How good is Sanga?

[kyear2]

Ponting is a better bat that Kallis, never though there was much doubt about that. Kallis the cricketer though wins out though when you factor in Ponting's captaincy and fielding (especially in the slips) its closer than most think.

 

[Red]

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

Prefer tomato sauce and mustard, with fried onions.

 

[Top_Cat]

Pfft, Philistine.

 

[Red]

Sour cream and sweet chilli is good as well.


(mostly trying to get my post count up here to see what happens to my title when I get to 300 posts!)

 

[kyear2]

Lol.

 

[smash84]

Sour cream and sweet chilli is good as well.


(mostly trying to get my post count up here to see what happens to my title when I get to 300 posts!)

 

[Flem274*]

Well, surely it's not about that. It's about who are likely contenders for the ATG team - Sanga, whilst great, is probably nowhere near.

This is why I hate discussing great players on CW.

"Nowhere near" lol.Unbelievable. I point out to you some great innings and you say wah wah its not about that. That is exactly what it's about.

Now look, I saw Ponting play quite a lot and while he is an incredible batsman, he wasn't hitting cover drives whilst doing back flips then walking to lunch barefoot in a blizzard.

Sangakkara has about ten million runs at an average nearing the stratosphere. True, Bradman is on Pluto but you may as well compare Tendulkar with James Marshall because that's the gap between Bradman and the closest batsman to him, whoever it is.

You know who doesn't care about this argument? Sangakkara, because he is too busy batting like a boss then going home to lots and lots of *** to care about whether the internet or some old bloke in a commentary booth can decide whether his record speaks for itself or not.

 

[smash84]

This is why I hate discussing great players on CW.

"Nowhere near" lol.Unbelievable. I point out to you some great innings and you say wah wah its not about that. That is exactly what it's about.

Now look, I saw Ponting play quite a lot and while he is an incredible batsman, he wasn't hitting cover drives whilst doing back flips then walking to lunch barefoot in a blizzard.

Sangakkara has about ten million runs at an average nearing the stratosphere. True, Bradman is on Pluto but you may as well compare Tendulkar with James Marshall because that's the gap between Bradman and the closest batsman to him, whoever it is.

sometimes Phlegm is definitely sig worthy

 

[Flem274*]

FFS the internet ate my stats vs opinions bit as well. All those insults at Burgey and PEWS gone to waste.

 

[Migara]

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.

=Murali. Kallis has nothing to be ashamed of getting out to best spinner in test history.

 

[Arachnodouche]

Someone said India isn't the litmus test for batsmen. I'm sorry, what? Australia barely won a series in India during their heyday. It isn't about the quality of bowlers that India has, it's how they generally thrive in home conditions.

 

[Arachnodouche]

=Murali. Kallis has nothing to be ashamed of getting out to best spinner in test history.

Wonder how neutrals feel about the Warne-Murali comparison.

 

[kyear2]

There is none, when Cricinfo did their AT XI Warne got the max votes along with Sobers and Bradman, Murali has a serious disparity btwn his home numbers on his made to order pitches and hiw away numbers. Murali also made quite a bit of hay vs the minnows of our time. Murali great and top three yes, in Warne's league, not quite.

 

[Furball]

Someone said India isn't the litmus test for batsmen. I'm sorry, what? Australia barely won a series in India during their heyday. It isn't about the quality of bowlers that India has, it's how they generally thrive in home conditions.

Big whoop.

The litmus test of a good batsman is how they handle quality pace bowling, something a touring team to India won't find.

Australia in their heyday went 15 years unbeaten at home. India have yet to win a series in Australia. Your argument has no basis in reality.

 

[CWB304]

Someone said India isn't the litmus test for batsmen. I'm sorry, what? Australia barely won a series in India during their heyday. It isn't about the quality of bowlers that India has, it's how they generally thrive in home conditions.

And they wonder why everyone laughs at Indian cricket fans.

 

[Arachnodouche]

Big whoop.

The litmus test of a good batsman is how they handle quality pace bowling, something a touring team to India won't find.

Australia in their heyday went 15 years unbeaten at home. India have yet to win a series in Australia. Your argument has no basis in reality.

So we're completely ruling out one facet of bowling then? Is this earnest prep for the shellacking you guys are due to receive here?

 

[Arachnodouche]

And they wonder why everyone laughs at Indian cricket fans.

I'll go get my thesaurus ready.

 

[Furball]

So we're completely ruling out one facet of bowling then? Is this earnest prep for the shellacking you guys are due to receive here?

Yep. You don't need to be a good player of spin to be a good batsman. If you can't play pace bowling, you won't survive except in countries where they're yet to properly figure out what pace bowling is.

 

[Flem274*]

Yep. You don't need to be a good player of spin to be a good batsman.

Nah.

A reverse Sidhu is just as good as a Sidhu.

 

[Furball]

Nah.

A reverse Sidhu is just as good as a Sidhu.

Nonsense.