I went with "no" less because I think he couldn't defeat Saladin (I think he had the strategical capacities to do so), but I don't think he could maintain a hold on Egypt at this point. Saladin managed to do so not only because he had more courtly skills than Noradin (which was a bit too strict and stiff to really appease an imperial court, which was importantly based on personal prestige), but because Saladin allowed a smooth transition from Fatimids to quasi-mameluk Egypt and get accepted bringing Egyptian interests first before Noradin strategical plan.
Would Noradin beat up Saladin (who would probably flee to Yemen ITTL if he remains alive, as it was conquered by his brother Turanshah. Meaning that Saladin will remain a threat if let alive), the prestige and authority of his former lieutnant wouldn't be that easily replaced and Noradin wouldn't have that of an easy time gathering egyptian resources to war against Latins (that could get allied with dissatisfied Egyptians, as they attempted to do with Saladin IOTL).
So while technically doable, I don't think it would be as successful as the Ayyubid Empire, and it would be as likely to implose into small principalities at Noradin's death.
Could that be enoug, tough, for Noradin to pick on Latin States? Maybe, while I'm under the impression Noradin was a more cautious (if equally skilled) military leader, and you're certain to see Latin States loosing hold on most of the hinterland on middle term.
Would it be as successful as Saladin's campaigns? I'd go with no, due to a lesser inner unity, but still successful enough IMO to push Latins to a coastal territory : that said, I'm not that sure it would provoke a similar Crusade as IOTL (altough it will provoke a crusade) mostly due to a probable earlier campaigning in Syria/Palestine, and consequently a more important imperial support AND a poissible byzantine support contrary to IOTL, while Capetian and Angevine support may be reduced.