
and he was capable of being a great: but was perhaps lazy early on in his career.
The innings at MCG as captain against Oz was an indication of his true potential.
Sadly, after that record breaking year he was too distracted to build on that further.
 
Mohammad Yousuf - Was he really a great?

You can say the same for Inzi- a good Pakistan batsman. Check his averages vs the top teams.
 
Both him and Inzamam don't come into discussion when you talk about batting greats unless you specifically talk about Pakistan.

However, Miandad makes the cut.
 
Younis is bettar test batsman IMO. Yousaf is a Pakistani great maybe but rarely considered a great overall
 
Last edited:
He was a good batsmen nothing more nothing less.
I think younis is way better .
 
He was a very good player and had a couple of brilliant years. He could easily have ended up with 10K runs had he kept his head down and concentrated on his batting rather then team politics.

Sad situation he could have been tagged as being Pakistan's best batsman but instead he's now fighting to be included in the top 3 (Tests).
 
For those record breaking 12-18 months he batted as well as I have seen anybody bat in my entire life. He was on another planet entirely, it was ridiculous. It's difficult to imagine anybody being better than he was then.

But either side of that he was a classy looking batsman that flattered to deceive and could only be relied on to bottle it under pressure so nah, he's a Pakistani great but no more.
 
Last edited:
Let's not forget his record in England and against England. For the person who said that England bowling attack was 'poor' needs to go back in time and gain some valuable knowledge.

That same England bowling attack beat Australia, the worlds number one team, the year before.
 
He was a FTB

FTB having 55 avg in NZ and ENG(countries where you will find wickets a"opposite" to flat), actually Aus wickets are lot more close to flat than green tops, only country famous for "green wickets" he was not good was SA.
 
Last edited:
He was good player , but not great. Had one freakish year , other than that good batsman.
 
My favourite Pak batsman but the answer is no.

VVS Laxman, Inzamam level.

Maybe if he had played more, things would have been different.
 
SL were his bogey team and he struggled against bounce. Apart from this he had a pretty good record and is a great in my book.
 
Quantitatively he was great, he averaged over 50, and not many batsmen from Pak have done that. But qualitatively, we've produced many batsmen better than him. He failed under pressure and didn't have many crunch innings where he bailed the team out, etc. Out of his contemporaries, Inzi, YK and Saeed Anwar were all better than him.
 
yes of course he was and is an all-time great, ridiculous question to ask by cherry picking stats.
 
yes of course he was and is an all-time great, ridiculous question to ask by cherry picking stats.

I hardly call failing against the two strongest attacks of his time, cherry picking.
 
I hardly call failing against the two strongest attacks of his time, cherry picking.

if he had failed against them then he wouldn't have ODI 100s against them, and Yousuf made a Test ton in Australia vs McGrath, Gillespie, Warne etc.

also made tons in the WI against the likes of Ambrose and Walsh.
 
if he had failed against them then he wouldn't have ODI 100s against them, and Yousuf made a Test ton in Australia vs McGrath, Gillespie, Warne etc.

also made tons in the WI against the likes of Ambrose and Walsh.

why mix formats... and yes he scored a century against oz in the MCG test: which was a fantastic effort: too few of those unfortunately. hence the low averages.
 
His heroics in England would put him up there with the best that Pak has produced. Inzi isn't considered ATG but is considered to be one of the most Influential players ever.
Miandad is the only ATG batsman Pak has produced I think
There are levels
1) Lara, Don, Sobers,
1.5)Ponting, Tendulkar, Gavaskar
2)Kallis, Dravid, Waugh, Miandad etc
ATGs ^
3)Younus, Inzi, Chanders, Sanga, Laxman and Yousuf, Hussey just about

Right now hovering between 2 and 3 would be KP and de Villiers
 
Last edited:
Pete Rose hit it on the head when he said unfulfilled potential citing the century at the G against Warne and co. Frustratingly easy on the eye but seemed inherently lazy. An ODI great for me but in Tests he's a rung below Inzi/Younis.

Also on a side note why are Sri Lanka considered both a minnow bowling attack and a strong bowling attack on this forum whenever it's convenient? He also did play 9 out of his 11 Tests v Australia away from home, and 5 out of the 7 Tests against SA in SA. It's unfair to judge his prowess against these so called 'great' bowling attacks when he did not have the luxury of playing Tests at home against them.
 
Pete Rose hit it on the head when he said unfulfilled potential citing the century at the G against Warne and co. Frustratingly easy on the eye but seemed inherently lazy. An ODI great for me but in Tests he's a rung below Inzi/Younis.

Also on a side note why are Sri Lanka considered both a minnow bowling attack and a strong bowling attack on this forum whenever it's convenient? He also did play 9 out of his 11 Tests v Australia away from home, and 5 out of the 7 Tests against SA in SA. It's unfair to judge his prowess against these so called 'great' bowling attacks when he did not have the luxury of playing Tests at home against them.

srilanka a strong bowling attack just coz of one word. muralitharan. 800 test wickets. more than combined total of 5 man ashes winning bowling attack of hoggard-harmison-jones-flintoff-giles.
 
Quantitatively he was great, he averaged over 50, and not many batsmen from Pak have done that. But qualitatively, we've produced many batsmen better than him. He failed under pressure and didn't have many crunch innings where he bailed the team out, etc. Out of his contemporaries, Inzi, YK and Saeed Anwar were all better than him.

totally agree with you.
 
Not really, probably in the league of your Culinan's of this world. A good international player, nothing more.
 
His heroics in England would put him up there with the best that Pak has produced. Inzi isn't considered ATG but is considered to be one of the most Influential players ever.
Miandad is the only ATG batsman Pak has produced I think
There are levels
1) Lara, Don, Sobers,
1.5)Ponting, Tendulkar, Gavaskar
2)Kallis, Dravid, Waugh, Miandad etc
ATGs ^
3)Younus, Inzi, Chanders, Sanga, Laxman and Yousuf, Hussey just about

Right now hovering between 2 and 3 would be KP and de Villiers

Sanga has definatly moved to 2 for me.. i would agree with yousuf at 3.. I would even move inzi to number 2..

I recall seeing Yousuf struggling against south Africa in test matches.. specially in south Africa.. But he wasn't the only pak batsman who had that problem.. Saeed anwar and inzi also struggled against them.

I just want to add this to the post and say he deserve a good farwell send off retirement match... he has done pretty good for Pak and other cricket boards will never treat a great player like yousuf the way he has been treated.
 
Last edited:
Holds the world record. Average above 50 in tests eventhough he was poor in his last year. Averages above 40 in ODIs. How many batsmen have that, considering he started in an era of Aussie dominance and other exceptional bowling attacks like that in SA, SL.
Those who are saying he is FTB are just blind.
 
Mohammad Yousuf - Was he really a great?

Holds the world record. Average above 50 in tests eventhough he was poor in his last year. Averages above 40 in ODIs. How many batsmen have that, considering he started in an era of Aussie dominance and other exceptional bowling attacks like that in SA, SL.

Those who are saying he is FTB are just blind.


This. Just remember his eng heroics



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Holds the world record. Average above 50 in tests eventhough he was poor in his last year. Averages above 40 in ODIs. How many batsmen have that, considering he started in an era of Aussie dominance and other exceptional bowling attacks like that in SA, SL.
Those who are saying he is FTB are just blind.

Definitely not a FTB. Struggled against bounce but was very good against swing and seam with those wrists of his.
 
Both him and Inzamam don't come into discussion when you talk about batting greats unless you specifically talk about Pakistan.

However, Miandad makes the cut.

Actually, Miandad was a minnow basher.

Also, another thing - Waqar and Wasim were too pitch-dependent.

In short, Pakistan has always sucked and will continue to suck. Rubbish team.
 
Mohammad Yousuf - Was he really a great?

Actually, Miandad was a minnow basher.



Also, another thing - Waqar and Wasim were too pitch-dependent.



In short, Pakistan has always sucked and will continue to suck. Rubbish team.


Agreed -_-


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Actually, Miandad was a minnow basher.

Also, another thing - Waqar and Wasim were too pitch-dependent.

In short, Pakistan has always sucked and will continue to suck. Rubbish team.

:))) Don't forget how Pakistan lacks any prestige or history.
 
Yes, amusing :butt

Sorry to upset your feelings but you won't have their names mentioned up unless you narrow the search to Pakistan only. Miandad however makes the list.

Both Inzamam and Yousuf had the ability to be true greats of the game but they didn't get that final push for whatever reason.
 
Yes, amusing :butt

Sorry to upset your feelings but you won't have their names mentioned up unless you narrow the search to Pakistan only. Miandad however makes the list.

Both Inzamam and Yousuf had the ability to be true greats of the game but they didn't get that final push for whatever reason.

20+ centuries and an average of 50+ with several great knocks to boot gets them into the category of greats. ATG, definitely not but greats, yes.
 
20+ centuries and an average of 50+ with several great knocks to boot gets them into the category of greats. ATG, definitely not but greats, yes.

They are somewhere between very good and great.
 
Mohammad Yousuf - Was he really a great?

Im wondering if we will ever produce a 25+ hundred's batsman...
 
Imo good player but not a good team player.

Would love to know Indians opinion on him as they are spoiled when it comes to batting talent.
 
he is a pakistani great, on the same level of inzi for me.

if he won us that sydney test match (throwing his wicket away vs hauritz) he would have kept playing and then we have been able to answer op's question.

unfortunately he was left out during 07+ and missed a lot of his prime years due to politics.
 
He did not fulfiil his potential and his tantrums with the PCB from 2008 onwards more or less dirupted and end his career
 
Anybody who averages 50 >> for Pakistan in Test matches should be considered the greatest. Pak have always been known for their bowling.

Miandad, Younus, Yousuf and Inzi are the best Pakistan test batsman by a country mile to ever play.
 
They are somewhere between very good and great.

They are greats. Have everything that a great batsman needs. Had they averaged 40+ in Australia and South Africa they would be considered ATG's like Ponting and Lara. The only blots in their, otherwise superb careers.

Younis and Miandad are clearly ahead though.
 
How many Pak batsman average over 50 in Tests and over 40 in ODIs? That should answer the question.
 
Thats riddicilous , its like saying waqar wasnt a great cause he averged above 30 with the Ball in australia
 
Here the question is about world great and not Pak great.

Plus we all need to define what is ATG, what is great, what is very good?

Mamoon, how would you rate Rahul Dravid?

ATG or Great?
 
He was a good batsmen, borderline Pakistani great. Enjoyed his batting but he was poor runner between wickets and one of worse fielders ever. Also he was not street smart, very poor cricketing brain. Overall he was not a good cricketer.
 
Pete Rose hit it on the head when he said unfulfilled potential citing the century at the G against Warne and co. Frustratingly easy on the eye but seemed inherently lazy. An ODI great for me but in Tests he's a rung below Inzi/Younis.

Also on a side note why are Sri Lanka considered both a minnow bowling attack and a strong bowling attack on this forum whenever it's convenient? He also did play 9 out of his 11 Tests v Australia away from home, and 5 out of the 7 Tests against SA in SA. It's unfair to judge his prowess against these so called 'great' bowling attacks when he did not have the luxury of playing Tests at home against them.

Ditto.
 
A good player who had one very great year.

But that one year he had, imo, put him in the company of other greats of the game.

Mind you, most of those runs were away from home, in unfriendly batting conditions and with a very brittle batting lineup to boot.
 
He was a good batsmen, borderline Pakistani great. Enjoyed his batting but he was poor runner between wickets and one of worse fielders ever. Also he was not street smart, very poor cricketing brain. Overall he was not a good cricketer.

You joking right?
 
Mohammad Yousuf - Was he really a great?

With due respect to this, I feel that the statistics in the opening post are manipulated and twisted. I can have my own qualifications and come up with the list below......

2i0w3er.jpg


Wow! Astonishing numbers for Mohammad Yousuf here!

Anyways, I don´t rate him as highly as some would on the forum, but that´s just a matter of opinion, and this thread is quite unfair.

However, given how some people are obsessed with the term "Match-winner" here, they need to check Yousuf´s statistics in matches won. Needless to say that I don´t blame him for his run-scoring in lost matches as cricket is a team game of course. As it is anyway, these are matters of interpretations and some would say, "Player X, Y, Z stood and fought alone as the team wilted", and so on.
 
Great? Excuse me!! A good batsman though, really good.
 
Last edited:
Yes, amusing :butt

Sorry to upset your feelings but you won't have their names mentioned up unless you narrow the search to Pakistan only. Miandad however makes the list.

Both Inzamam and Yousuf had the ability to be true greats of the game but they didn't get that final push for whatever reason.

Younis and Miandad.
 
It's funny how everyone calls him great and then, on the basis of highly selective stats in the OP, those people immediately change their opinion to downgrade him from 'great' to 'very good'.

Let me put it this way - his stats are not great against Aus, SA and SL, but every batsmen does better against some teams than others. Against Aus, Yousuf's stats are skewed by that horrendous 2010 tour where he was made captain and everyone realised just how completely clueless he is. The selection was also shocking with Faisal Iqbal preferred ahead of Younus Khan, terrible openers, Umer Akmal batting at 5, dropmal in the team, the list goes on. The Pakistani camp was full of factions and the whole tour was simply toxic.

The other issue with his stats against Aus and SA is that Pakistan hardly ever play these teams and so 1 or 2 failures can result in the overall stats against those nations looking worse than they actually are.

My assessment of Yousuf is that he was a great batsmen, but he needed Inzi to keep him grounded. Once Inzi left, Yousuf felt he was the Bradman of the team and began concentrating less on batting and more on fighting. This attitude problem has followed him even after his retirement (I say retirement, but he is so arrogant these days that he feels he is still too good to retire.) Overall assessment: definitely a great batsman but one of the poorer minds in world cricket.
 
Of course he is, he averaged over 50.

He's not a ATG, but he's a Pakistani great.
 
Mohammad Yousuf - Was he really a great?

With due respect to this, I feel that the statistics in the opening post are manipulated and twisted. I can have my own qualifications and come up with the list below......

2i0w3er.jpg


Wow! Astonishing numbers for Mohammad Yousuf here!

Anyways, I don´t rate him as highly as some would on the forum, but that´s just a matter of opinion, and this thread is quite unfair.

However, given how some people are obsessed with the term "Match-winner" here, they need to check Yousuf´s statistics in matches won. Needless to say that I don´t blame him for his run-scoring in lost matches as cricket is a team game of course. As it is anyway, these are matters of interpretations and some would say, "Player X, Y, Z stood and fought alone as the team wilted", and so on.

Having added the above, I must also add that the sole reason behind Mohammad Yousuf´s failures against Australia, South Africa and Sri Lanka is that he..... failed against them. I can´t really understand the act of over complicating things by going beyond this to dig out perhaps otherwise in reality quite non-existent reasons. But, that´s just my opinion. My approach towards sports can be too simple at times.
 
It's funny how everyone calls him great and then, on the basis of highly selective stats in the OP, those people immediately change their opinion to downgrade him from 'great' to 'very good'.

Let me put it this way - his stats are not great against Aus, SA and SL, but every batsmen does better against some teams than others. Against Aus, Yousuf's stats are skewed by that horrendous 2010 tour where he was made captain and everyone realised just how completely clueless he is. The selection was also shocking with Faisal Iqbal preferred ahead of Younus Khan, terrible openers, Umer Akmal batting at 5, dropmal in the team, the list goes on. The Pakistani camp was full of factions and the whole tour was simply toxic.

The other issue with his stats against Aus and SA is that Pakistan hardly ever play these teams and so 1 or 2 failures can result in the overall stats against those nations looking worse than they actually are.

My assessment of Yousuf is that he was a great batsmen, but he needed Inzi to keep him grounded. Once Inzi left, Yousuf felt he was the Bradman of the team and began concentrating less on batting and more on fighting. This attitude problem has followed him even after his retirement (I say retirement, but he is so arrogant these days that he feels he is still too good to retire.) Overall assessment: definitely a great batsman but one of the poorer minds in world cricket.

I think if you have to write three paragraphs to give perspective on basically very clear stats - i.e. poor against SA and Oz - tells you that he is good batsman who was capable of being great.
 
I think if you have to write three paragraphs to give perspective on basically very clear stats - i.e. poor against SA and Oz - tells you that he is good batsman who was capable of being great.

Yet Dravid and Ponting can be called ATG's while having those same averages against South Africa and India, respectively?

Every great batsmen has weaknesses which is why they are not in the ATG category and Yousuf is no different.
 
He's a Pakistani great he has poor records in SA SL AUS and IND he was a very good HTB avg 65 at home he also has great avgs In ENG NZ and WI he's the same category as someone like Jaya

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk
 
Yet Dravid and Ponting can be called ATG's while having those same averages against South Africa and India, respectively?

Every great batsmen has weaknesses which is why they are not in the ATG category and Yousuf is no different.

its not the same situation:
Dravid: did well against Oz, if not SA
Ponting: are we calling india the most difficult attack to face, at any time?
 
If Sangakkara is an ATG with a 40 average outside the SC then Yousuf is also an ATG. He averages more than Sangakkara away from the subcontinent if you exclude one of Sanga's favourite whipping boys (Zimbabwe).
 
its not the same situation:
Dravid: did well against Oz, if not SA
Ponting: are we calling india the most difficult attack to face, at any time?

Pretty much the same thing. So the only difference between Dravid's rank and Yousuf's rank was a couple of good performances against Australia? Dravid also failed against the Proteas like Yousuf and Inzi.

If Ponting didn't fail against a strong attack then he failed against a weak one which is worse. Besides, India had a good spin attack at that time and had dustbowls at home, shows how Ponting wasn't too great against spin.

Whether that above is true or not, it is certain that every player fails against some of his opposing teams and I don't see why Yousuf's failures are holding him back from achieving the status of a great when he ticks all the other criteria.
 
Back
Top