How good is Sanga?

[Ruckus]

And we've come full circle

 

[smash84]

 

[Cricketismylife]

But he stopped keeping. So he doesn't have that either. Additionally his batting dropped of when he kept.

Sangakkara isn't a like for like comparison with players like Ponting, Tendulkar and Viv because in addition to his batting he kept in 47 tests, which neither of those guys did, and so should be given extra credit over the guys.

Also I fail to understand how one can look at his statistics as a keeper batsman to judge him as a keeper batsman, but then not use his statistics as a pure batsman to judge him as a batsman. It's double standards. Either Sanga is better than Gilchrist as a keeper batsman, or he's the 2nd best batsman after Bradman.

 

[kyear2]

Or he played most of his career on roads in S/L and on occasion sub standard bowling. Don't you wonder why no one puts him in that class. Also Gilly never gave up the gloves to focus on his batting.

 

[Cricketismylife]

Or he played most of his career on roads in S/L and on occasion sub standard bowling. Don't you wonder why no one puts him in that class. Also Gilly never gave up the gloves to focus on his batting.

Same roads that magically become raging turners when Murali's legacy is discussed. The reason no one puts him in that class, is because hardly anyone watches Sri Lanka play test cricket.

You still don't get it. He averages 40 as a keeper batsman, 56 overall and 69 as a batsman. If you are saying that his keeping affected his batting and taking the 40 mark to compare him to Gilchrist, you need to take the 69 mark when comparing him to Viv, Sachin and Ponting etc.

As for sub standard bowling, he's averaging 88 against Pakistan who have always been one of the harder attacks in world cricket.

 

[CWB304]

Same roads that magically become raging turners when Murali's legacy is discussed. The reason no one puts him in that class, is because hardly anyone watches Sri Lanka play test cricket.

You still don't get it. He averages 40 as a keeper batsman, 56 overall and 69 as a batsman. If you are saying that his keeping affected his batting and taking the 40 mark to compare him to Gilchrist, you need to take the 69 mark when comparing him to Viv, Sachin and Ponting etc.

As for sub standard bowling, he's averaging 88 against Pakistan who have always been one of the harder attacks in world cricket.

Some great points. I have a funny feeling he'll end up with an overall average of 60.

 

[kyear2]

So you arw both saying that s/l pitches are as difficult to bat on as say south africa, england and most of australia? lets be serious.

 

[Cricketismylife]

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

Mahela is not ahead of Viv by record though, because the era in which Viv played very few players averaged 50, whereas Mahela's era there are far more 50 averaging batsman. Also Viv never got to play against minnows. When all these are factored in it's clear that Viv's 50 average is definitely better than Mahela's 50 average.

 

[Cricketismylife]

So you arw both saying that s/l pitches are as difficult to bat on as say south africa, england and most of australia? lets be serious.

I'm not saying that exactly, although it could well be true. Yes the SSC is as flat as a pancake, but other wickets tend to test the batsmen more. In Australia quite a few wickets have become flat and in England Lords and the Oval are flat, so I don't think it's completely clear cut that SL pitches are easier to bat on.

My point is even if they are a bit easier to bat on, it's still amazing that Sangakkara can average 69 when playing as a pure batsman, a figure that is comfortably above accepted all time greats like Viv, Sachin and Lara. I find it unjust that his hard work and amazing performances can be dismissed so easily by saying flat pitches and substandard opposition. Lara, who is one of my favourite batsman, scored 400 not out and 375 on one of the flattest pitches of all time and yet we all celebrate his record.

My other point is that as a Sri Lankan supporter it can become irritating when our high performing batsman are dismissed as flat track bullies (I'm not saying you definitely said this), and then at the same time Murali is supposed to have really benefited from playing on spin friendly wickets.

 

[kyear2]

So is Sangakkara better than Viv, Richards, Sobers, Lara, Chappell, Border, Ponting, Tendulkar, Dravid, Waugh, Hammond, Pollock and Kallis? He has a better record than nearly all of them. By what you are saying he is, and we all know he isn't. So tell me why this is, and don't say because no one watches Sri Lanka play.

 

[Lostman]

So you arw both saying that s/l pitches are as difficult to bat on as say south africa, england and most of australia? lets be serious.

But but but I thought they were dust bowls designed for Murali..

 

[CWB304]

So is Sangakkara better than Viv, Richards, Sobers, Lara, Chappell, Border, Ponting, Tendulkar, Dravid, Waugh, Hammond, Pollock and Kallis? He has a better record than nearly all of them. By what you are saying he is, and we all know he isn't. So tell me why this is, and don't say because no one watches Sri Lanka play.

Who's "we"? For me there are just three batsmen on your list who are indisputably better than Sanga - and they're all West Indian. Pollock's in play because the brevity of his test career makes it impossible to make a categorical statement. Hammond is too lost in the mists of times past for an instructive comparison to be made. If Sangakkara can maintain his form for another three-four years before calling it a day he will leave the likes of Kallis, Waugh, Ponting, Border and Chappell - some of whom he's already well ahead of - trailing in his wake, both statistically and in terms of perception.

 

[Flem274*]

I need to check out these Sri Lankan pitches. They go from raging turners when Murali bowls to impossibly flat when Sangakkara bats.

Now we could either accept Sangakkara is a boss on home pitches foreign batsmen find very dificult, but that would go against our inbuilt prejudices, nostalgia and bias so insead we must conclude Chaminda Vaas is the greatest seamer of all time. Averaged sub 30 on roads and turners, with not a green top in sight. WAG!

 

[Cricketismylife]

So is Sangakkara better than Viv, Richards, Sobers, Lara, Chappell, Border, Ponting, Tendulkar, Dravid, Waugh, Hammond, Pollock and Kallis? He has a better record than nearly all of them. By what you are saying he is, and we all know he isn't. So tell me why this is, and don't say because no one watches Sri Lanka play.

If we ignore all the matches he kept in, and took only the matches he played as a pure batsman, then if there was a player with that record he would be better than the names mentioned. 69 is far higher than any of those averages. My view is that you cannot ignore matches he kept in and therefore he isn't better than them, but at the same time this means you cannot take his 40 average as keeper as justification of Gilchrist being superior to him.

I like to think of it this way. Sangakkara has averaged the same or more as most of those names there, and even if he is a bit worse than some of those names, he has given Sri Lanka 47 test matches worth of keeping, so his overall use to Sri Lanka is greater than say Tendulkar's is to India. It may sound ridiculous but 2 batsman who score a similar amount of runs per innings (Tendulkar and Sangakkara), one is slightly better as a batsman (Tendulkar), but the other has provided his country with the option of playing an extra batsman (Sangakkara). Who is better as an overall player?

 

[Teja.]

If we ignore all the matches he kept in, and took only the matches he played as a pure batsman, then if there was a player with that record he would be better than the names mentioned. 69 is far higher than any of those averages. My view is that you cannot ignore matches he kept in and therefore he isn't better than them, but at the same time this means you cannot take his 40 average as keeper as justification of Gilchrist being superior to him.

I like to think of it this way. Sangakkara has averaged the same or more as most of those names there, and even if he is a bit worse than some of those names, he has given Sri Lanka 47 test matches worth of keeping, so his overall use to Sri Lanka is greater than say Tendulkar's is to India. It may sound ridiculous but 2 batsman who score a similar amount of runs per innings (Tendulkar and Sangakkara), one is slightly better as a batsman (Tendulkar), but the other has provided his country with the option of playing an extra batsman (Sangakkara). Who is better as an overall player?

Yeah, I certainly appreciate your point but I hope you're using Tendulkar not in the literal sense but rather in the 'Batsman-who-averaged-55' sense because if we take your net value added logic further, you could say Tendulkar offered eleven additional years with the bat of that standard thereby clearly out-valuing Sanga.

Otherwise, I agree with your general point that from a value POV, of players with similar longevity, Sanga's keeping adds more and should be counted for more than batsman of a similar standard.

 

[Cricketismylife]

Yeah, I certainly appreciate your point but I hope you're using Tendulkar not in the literal sense but rather in the 'Batsman-who-averaged-55' sense because if we take your net value added logic further, you could say Tendulkar offered eleven additional years with the bat of that standard thereby clearly out-valuing Sanga.

Otherwise, I agree with your general point that from a value POV, of players with similar longevity, Sanga's keeping adds more and should be counted for more than batsman of a similar standard.

Yes I agree with that I probably shouldn't have used Tendulkar as an example, as he did start 11 years before Sangakkara, and I rate him as my number 2 batsman after Bradman. At the same time I don't think its nonsensical to compare Sanga's player value to him, even if Sachin would come out just ahead.

 

[Migara]

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.

Wrong. Warne has better away numbers because he has played more matches against England and Saffies. Opposition to opposition, Murali has equal or better stats than Warne.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Also I fail to understand how one can look at his statistics as a keeper batsman to judge him as a keeper batsman, but then not use his statistics as a pure batsman to judge him as a batsman. It's double standards. Either Sanga is better than Gilchrist as a keeper batsman, or he's the 2nd best batsman after Bradman.

Nah, that's a silly premise. I can see the logic in a lot of what you are saying but demanding such absolutes is over the top.

 

[kyear2]

Wrong. Warne has better away numbers because he has played more matches against England and Saffies. Opposition to opposition, Murali has equal or better stats than Warne.

And thats apposed to playing more againts Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. Additionally he averaged 19 at home and over 27 away, that is huge.

 

[kyear2]

Please don't take this that I don't respect Muali, as I see at at worst the third best spinner EVER, and most likely number two. The guy was absolutely amazing.