Sanga is under rated?

[Prince EWS]

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

It's not fair, but it's what it is. Personally I think he's the best batsman in the world. I don't think I under-rate him. I do think an average of 76 or so without the gloves does flatter him though; he's not really 50% better than all the other great batsmen of his time.

 

[Teja.]

I think he's the best batsman in the world.

Agree 100%

 

[Athlai]

Sangakkara without a doubt in my mind is the incredibly underrated and it's almost entirely down to Sri Lanka's touring schedule.

 

[bagapath]

Sangakkara without a doubt in my mind is the incredibly underrated and it's almost entirely down to Sri Lanka's touring schedule.

considering he is basically **** in england, west indies, south africa and india he is incredibly lucky to have played less abroad. he would have had a much poorer record otherwise. so lets take what is there as it is and not imagine scenarios contrary to facts.

 

[Athlai]

Either that or playing more overseas would see his record there improve a fair bit.

You know.

Either way.

 

[bagapath]

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.

nah! no one thinks sutcliffe is a better opener than hobbs or that samaraweera is a better batsman than martin crowe just because they have significantly higher averages. things dont work out that way. unless sangakara succeeds in england, west indies, india and south africa he wont be in the race for the title of the best batsman of the era.

 

[smash84]

considering he is basically **** in england, west indies, south africa and india he is incredibly lucky to have played less abroad. he would have had a much poorer record otherwise. so lets take what is there as it is and not imagine scenarios contrary to facts.

except for England he averages almost 35 or above in other places. I don't really see how we can call that ****

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...orderby=default;template=results;type=batting

 

[Athlai]

Played a lot of those matches earlier in his career when he was a keeper as well.

In the few chances he has had against those guys without the gloves it isn't as poor by a mile.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

I'd have loved if he had played away more when he was a batsman proper.

 

[Himannv]

nah! no one thinks sutcliffe is a better opener than hobbs or that samaraweera is a better batsman than martin crowe just because they have significantly higher averages. things dont work out that way. unless sangakra succeeds in england, west indies, india and south africa he wont be in the race for the title of the best batsman of the era.

Samaraweera is much more underrated than Sanga IMO.

 

[bagapath]

except for England he averages almost 35 or above in other places. I don't really see how we can call that ****

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

you expect your star batsman to score hundreds, right? in all the games he has played in england, south africa and west indies he has scored a total of 0 (zero) centuries. if you add india to the list, the number jumps to 1. that is not good enough to be called a good batsman, leave alone being in the race for best of the era.

 

[salman85]

I guess because Arsenal suck.Generally.

 

[smash84]

you expect your star batsman to score hundreds, right? in all the games he has played in england, south africa and west indies he has scored a total of 0 (zero) centuries. if you add india to the list, the number jumps to 1. that is not good enough to be called a good batsman, leave alone being in the race for best of the era.

but he does have a few fifties.....it also means that he has had starts but not been able to convert them. You must also consider that he played there mostly in his early days when he was not as good. In this context even without any hundreds it is a little harsh to call him ****

 

[bagapath]

but he does have a few fifties.....it also means that he has had starts but not been able to convert them. You must also consider that he played there mostly in his early days when he was not as good. In this context even without any hundreds it is a little harsh to call him ****

this thread asks if he is underrated. i say no; he deserves to be kept in the lower rungs on the greatness ladder because he has been a failure in these countries i have listed above. if you think he is alright in these places because he averages in the 30s and has some 50s then think again. a lot of wk/batsmen and all rounders are capable of those numbers. are they ever compared with truly great batsmen? if sanga's supporters want to look at his overall avg and rank him among the great then they should be prepared to hear that he is **** in 4 test playing countries if compared with the same great batters they are trying to bunch him with.

 

[bagapath]

Either that or playing more overseas would see his record there improve a fair bit.

You know.

Either way.

I am going by evidence. You are just hoping. It is science vs religion all over again!

For the record, I think he can improve his records over there when he tours again next time because he is not keeping anymore and also because his game has peaked. but still, so far he has failed in these 4 countries big time. so he should be happy that he has built a good reputation despite a very narrow range of achievements. he is far from being a great, though. underrated? no way.

 

[Migara]

this thread asks if he is underrated. i say no; he deserves to be kept in the lower rungs on the greatness ladder because he has been a failure in these countries i have listed above. if you think he is alright in these places because he averages in the 30s and has some 50s then think again. a lot of wk/batsmen and all rounders are capable of those numbers. are they ever compared with truly great batsmen? if sanga's supporters want to look at his overall avg and rank him among the great then they should be prepared to hear that he is **** in 4 test playing countries if compared with the same great batters they are trying to bunch him with.

Averaging 39.2 in SAF not **** by any means (and it was more than Tendulkar's average in SAF until recent tour), it's just below 40. I don't know how SRT's 40.25 against Pakistan or 40.0 against ZIM becomes so much better than Sanga's 39.20 against SAF becomes ****. So I'd say that Sanga needs to improve in 3 countries, namely India (36.5), England (30.5) and in West Indies (34.0). On other hand Lara has a hole in the record against India (33.0) and NZ (36.9), yet considered as the best by some and second best by others. [Dravid has a the same hole against SL and Kallis has it against SL and ENG both.]. Now going by the above Sanga ATM should be in the top five players in last 30 years!.

 

[Migara]

With the current status of WI, he'll definitly improve his average against WI. Against ENG it's very dicy. The real challenge is to improve it in India because he's not known to play spin well as pace.

 

[vcs]

Yeah, while I agreed with what Bagapath was initially saying, I definitely wouldn't call his record in those places ****. He hasn't had the opportunity to rectify his initial failures. Ability not in doubt for me.

 

[bagapath]

Even I think he has the ability to do well in these places. But we are talking about what he has achieved; not what he could have. That way, while an avg in the 30s is not too bad, not scoring a single century in 3 countries is ****, indeed, and a definite reason for disqualification from the "greatest" race.

 

[Debris]

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.

There a quite a few batsman who have averaged this kind of average over a period of time but they pretty much all tailed off over time (Gilchrist is a great example). This is pretty much why players should not be rated until their career is finished. The ups and downs of a career tend to give bias too much one way or the other.

 

[smash84]

this thread asks if he is underrated. i say no; he deserves to be kept in the lower rungs on the greatness ladder because he has been a failure in these countries i have listed above. if you think he is alright in these places because he averages in the 30s and has some 50s then think again. a lot of wk/batsmen and all rounders are capable of those numbers. are they ever compared with truly great batsmen? if sanga's supporters want to look at his overall avg and rank him among the great then they should be prepared to hear that he is **** in 4 test playing countries if compared with the same great batters they are trying to bunch him with.

You should exclude SA from this list because he averages almost 40 there which is more than what Tendulkar averaged there before the last tour. As Migara mentions he shouldn't have trouble against WI. The only challenges left are India and England IMO. Not doing too well against 2 teams can be forgiven for sure and certainly doesn't deserve the **** tag. I must say though that considering his record in other countries that he plays well in he doesn't get as much of a mention like say Inzy or Dravid although I do think that he is easily at their level if not better