Sanga is under rated?

[Debris]

Not if this forum is representative.

 

[0RI0N]

The only ? mark would be his performances in Ind, SA and Eng, but even in those countries he doesn't struggle THAT much.

One of the best kallisball players no doubt.

 

[Migara]

He is set for a ATG record, but the weight of runs that SRT, Lara, Waugh, Dravid and Kallis will do it towards their favor. If he scores 13k+ runs with average of 58+ then will considered as the best batsman of past 30 years.

 

[0RI0N]

Agreed Migara.
If SL didn't get such a raw deal re:FTS,he probably would have 1000 + runs more(ave would maybe drop a run and a half less). Who knows

 

[bagapath]

i dont think he is under or overrated. he is slotted where he deserves to be. he is very good and everybody knows that. thankfully no one is excited about his average being the highest among current players and calls him an ATG because of that.

a while ago, hussey had the highest average of all time bar bradman. see what happened to him in the last 20 odd tests. it is silly to form these opinions on numbers alone and cricket has proved it again and again.

sanga has been excellent for the last few years and he already belongs in the very good category. for him to be bunched with even better players he needs to do better outside sri lanka. his records in england, south africa and west indies are below par. doesnt even have one century against his name in these three major test playing countries. he is not too hot in india either. he has quite a few holes to fix in his CV before he is promoted up the ranks. right now he belongs where he deserves to be. lets not get too excited and make him look better than what he is.

 

[vcs]

i dont think he is under or overrated. he is slotted where he deserves to be. he is very good and everybody knows that. thankfully no one is excited about his average being the highest among current players and calls him an ATG because of that.

a while ago, hussey had the highest average of all time bar bradman. see what happened to him in the last 20 odd tests. it is silly to form these opinions on numbers alone and cricket has proved it again and again.

sanga has been excellent for the last few years and he already belongs in the very good category. for him to be bunched with even better players he needs to do better outside sri lanka. his records in england, south africa and west indies are below par. doesnt even have one century against his name in three major test playing countries. he is not too hot in india either. he has quite a few holes to fix in his CV before he is promoted up the ranks. right now he belongs where he deserves to be. lets not get too excited and make him look better than what he is.

AWTA.

z

 

[bagapath]

He is set for a ATG record, but the weight of runs that SRT, Lara, Waugh, Dravid and Kallis will do it towards their favor. If he scores 13k+ runs with average of 58+ then will considered as the best batsman of past 30 years.

no dude. that is not going to happen. the all round consistency of sachin or the mercurial brilliance of lara would always make one of them the greatest batsman post 1990. even the grit of dravid, kallis and waugh and the dominating batsmanship of ponting would fade in comparison with them. of course sanga is one of the very fine batsmen of this era. we are all so lucky to see him, sehwag, hayden, gilchrist and mahela during our times. we should cherish the skills of pietersen, smith, amla and laxman too. but tendulkar and lara will always remain the best batters of the last 20 odd years irrespective of aggregates and averages. no one thinks alan davidson is superior to fred trueman or ray landwall just because he averaged 20 compared to freddie's 21 and ray's 23.

 

[Furball]

Yeah Sangakkara is indeed tremendously under-rated IMO. His career average isn't even the most impressive part; his record without the burden of wicket-keeping is even more spectacular.

46 Tests, 5127 runs @ 76.52 with 17 hundreds and 23 fifties.

The fact that he plays so much cricket at home and in similar conditions to home is something you need to consider when looking at his record though, as well as his outright bullying of the minnows. He's certainly amongst the best three batsman in the world currently, however, and has been for quite some time now.

On the flip side it's hardly fair to hold that against him given how little Sri Lanka tour outside the subcontinent.

 

[Migara]

no dude. that is not going to happen. the all round consistency of sachin or the mercurial brilliance of lara would always make one of them the greatest batsman post 1990. even the grit of dravid, kallis and waugh and the dominating batsmanship of ponting would fade in comparison with them. of course sanga is one of the very fine batsmen of this era. we are all so lucky to see him, sehwag, hayden, gilchrist and mahela during our times. we should cherish the skills of pietersen, smith, amla and laxman too. but tendulkar and lara will always remain the best batters of the last 20 odd years irrespective of aggregates and averages. no one thinks alan davidson is superior to fred trueman or ray landwall just because he averaged 20 compared to freddie's 21 and ray's 23.

In the case of Alan Davidson yes. Imagine if Davidson averages 18 instead of 20. Now what? Numbers do tell a strong story. That is the same case if Sanga manages to keep going at this rate and finish early (he has indicated that he'll be retiring by his 37th birth day). Lara's 53 vs a 59 from another batsman do argue the latter over Lara. In the case of SRT, I don't know on which figure he's going to retire. If he reties with an average of 57 with 16k runs and another batsman scores 13-15k with an average of 62, 5 runs is enough to consider for a superior batsman ship. All thses are hypothetical BTW, we have to assess them when they finish their careers.

 

[Migara]

On the flip side it's hardly fair to hold that against him given how little Sri Lanka tour outside the subcontinent.

Outside SC Sanga averages 48. And massive number of thise matches were played before his prolific run began. Playing outside SC is no issue with his stats. Hes always regarded as a player who is better against pace than spin.

 

[Teja.]

I have a question,

Why do people find it so reasonable to assume that Sanga would average 'only' about 55 and be 'only' another of the other 'normal' greats if he never touched the gloves when he averages 76 without them over a decent period of time? The only reason I can think off is people are enculturated to the greats averaging 55 and cannot think outside the rigid box that there is a possibility that his average without the gloves is really what it is, freakin' 76.

Basically, Most people don't rate him alongside Gilchirst as a wk-batsman because he averages only 35-40 with the gloves but then don't hesitate to rate him 'only' with the other great bats, and sometimes even worse don't even consider him a great. You can't have both halves of the pie, He can't be a much worse wk-bat than Gilchirst as well as 'only' as good a batsman as the greats of our era without the gloves.

I'm yet undecided on the question, just throwing out out there.

Oh, ATG bat fosho.

 

[Furball]

Outside SC Sanga averages 48. And massive number of thise matches were played before his prolific run began. Playing outside SC is no issue with his stats. Hes always regarded as a player who is better against pace than spin.

Which is my point, I don't think there would be a "hole" to pick if Sri Lanka had played more outside the subcontinent.

Both Sangakkara and Jayawardene have played a ridiculously low number of matches outside the subcontinent.

 

[vcs]

I have a question,

Why do people find it so reasonable to assume that Sanga would average 'only' about 55 and be 'only' another of the other 'normal' greats if he never touched the gloves when he averages 76 without them over a decent period of time? The only reason I can think off is people are enculturated to the greats averaging 55 and cannot think outside the rigid box that there is a possibility that his average without the gloves is really what it is, freakin' 76.

Basically, Most people don't rate him alongside Gilchirst as a wk-batsman because he averages only 35-40 with the gloves but then don't hesitate to rate him 'only' with the other great bats, and sometimes even worse don't even consider him a great. You can't have both halves of the pie, He can't be a much worse wk-bat than Gilchirst as well as 'only' as good a batsman as the greats of our era without the gloves.

I'm yet undecided on the question, just throwing out out there.

Oh, ATG bat fosho.

Because on watching him, it is obvious that the reason he is averaging a huge amount in the period without gloves is because he is in his peak as a batsman. If you look at Tendulkar-Lara-Ponting peak periods, I'm sure you can find a decent-ish run of Tests where they average around 70 or even more.

I agree with GF, it is very hard to make a proper comparison when SL just don't play enough outside the SC. He plays around 60% of his cricket at home (and nearly 70% in the subcontinent), in comparison you'll find that the corresponding figure for SRT/Lara/Dravid/Kallis/Ponting is much lower.

Basically, I'm with Bagapath that he is rated correctly and needs to play a few more memorable innings away from home to join the ATGs. It would be a shame if SLC's touring schedule deprives him of the opportunity.

 

[vcs]

Also, even though Gilchrist's numbers in certain places do not look great, he has played match-turning/winning knocks in pretty much every venue against every opponent. The X-factor he brought to Australia's batting goes far beyond merely looking at his statistics and saying he averaged <30 in India and "only" 40 in England. I think he'd be a fairly unanimous pick as keeper-batsman in the post-Bradman era.

 

[Migara]

I have a question,

Why do people find it so reasonable to assume that Sanga would average 'only' about 55 and be 'only' another of the other 'normal' greats if he never touched the gloves when he averages 76 without them over a decent period of time? The only reason I can think off is people are enculturated to the greats averaging 55 and cannot think outside the rigid box that there is a possibility that his average without the gloves is really what it is, freakin' 76.

Basically, Most people don't rate him alongside Gilchirst as a wk-batsman because he averages only 35-40 with the gloves but then don't hesitate to rate him 'only' with the other great bats, and sometimes even worse don't even consider him a great. You can't have both halves of the pie, He can't be a much worse wk-bat than Gilchirst as well as 'only' as good a batsman as the greats of our era without the gloves.

I'm yet undecided on the question, just throwing out out there.

Oh, ATG bat fosho.

It's wrong to assume that Sanga would have averaged 70 if he never kept. The keeping era pf his batting was the time where he learnt his batting as well. He's a later starter in FCC and had to learn a lot while playing for SL. I'd think he'll average either side of 60 if he never kept.

 

[Migara]

Also, even though Gilchrist's numbers in certain places do not look great, he has played match-turning/winning knocks in pretty much every venue against every opponent. The X-factor he brought to Australia's batting goes far beyond merely looking at his statistics and saying he averaged <30 in India and "only" 40 in England. I think he'd be a fairly unanimous pick as keeper-batsman in the post-Bradman era.

Sorry, Flower disagrees.

 

[vcs]

Sorry, Flower disagrees.

Gilly was averaging around 55 till Ashes 2005 (around 70 Tests), with centuries all over the world. I'll take him by a comfortable margin.

Look, I understand it's a bit unfair because Flower hasn't had enough opportunities to play everywhere (much like Sanga, only worse) and play long series against top teams. But it is what it is, unfortunately.

 

[Migara]

Flower was always under pressure to perform. ATG batsman, but never mentioned with same breath as Dravid, Kallis or Ponting.

 

[smash84]

I think i would agree with Bagapath on this. Sanga is definitely a great batsman but there are still a few holes to be filled in his resume some of which really are not his fault. However his record against these teams will obviously play on the people's minds when they rate him

One of my favorite players in the world currently.

 

[Ikki]

I have a question,

Why do people find it so reasonable to assume that Sanga would average 'only' about 55 and be 'only' another of the other 'normal' greats if he never touched the gloves when he averages 76 without them over a decent period of time? The only reason I can think off is people are enculturated to the greats averaging 55 and cannot think outside the rigid box that there is a possibility that his average without the gloves is really what it is, freakin' 76.

Basically, Most people don't rate him alongside Gilchirst as a wk-batsman because he averages only 35-40 with the gloves but then don't hesitate to rate him 'only' with the other great bats, and sometimes even worse don't even consider him a great. You can't have both halves of the pie, He can't be a much worse wk-bat than Gilchirst as well as 'only' as good a batsman as the greats of our era without the gloves.

I'm yet undecided on the question, just throwing out out there.

Oh, ATG bat fosho.

He averaged around 40 IIRC with gloves. He'd probably average higher than that without the gloves but not near 76 as is being quoted. IIRC Flower actually averaged higher with gloves.