Sanga is under rated?

[Migara]

Yeah some short memories here. People are forgetting all the good he did just because he got owned by Steyn in the last series. I mean, if you break down his record and compare with Sanga's..

Australia - equal, both outstanding
Pakistan - equal, both brilliant
NZ - Sanga wins out easily
India - Sehwag wins out easily
SL - both are brilliant

The rest aren't worth comparing really as neither is very good and can claim any significant advantage.

Incidentally, both are very close to the 2nd spot behind Bradman to the number of innings they needed to get to 7000 runs in Test cricket.

Like a cerain 39.2 vs 25 odd something? Nah, 39.2 against Donald and Pollock at their peaks is bloody awesome. Even Tendulkar didn't manage that.

 

[smash84]

I don't think it's fair to treat Sangakkara the wicket keeper and Sangakkara the specialist batsman as the same player. Given he averages 40 with the gloves and 76 without the gloves, I do think it's safe to say that the burden of them was holding him back. To improve by such a ridiculous margin sooo suddenly is just far too much of a coincidence, for mine.

Since getting rid of the gloves, here are his averages in each country:

Zimbabwe - 141
New Zealand - 134
Australia - 97
Sri Lanka - 85
Pakistan - 60
India - 48
South Africa - 48
West Indies - 43
Bangladesh - 42

Where's the hole there? He's yet to play in England as a specialist batsman, but I think that's his next series, and I expect him to go well there. He's performed literally everywhere else - he averages 40+ in every country. As a specialist batsman he actually has one of the most complete records in world cricket.

Good point.

 

[vcs]

Like a cerain 39.2 vs 25 odd something? Nah, 39.2 against Donald and Pollock at their peaks is bloody awesome. Even Tendulkar didn't manage that.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Since you're only talking of one series.

If you're counting SA in favour of Sanga, then you'd have to consider WI for Sehwag. I don't put much stock in either, because scoring in WI these days is not exactly considered a benchmark for great batmanship, and 40 compared to 25 is not really much of a win either.

 

[Migara]

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Since you're only talking of one series.

If you're counting SA in favour of Sanga, then you'd have to consider WI for Sehwag. I don't put much stock in either, because scoring in WI these days is not exactly considered a benchmark for great batmanship, and 40 compared to 25 is not really much of a win either.

Nah, Sanga scored the amount over two separate series in SAF.

 

[vcs]

But Donald only played in one of them, I think.

Anyway, there is no point splitting hairs over whether Sanga's medium-level performance in SA is better than Sehwag's poor one. Neither is going to be happy about their numbers in SA. Like I said in this post to Teja, if you are not averaging enough to give your team a chance to win/draw a series, or not playing a big knock every once in a while to help your team win/draw matches, then there's not much point worrying over what the exact number is.

 

[Migara]

We'll agree on that.

 

[bagapath]

Bagapath's four is a fallacy. If Sanga's 39.2 against SAF is **** and bad, so is Tendulkar's 40 against ZIM and 40.2 against PAK.

tendy is bad in zim. he is better in pak coz he has a hundred apart form a 40 avg. now, how many hundreds has sanga scored in SA, Eng and WI? Zilch. You cant fail to score a hundred in one third of the countries u play in and fail in 50% of the major test playing nations (under 40 in 4 out of 8 big nations) and expect to be rated with the best.

 

[Migara]

tendy is bad in zim. he is better in pak coz he has a hundred apart form a 40 avg. now, how many hundreds has sanga scored in SA, Eng and WI? Zilch. You cant fail to score a hundred in one third of the countries u play in and fail in 50% of the major test playing nations (under 40 in 4 out of 8 big nations) and expect to be rated with the best.

Sanga has 98 in SAF, only 2 runs short of a century. And little while ago you accused me about being obsessed with decimals.

Then what is the importance of a century over a 90?

 

[bagapath]

Sanga has 98 in SAF, only 2 runs short of a century. And little while ago you accused me about being obsessed with decimals.

Then what is the importance of a century over a 90?

I have always been a fan of Sanga's. I think he is a cracking batsman. But I would rather see him tick all the necessary boxes before he is upgraded to business class. he has not scored a hundred in SA and that is a fact. just like kallis hadnt scored a double till last month. In 8 major cricket playing nations he averages below 40 in 4 (3 and a half if you are going to round off his avg in SA) and he has not scored a hundred in 3. that makes it clear to me why he is not rated better than he is.

 

[marc71178]

Like a cerain 39.2 vs 25 odd something? Nah, 39.2 against Donald and Pollock at their peaks is bloody awesome. Even Tendulkar didn't manage that.

The same Donald who played once in the series, dismissed him cheaply once when SL were rolled, then was restricted to 7 overs in the second innings (total of 16 bowled)?

Nice distortion of the facts there...

 

[Delo12]

this shows india is really the no.1 team in the world. a few years ago, non aussies used to begrudge australian juggernaut rolling along so freely that they used to hate everything to do with aussie cricket. the attention has shifted to india which means india is really the leader of the pack.

so.... delo12, india IS the no.1 team in the world. be jealous. be very jealous. and you can go and duck yourself behind a buffalo.

as for this comparison between gautham gambhir and sangakkara..... it would be too embarrassing even for gambhir to be compared with kumar at this point of time in his career. sanga is miles ahead of him. gambhir would do better to learn from his senior and be more dedicated and focused in his craft.

read the thread title again,
india get more publicity plus fans allover bcoz of their population, so its obvious that even their average performance's get noticed, just gave an ex. with gambir's, cant compare those two like u said.

your response suggests like as if I hate Indians, not really, they're arrogant for sure.
but dont really hate, nor like 'em. dont get tensed bro ::

 

[Delo12]

tendy is bad in zim. he is better in pak coz he has a hundred apart form a 40 avg. now, how many hundreds has sanga scored in SA, Eng and WI? Zilch. You cant fail to score a hundred in one third of the countries u play in and fail in 50% of the major test playing nations (under 40 in 4 out of 8 big nations) and expect to be rated with the best.

ffs, sanga last played in SA 8 years back, thats a long time.

 

[bagapath]

no mate. i dont get tense in internet forums these days. i have become a better person post menopause.

dont totally agree with you though. india has always been a heavily populated country. so indian players getting more attention because of that is not true. i am talking about the human tendency to pull down the person/ team/ organization on top of the pyramid everytime, everywhere. had india been no 5 or 6 the whole world would be saying the billion fans of that nation deserved a better team. because they are successful and cash rich/ their cricket org is the richest cricketing body in the world/ people want to pull them down.

i firmly believe most indian fans are dickheads. but that is a different argument.

 

[centurymaker]

The same Donald who played once in the series, dismissed him cheaply once when SL were rolled, then was restricted to 7 overs in the second innings (total of 16 bowled)?

Nice distortion of the facts there...

Plus, he was 34+ at that time. Pretty close to retirement....

 

[smash84]

.

i firmly believe most indian fans are dickheads. but that is a different argument.

club the majority of pak fans in that club too

 

[abmk]

Yeah some short memories here. People are forgetting all the good he did just because he got owned by Steyn in the last series. I mean, if you break down his record and compare with Sanga's..

Australia - equal, both outstanding
Pakistan - equal, both brilliant
NZ - Sanga wins out easily
India - Sehwag wins out easily
SL - both are brilliant

.

I agree, sanga is getting a tad over-rated here IMO

 

[cnerd123]

Hmmm.


Sanga's in terrific form, but you can't judge a player based on how they're going during their peak. You need to take their whole career into account.

Without gloves he does have a great record, but lets wait for him to continue this fine streak for a few more years before labelling him an ATG.

He is a Sri-Lankan ATG though, no question about it, and is probably the best batsman in the world at the moment. Atleast in close competition with Kallis and Sachin.

 

[Ramcambrien]

Yeah some short memories here. People are forgetting all the good he did just because he got owned by Steyn in the last series. I mean, if you break down his record and compare with Sanga's..

Australia - equal, both outstanding
Pakistan - equal, both brilliant
NZ - Sanga wins out easily
India - Sehwag wins out easily
SL - both are brilliant

The rest aren't worth comparing really as neither is very good and can claim any significant advantage.

Incidentally, both are very close to the 2nd spot behind Bradman to the number of innings they needed to get to 7000 runs in Test cricket.

y leaving out sanga pwnage of shewag in rsa and eng????

 

[Ramcambrien]

Stats tells not whole story but only story....sanga average as pure batter is second best after brad in as large sample!!!!

 

[vcs]

y leaving out sanga pwnage of shewag in rsa and eng????

Some pwnage averaging <40 in both countries. Sure, he "pwns" Sehwag in RSA if Sehwag "pwns" him in England by the same token.. have you even looked at their stats?