How good is Sanga?

[harsh.ag]

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.

Time to wake up and smell the coffee.

 

[harsh.ag]

Viriya, maybe you would be more convincing if you pointed at something other than career averages and "match-winning" innings.

I have had this theory with Tendulkar that everyone in the Indian team was relaxed until he was there, and got caught with their pants down when he was out late in the day. I remember a friend asking me "Why doesn't Tendulkar perform under pressure like Dravid?" and I replied "Because Tendulkar being there means that there is not that much pressure, abhi Sachin hai! . Tendulkar getting out is the definition of India 'being under pressure'. So of course Dravid is going to have more of those innings".

Anyways, it's not really a standard of a batsman's greatness. As someone said earlier, winning matches depends on a hundred other variables. Perhaps one criticism could be (though I would not be the one making it) that Sachin didn't play as well with the Indian tail (for reasons mysterious) as Laxman and Dravid did.

 

[viriya]

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.

You're right, Lara saved his career in the 2000s.. Tendulkar was clearly the best Test batsman in the 90s.

 

[viriya]

Viriya, maybe you would be more convincing if you pointed at something other than career averages and "match-winning" innings.

I have had this theory with Tendulkar that everyone in the Indian team was relaxed until he was there, and got caught with their pants down when he was out late in the day. I remember a friend asking me "Why doesn't Tendulkar perform under pressure like Dravid?" and I replied "Because Tendulkar being there means that there is not that much pressure, abhi Sachin hai! . Tendulkar getting out is the definition of India 'being under pressure'. So of course Dravid is going to have more of those innings".

Anyways, it's not really a standard of a batsman's greatness. As someone said earlier, winning matches depends on a hundred other variables. Perhaps one criticism could be (though I would not be the one making it) that Sachin didn't play as well with the Indian tail (for reasons mysterious) as Laxman and Dravid did.

I realize that Tendulkar was more than just a great batsman for the indian team, but putting aside match-winning innings, for a batsman to make a big impact in a Test match he generally has to make a big runs (unless we're talking of 4th innings chases), and Tendulkar lacks significant big hundreds that a lot of great batsmen do. I'm not sure what the reason for this is - my theory would be that he felt that his job was done after getting a hundred and would relax - and be more likely to get out..

Dravid and Sehwag both had more "big-runs" innings that impacted test matches than Tendulkar.. maybe it can be partly explained by his batting position, but then I would expect more not outs.

 

[harsh.ag]

Sanga's stats are awesome, but he just doesn't look the part to belong in the 'best since Bradman' argument. It's like going home with a girl with an hourglass figure who has an underwhelming technique in bed.

 

[viriya]

Sanga's stats are awesome, but he just doesn't look the part to belong in the 'best since Bradman' argument. It's like going home with a girl with an hourglass figure who has an underwhelming technique in bed.

She still has a banging figure though.

 

[Riggins]

Sanga's stats are awesome, but he just doesn't look the part to belong in the 'best since Bradman' argument. It's like going home with a girl with an hourglass figure who has an underwhelming technique in bed.

this is better than sanga

 

[jonbrooks]

Sangkarra's stats are very impressive but cricket is not all about stats. Amongst his contemporaries I'd still rate the following players ahead of Sangakarra:

1) Tendulkar
2) Ponting
3) Kallis
4) Lara
5) Dravid

 

[kyear2]

Would definitely place him ahead of Dravid and Kallis, but for mine he is still below Tendulkar, Lara and Ponting. Not sure Where A.B. Quite fits in as yet.

 

[Dan]

I think ABdV has the potential to be second to Tendulkar on that list. Not that he necessarily will, but that he could. The bloke is ridiculously talented.

 

[viriya]

I think ABdV has the potential to be second to Tendulkar on that list. Not that he necessarily will, but that he could. The bloke is ridiculously talented.

If he continues in the same vein for a couple more years (20-25 tests), AB would be right up there imo.

 

[Contra]

I realize that Tendulkar was more than just a great batsman for the indian team, but putting aside match-winning innings, for a batsman to make a big impact in a Test match he generally has to make a big runs (unless we're talking of 4th innings chases), and Tendulkar lacks significant big hundreds that a lot of great batsmen do. I'm not sure what the reason for this is - my theory would be that he felt that his job was done after getting a hundred and would relax - and be more likely to get out..

Dravid and Sehwag both had more "big-runs" innings that impacted test matches than Tendulkar.. maybe it can be partly explained by his batting position, but then I would expect more not outs.

Scoring "big runs" (whatever that means anyways) doesn't necessarily mean that they impact test matches more so than fewer runs, so to speak. If a batsmen scores 100 out of say 250 than that's as big a contribution as someone who scores 300 out of 700 odd runs. A lot of Lara's big innings have not resulted in wins and have ended up as draws, I'd say Sangakara has his fair share as well. Even Sehwag and Dravid have chalked up large scores that did not result in wins. The reason that guys like Tendulkar and Lara don't have as many "match winning innings" as say Ponting is because they were not helped as frequently by their bowlers or sometimes even other batsmen (generally a combination of both). In all honesty it seems as if you haven't really followed much of Tendulkar's career, or even bothered to look up some of Tendulkar's better innings. Here are some of Tendulkar's innings that resulted in Indian wins.

160 vs NZ
155 vs AUS
193 vs ENG
214 vs AUS
126 vs AUS
194 vs PAK

And the irony is that a lot of these innings are actually not even Tendulkar's best innings, just the ones in which the bowlers and other batsmen fronted up along with Tendulkar and won test matches.

 

[hendrix]

And the irony is that a lot of these innings are actually not even Tendulkar's best innings, just the ones in which the bowlers and other batsmen fronted up along with Tendulkar and won test matches.

yeah.

It's not only the bowlers but the batsmen that obscure Tendulkar's match winning capabilities. Lara's 153* may well have just been a useful 60* were he batting behind Sehwag, Dravid (even Gambhir for a couple of years) as well as having Laxman and Ganguly in there for the partnerships.

There's simply a limited number of runs a batsman can score in chasing or setting up a win.

 

[kyear2]

I think ABdV has the potential to be second to Tendulkar on that list. Not that he necessarily will, but that he could. The bloke is ridiculously talented.

I would say at best third.

 

[Shri]

I think the argument here isn't whether Sanga is better than Tendulkar in terms of skill

Well then its an useless argument.

 

[Daemon]

Find it odd that people seem to be giving more importance to runs scored in certain match situations rather than the quality of the runs themselves.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Sanga on a par with Punter for me, just behind Tendulkar and Lara.

 

[harsh.ag]

Sanga has this ability to seem innocuous at the crease, as in he doesn't fuel the bowlers' competitive edge like Sachin, Lara, and Ponting did. Perhaps for that reason also he doesn't have a great rivalry with any bowler. And I think we can all agree that great rivalries are one of the most important, if not the most important, aspect of greatness. And that is perhaps a reason why batsmen like Sachin, Lara and Ponting are always more prone to greatness, because of their ability to extract venom from their opponents.

Food for thought.

 

[Blocky]

This idolising Tendulkar just simply has to stop - the idea that he's "best behind Bradman" has no merit when other batsman have either been more dominant (Lara and Ponting in their primes) or more consistent ( Sangakarra, Kallis ) - Tendulkar deserves the respect he gets and deserves to be in that conversation, but no more so than Lara, Ponting, Sanga and Kallis. Protip - Lara, Kallis and Sanga all score more runs per test than Tendulkar did.

Sangakarra - At a time where "great" has become those who can keep an average near fifty, he's excelled and lifted his average near sixty, averaging over eighty since giving away the gloves in test cricket. "Oh but he's not as good as Tendulkar against...." - Tendulkar played in an era where almost every side had multiple batsman averaging 50+ - look in recent times at how few sides carry batsmen who manage this mark to tell you something about the change in era. Sanga is easily ahead of Tendulkar in my view, he scores more runs per test, he doesn't have as strong of a batting line up around him that Tendulkar had for the bulk of his career and he's done it against allcomers.

An average of 58, which continues to rise - this whole "But he hasn't played 20 years..." - he has however played over 100 tests which is easily the benchmark of longevity. And at the rate he's currently scoring runs, if he can play another 2-4 years, he'll surpass Tendulkar's run record too.

 

[Blocky]

Sanga has this ability to seem innocuous at the crease, as in he doesn't fuel the bowlers' competitive edge like Sachin, Lara, and Ponting did. Perhaps for that reason also he doesn't have a great rivalry with any bowler. And I think we can all agree that great rivalries are one of the most important, if not the most important, aspect of greatness. And that is perhaps a reason why batsmen like Sachin, Lara and Ponting are always more prone to greatness, because of their ability to extract venom from their opponents.

Food for thought.

Again, clutching at straws. You could argue that Chanderpaul is the same sort of player, who doesn't really inspire conflict or generate rivalries - that's because he just gets on and scores runs just about anyone, anytime, anywhere. Sangakarra has the same hallmarks, a no fuss game that he knows inside out, an appetite for scoring runs, an ability to back up and be consistent and the highest average cricket has seen sustained since the early days of Michael Hussey.