How good is Sanga?

[viriya]

As far as Asian batsmen go I think he has a very good shout to be better than everyone bar Tendulkar.

I think he has done much more than Sachin in Tests - better record and more match-winning innings (Sachin of course is notorious for not having as much impact as say a Dravid or even Sehwag in Tests).

Sachin wins the ODI comparison hands-down - imo the greatest ODI batsman of all-time with only Viv a potential alternative with Kohli with the potential to surpass..

Solely on Test terms, I think Sanga has done more than Sachin, but overall Test + ODI Sachin still holds his own. But the "best since Bradman" argument is by nature a Test-only claim anyway.

 

[Teja.]

1. I think the vast, vast majority of people who have seen both of them play will have a hard time saying Sanga is as rounded and good a batsman as Sachin against either high quality pace with swing and movement or great spin.

2. Even if they're of identical quality (They're not, read above), Sanga has played a whole decade less than Tendulkar! That's a ****ing huge time period and there's no way Sanga can come close to that in utility to team terms.

There's a reason pretty much everyone who's traditionally considered a valid candidate for best after Bradman (Hammond, Hobbs, Sobers, Headley etc.) have careers of 20 or more years.

 

[viriya]

1. I think the vast, vast majority of people who have seen both of them play will have a hard time saying Sanga is as rounded and good a batsman as Sachin against either high quality pace with swing and movement or great spin.

2. Even if they're of identical quality (They're not, read above), Sanga has played a whole decade less than Tendulkar! That's a ****ing huge time period and there's no way Sanga can come close to that in utility to team terms.

There's a reason pretty much everyone who's traditionally considered a valid candidate for best after Bradman (Hammond, Hobbs, Sobers, Headley etc.) have careers of 20 or more years.

I think the argument here isn't whether Sanga is better than Tendulkar in terms of skill, it's that his Test career can be argued to be the best since Bradman's. Tendulkar's career was exceptionally long but he also ruined his career stats by playing too long.. Obviously Sanga hasn't gone through the same slump before retirement yet, but if he was to retire tomorrow his Test career would look better than Tendulkar's, and I doubt he would hang around if he was not making runs like Tendulkar did. Player careers can be comparatively judged 40-50 Tests imo, longevity is a bonus but not the only factor..

Anyway, all those players you mentioned did not have 20 year+ test careers afaik - first class careers should not matter in this discussion.

Also, it could be argued that Sanga is a better batsman than Tendulkar was at 36 - Tendulkar obviously was great way before Sanga but Sanga has just been getting better and better with time unlike most players.

 

[viriya]

Another thing that suggests that Sanga would've been close to as good even if he had not given up the gloves is that he has constantly improved in ODIs as well, without ever giving up on wicket-keeping in that format.

Since 2010, he has averaged 50.5 with a strike rate of 82 in ODIs:
Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Migara]

Despite all these run glut, I won't put Sanga in Sachin's level. Definitely at Dravid / Kallis level, but Sanga is lot more attacking than above two. What he needs is a tour in West Indies, India and South Africa in current form, and I am pretty sure he will get his average above 40. In WI's case he may ever get it up to a ridiculous 50+ given the bowling attack.

Other minus point I see in him is his weakness against off spin. Tendulkar was very good against everything, bar in swingers at 80-85mph. Sanga is better player of raw pace and bounce, but definitely not as good SRT against movement and spin.

 

[Teja.]

I think the argument here isn't whether Sanga is better than Tendulkar in terms of skill, it's that his Test career can be argued to be the best since Bradman's. Tendulkar's career was exceptionally long but he also ruined his career stats by playing too long.. Obviously Sanga hasn't gone through the same slump before retirement yet, but if he was to retire tomorrow his Test career would look better than Tendulkar's, and I doubt he would hang around if he was not making runs like Tendulkar did. Player careers can be comparatively judged 40-50 Tests imo, longevity is a bonus but not the only factor..

If you mean, he ruined his career stats by playing on when he was the world's best batsman a year before and was in the country's top six bats, that's to the credit of his career and not his detriment. Despite all that he averaged five runs lesser than Sanga and played for ten additional years over Sanga in on average, harsher conditions. This includes him being the best batsman in the world and averaging close to sixty in an extremely bowling friendly decade, the 90s in a decade where Lara, Waugh and Gooch were the only people to even average fifty. I think bringing in the 'better career' argument only strengthens Tendulkar's case.

Further, if you feel Sanga's career right now is statically superior, Tendulkar averaged 57.5 over his first 14 years despite the majority of it being in the 90s. He was already well entrenched as an ATG then. Would you say it'd be great if he retired then? It's an incredible credit to him that he carried on as an amazing but not top 3 batsman for ten years after that IMO.

Anyway, all those players you mentioned did not have 20 year+ test careers afaik

Haha, it's not really a matter of debate. They did indeed do so. Hobbs test career went from 1908 - 1930 (22 years), Hammond's was from 1927 to 1947 (20 years), Sobers played from 1954 to 1974 (20 years) and Headley played from 1930 to 1954 (24 years). So you're wrong and I'm right.

Also, it could be argued that Sanga is a better batsman than Tendulkar was at 36 -

Yeah but that's a highly arbitrary line of argument. For instance, Tendulkar had the best year of his career when he was 37 and the worst when batsmen traditionally peak, his early 30s. It doesn't say anything.

 

[Jono]

Lol @ "ruined his career stats"

Such a cricket fan thing to say, and so far removed from the views of players and most analysts.

 

[Teja.]

Despite all these run glut, I won't put Sanga in Sachin's level. Definitely at Dravid / Kallis level, but Sanga is lot more attacking than above two. What he needs is a tour in West Indies, India and South Africa in current form, and I am pretty sure he will get his average above 40. In WI's case he may ever get it up to a ridiculous 50+ given the bowling attack.

Other minus point I see in him is his weakness against off spin. Tendulkar was very good against everything, bar in swingers at 80-85mph. Sanga is better player of raw pace and bounce, but definitely not as good SRT against movement and spin.

Yeah, good post.

I hope I'm not coming across as a Sanga hater. I've always rated him massively and of all those who debuted post 2000, I think he's the only batsman across the world and one of the two cricketers along with Steyn who I'd call an all-time great.

 

[Teja.]

Lol @ "ruined his career stats"

Such a cricket fan thing to say, and so far removed from the views of players and most analysts.

Haha yeah, it's a pretty ridiculous thing to say.

 

[Coronis]

Interesting tidbit; Sanga and Mahela have the same amount of runs now, despite Sanga debuting 3 years later, and having played 21 fewer tests and 31 fewer innings.

 

[viriya]

Haha yeah, it's a pretty ridiculous thing to say.

I don't think it's ridiculous to say Tendulkar hung around in Tests for 2 years more than he should chasing statistical achievements.. it did ruin his career stats.

 

[viriya]

If you mean, he ruined his career stats by playing on when he was the world's best batsman a year before and was in the country's top six bats, that's to the credit of his career and not his detriment. Despite all that he averaged five runs lesser than Sanga and played for ten additional years over Sanga in on average, harsher conditions. This includes him being the best batsman in the world and averaging close to sixty in an extremely bowling friendly decade, the 90s in a decade where Lara, Waugh and Gooch were the only people to even average fifty. I think bringing in the 'better career' argument only strengthens Tendulkar's case.

Whether Tendulkar was the best Test batsmen of the 90s is debatable - I would probably pick Lara ahead of him.

Further, if you feel Sanga's career right now is statically superior, Tendulkar averaged 57.5 over his first 14 years despite the majority of it being in the 90s. He was already well entrenched as an ATG then. Would you say it'd be great if he retired then? It's an incredible credit to him that he carried on as an amazing but not top 3 batsman for ten years after that IMO.

It's not just about the stats, Sanga has many more match-winning/great Test innings than Tendulkar. Tendulkar was consistent yes but you would struggle to name great Test innings of his that had a major impact to a result - something that would not be the case with Lara, Dravid etc.

Haha, it's not really a matter of debate. They did indeed do so. Hobbs test career went from 1908 - 1930 (22 years), Hammond's was from 1927 to 1947 (20 years), Sobers played from 1954 to 1974 (20 years) and Headley played from 1930 to 1954 (24 years). So you're wrong and I'm right.

Ok, but I did say afaik That is pretty irrelevant though - George Headley played a grand total of 22 test matches during that period.. 20 years being some kind of threshold for greatness doesn't really make much sense imo.

Yeah but that's a highly arbitrary line of argument. For instance, Tendulkar had the best year of his career when he was 37 and the worst when batsmen traditionally peak, his early 30s. It doesn't say anything.

My point there is that the perception of Sanga is skewed by the fact that he was not much better than above average when he started off. With Tendulkar it was the opposite - he was a genius from the beginning. Sanga has just gotten better and better with age, but people tend to rate him based on skewed first impressions.

Just to be clear I'm not saying Sanga is better than Tendulkar overall, just that it can be argued that he has done more in Tests. ODIs and Overall Tendulkar takes the cake still.

 

[akilana]

Viv Richards, Lara, Ponting, Chappell etc never had a carrear spanning 20/20+ years but they are all candiates for the 'next to Bradman.'

The Sachin played in 90s when it was harder argument is rubbish. His record since 2000 is not vastly superior to Sanga and he played in the same conditions as Sanga.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I don't think it's ridiculous to say Tendulkar hung around in Tests for 2 years more than he should chasing statistical achievements.. it did ruin his career stats.

If you think stats are averages and nothing more, then sure but seriously, I've done a complete u-turn on the subject of end of career slumps... It really doesn't matter one jot tomme as long as he played for a long period of time at a high level. Tendulkarddid that for longer than anyone in history.

And why is the myth that Sachin wasn't a match winning batsman in Tests still somehow being stated as fact? It's ridiculous.

 

[viriya]

What he needs is a tour in West Indies, India and South Africa in current form, and I am pretty sure he will get his average above 40. In WI's case he may ever get it up to a ridiculous 50+ given the bowling attack.

He will most likely not get a chance because of SL's scheduling mess and the board's lack of interest in Tests, and I think this Eng tour proved that just because a player has 1-2 countries where they haven't done well, does not really mean much when considering how good they were - Sobers averaged 15 in NZ, Lillee couldn't buy a wicket in Pakistan, etc etc.. Of course it would be a problem if you thought that player had a systematic issue that caused them not to get runs in those locations, but in most instances, it's because of a bout of bad form and a small sample size of tests..

 

[OverratedSanity]

Whether Tendulkar was the best Test batsmen of the 90s is debatable - I would probably pick Lara ahead of him.



It's not just about the stats, Sanga has many more match-winning/great Test innings than Tendulkar. Tendulkar was consistent yes but you would struggle to name great Test innings of his that had a major impact to a result - something that would not be the case with Lara, Dravid etc.

No way was Lara better than Sachin in the 90s. Lara had a horrendous slump in the late 90s where he used to try to over attack and play tests like odis and end up getting out for scores like 30(32). At the same time, Sachin was at his absolute peak. On the other hand, in the early-mid 2000s, Sachin declined and Lara became ridiculously consistent.

I don't really buy that Sanga has more match-winning innings and it's something which is hardly the most important thing to look for when rating a batsman. He played plenty of knocks I consider great, both home and away, which is what matters. "Match-winning" knock is a completely arbitrary term which I don't really care for at all.

 

[viriya]

And why is the myth that Sachin wasn't a match winning batsman in Tests still somehow being stated as fact? It's ridiculous.

Tendulkar was just not the type of batsman to make huge runs that would make a big impact in a Test match the way Lara or Sanga has done. He also does not have instances of match-winning chases in the 4th innings (afaik - I could be wrong here). The two innings I can recall were great was the 200+ at Sydney in Steve Waugh's last test where he didn't play the cover drive and the almost-win 136 he made in a chase that his teammates messed up vs Pakistan in Chennai..

Compare that to Lara.. 277, 375, 400*, 213, 153*... you just need to type in the numbers and everyone knows the innings.

For Sanga, his mammoth/match-winning innings are less well-known because SL test cricket isn't focused on that much, but an SL fan would know about some of those innings like:
- 230 vs Pak at Lahore
- 192 vs Aus at Hobart
- 232 vs SA at SSC
- 156* vs NZ at Wellington
- 287 vs SA at SSC

 

[viriya]

I don't really buy that Sanga has more match-winning innings and it's something which is hardly the most important thing to look for when rating a batsman. He played plenty of knocks I consider great, both home and away, which is what matters. "Match-winning" knock is a completely arbitrary term which I don't really care for at all.

It's not the most important thing, but once you have comparable numbers between 2 batsmen it's an interesting thing to look at imo. I agree though it's somewhat unfair for batsmen who played with bad bowling attacks.

 

[OverratedSanity]

The Sydney double is his worst innings ever

He has a fourth innings match winning hundred, chasing 387 against England.

I'd like to know from you what a match winning innings is anyway. For me its a useless term. What's more important is match-turning ability. The ability to perform when the opposition is on top, and attempt to rescue the team or ram home the advantage when your team has a sniff. Whether the match is won in the end or not is dependant on around a million other variables not in control of the batsman.

 

[Dissector]

I would put the batsmen of the last 25 years in this order:
Tendulkar
Lara
Steve Waugh
Sanga
Ponting
Kallis
Dravid