How good is Sanga?

[kyear2]

Nearly 10,000 runs at 56.31

8 double tons

30 tons made against all opponents

38 fifties

Strike Rate of 54.12

Gee wiz, what's a bloke goota do to be considered an ATG?

It seems to me that in 20 years time when we're all still doing ATG Drafts someone will post;

'And I choose the great Kumar Sangakkara as my No.3'

To which several people reply;

'Oh hell, I was going to pick him, you ALWAYS get him. It's not fair. Booo hooo.'

Barrington averaged over 58, he is not in my opinion an ATG, Weekes averaged over 58 as well, but would never make a W.I a.t XI before Lara and Richards. Even among the top left handers many wouls still consider Harvey better than Sangakkara and look at Harvey's record. Thanfully people just dont rank batsmen by record, Mahela would be ahead of Viv

 

[watson]

Barrington averaged over 58, he is not in my opinion an ATG, Weekes averaged over 58 as well, but would never make a W.I a.t XI before Lara and Richards. Even among the top left handers many wouls still consider Harvey better than Sangakkara and look at Harvey's record. Thanfully people just dont rank batsmen by record, Mahela would be ahead of Viv

I totally agree with you kyear.

However, let us not criticise Sangakkara too much. Sometimes negative opinion can be just as irrational as hyper-inflated opinion.

If Sangakkara is not an ATG then he is very close to it - I think.

 

[Jacknife]

Surely there's different levels of ATG, some better than others, even if some don't think he's as good as the Tendulkar & Lara should that stop him being a ATG, I wouldn't say so.

 

[kyear2]

I totally agree with you kyear.

However, let us not criticise Sangakkara too much. Sometimes negative opinion can be just as irrational as hyper-inflated opinion.

If Sangakkara is not an ATG then he is very close to it - I think.

I am not, said he is a great batsman.

 

[watson]

By 'us' I mean everyone. It was a generic comment kyear.

 

[Migara]

The statement about him averaging well over 40's is a mere speculation which will never be proven. Its not hard to see how his average just dramatically climbed up so much only after he stopped keeping. I haven't seen seen any massive change in his technique since then either. I also think Kallis would average lower if he had more chances to truly express his bowling. But it will never be proven.

Kallis is by far a better cricketer than Sangakkara. He is quite ahead as a batsman alone as well.

Same could have said on Sanga averaging 70 as a pure batsman. Sanga is a better test batsman than Kallis for me, not because of his average, just because Sanga makes things happen unlike Kallis. And when taken the keeping in to account (being one of the finest of the era), he's easily par with Kallis as a cricketer.

 

[Migara]

]Kallis is 'touching Ponting' in batting[/B]. He's a top, top batsman. He's got more shots than any of them - even if he is a bit too obdurate to use most of them a lot of the time. He gets some tough runs too, possibly some of the toughest.

Kallis is 'touching Agarkar' in bowling. He's a lazy, reluctant bloke in this regard - he's pretty lucky he's been able to cheap it up against the minnows (where he suddenly wants to bowl loads) and against the tail when the tired opening pair and first change have had their fill with the top order.

Dravid is the better candidate. And as I've said earlier, even if he was the "wall", Dravid also made things happen.

 

[Migara]

That claim is ridiculous. Basically you're saying that Sangakkara is the second greatest pure batsman ever.

So thinking Sanga would ONLY average 40 if he persisted keeping is not ridiculous?

 

[Jacknife]

If Sanga is up there, Ponitng is up there also, those 7 years or so between 99 and end of 2006, in 87 test matches he averaged 65 and scored 31 tons, that's an incredible run. The only place you can pull Ricky up on is India, similarly to how Sanga has been relatively poor in England same as Kallis and David as had problems in SA & SL.

 

[Psycho Macaque]

Complete bull****. I once saw a list made by someone who posted how valuable the scalps of the batsmen they dismissed were and Kallis made it in the top 5.
[http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/48524-how-valuable-wicket.html

He is a genuine wicket taker that can get the best of batsmen out when on a roll. His bowling average has taken a hit a lot over the years due to being used as sort of a part times to give the front line bowlers a rest. And he bowls enough for an all rounder.

Oh don't get me wrong, the young Kallis was excellent. A real tearaway. So exciting to watch - I thought he was going to be great. But he lost it... got a couple of injuries and wasn't the same. Early on he was getting the goodies out and at times is still a golden arm. But let's not kid ourselves, he's massively a batting allrounder and has been for a sizeable proportion in his career. He's bullied Ban, Zim and, to an extent, WI. He has a very poor record against anyone decent and bowls about 12 overs an innings.

 

[Psycho Macaque]

So what? You think Tendulkar and Lara haven't had bouts of mediocrity? I suggest you take a look at their stats again since you don't seem to. Yes I will admit Ponting's worst was longer and worse then their worse but their best was also never as good or long as Ponting's best either. His peak alone where he was miles ahead of both of them alone is enough to put him among both of them and the best of batsmen. Kallis too. In fact I think both have cases to be rated above Viv Richrads who I find is kind of overrated because of his style. A lot like how Wasim Akram is as a bowler.

Btw, Ponting still averaged around 45 before 2002.
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

So what? I suggest that you recognise in the same time period Lara and Tendulkar averaged over 50. You're a bit of an extremist, aren't you? You're insinuating that by saying he's just under L&T's league that I'm saying he's rubbish. Again, don't get me wrong, he's a true great. In 2006-8 I had them level but the last 4ish years have confounded him, for me, just down a bit overall on them.

 

[Psycho Macaque]

When did I ever say he was a bowling all arounder? All I said is he is a very capable bowler. And nearly every good bowler out there has picked on Ban and Zim. Those that didn't they just got lucky on. They are there to be picked on. Him picking on Ban and Zim a little doesn't change the fact that he has still dismissed some of the best of batsmen in his career.

I'm just saying there're huge holes in his bowling career - you called him a genuine wicket taker - I reckon a genuine wicket taker takes more than 1 wicket per innings over a 150 match career.

 

[Psycho Macaque]

And what is your point? Between 2002-2006 he was averaging 72. Back then Lara was averaging 57 and Tendulkar 48. That's exactly what I meant by him being miles ahead of both at the time.

No I'm not an extremist. In fact I think your being a bit arrogant to see other people's view clearly. All I said was based on overall career he deserves to be rated on the same level as both of them. What do you find is so wrong with that? Their overall career stats are about the same with Tendulkar a bit ahead of both.

Whoa, slow down, chuckles. I don't find it 'wrong' - don't be so dramatic. I could turn your 'arrogant' statement right back at you, are you seeing my view then? We've both viewed his career a little differently and you've not given me basis to change my mind. All you've done is emphasise that he had long troughs of poorer form than L&T. For me he's just below them at the head of the next pack, which isn't very far behind these two greats.

 

[Furball]

Kallis is 'touching Ponting' in batting. He's a top, top batsman. He's got more shots than any of them - even if he is a bit too obdurate to use most of them a lot of the time. He gets some tough runs too, possibly some of the toughest.

Kallis is 'touching Agarkar' in bowling. He's a lazy, reluctant bloke in this regard - he's pretty lucky he's been able to cheap it up against the minnows (where he suddenly wants to bowl loads) and against the tail when the tired opening pair and first change have had their fill with the top order.

Kallis isn't close to Ponting as a batsman.

 

[Furball]

Whoa, slow down, chuckles. I don't find it 'wrong' - don't be so dramatic. I could turn your 'arrogant' statement right back at you, are you seeing my view then? We've both viewed his career a little differently and you've not given me basis to change my mind. All you've done is emphasise that he had long troughs of poorer form than L&T. For me he's just below them at the head of the next pack, which isn't very far behind these two greats.

Lara had an absolutely shocking run of form for years in the 90s.

Ponting was the most dominant non-Bradman batsman of all time, in possibly the most dominant team of all time. That has to count for something.

 

[Psycho Macaque]

I think you're doing Kallis a disservice - his stats are as good as Ponting's. The fluency of style isn't quite there with him, as you say Ponting was quite dominant and hence isn't quite as good but he's nearly there. Ponting's not quite as good as L&T but he's nearly there.

 

[Furball]

I think you're doing Kallis a disservice - his stats are as good as Ponting's. The fluency of style isn't quite there with him, as you say Ponting was quite dominant and hence isn't quite as good but he's nearly there. Ponting's not quite as good as L&T but he's nearly there.

If you want to talk stats then let's analyse Kallis' piss poor record against the best attack of his era.

 

[Jarquis]

The one Ponting never faced? And an average of 40 is nowhere near piss poor.

 

[Jacknife]

If you want to talk stats then let's analyse Kallis' piss poor record against the best attack of his era.

Nah I wouldn't call England's attack back then the best but it was pretty good.

Averages less against SL for some reason than Aus and England.

 

[Top_Cat]

Sanga is good but a hot dog bun + HP really sets it off.