How good is Sanga?

[hendrix]

Yeah.

It's pretty clear that Sangakkarra is in the conversation. But there are also plenty of valid reasons to choose others. Those ideas aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[Prince EWS]

Sangakkara should absolutely be given credit for the fact that he cashed in against Bangladesh, and removing all games played against them completely does him a dis-service.

That said, his career average gives him too much credit for that fact, as he played a disproportionate percentage of his games against them when compared to most other batsmen of his standing. If Sangakkara and Challenger X played the same percentage of their games against the 'Deshis and Sanga was more successful then Challenger X can taste his own inferiority in that area, but that's not what happened. You're obviously bound to have a better batting average if you play a larger portion of your matches against weaker attacks.

 

[viriya]

Saying that some of Tendulkar's innings had less impact because of other batsmen performing in the same innings, and St the same time praising his 287 against SA where Mahela scored close to 7 trillion is a bit inconsistent.

And again, Tendulkar has tons of other "impact" innings. Cbf listing them out, but there's literally dozens... Most of them just didn't end up being in victories, which is beyond the control of a batsman.

Sanga actually made 287 when Mahela made 375.. that's a mammoth innings.. 194 is less of an impact innings when the other player has 300+.. but this is just getting into minute details pointlessly.

 

[viriya]

Sangakkara should absolutely be given credit for the fact that he cashed in against Bangladesh, and removing all games played against them completely does him a dis-service.

That said, his career average gives him too much credit for that fact, as he played a disproportionate percentage of his games against them when compared to most other batsmen of his standing. If Sangakkara and Challenger X played the same percentage of their games against the 'Deshis and Sanga was more successful then Challenger X can taste his own inferiority in that area, but that's not what happened. You're obviously bound to have a better batting average if you play a larger portion of your matches against weaker attacks.

The "solution" to this is to normalize the % of matches vs different opposition when comparing players, ignoring matches vs the teams that they didn't play vs commonly (their own teams).. If you were to scale Sangakkara's match % records to Tendulkar's (so take the "too many matches vs Ban + Zim" out of the conversation), it becomes:

52.98 average with 9219 runs for Sangakkara
52.95 average with 13926 runs for Tendulkar

Sanga's record suffers because of a lower % of Ban and Zim as expected, and also Pak innings % going from 20% to 11% (he averages 80+ vs them and Sachin didn't play as much vs them).. There's nothing to separate with regards to their averages.

 

[smash84]

WTF did you end up reducing Sangakkara's outstanding record against Pakistan?

 

[simonlee48]

Sanga and Sachin are not really comparable. Simply watching them in their peak makes it very obvious. Some posters are making a point about bowling standards and averages, needs to see how batsmen from all over the world fared in 90s and how they did in 2000s. 90s was peak for Sachin and 2000s was peak for Sanga.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Not the fault of Sanga but it's better to keep things in perspective. Sachin took on the best team of his era in all venues. Can't be said the same about Sanga. Cricket is not played on spreadsheets. Yes, they are useful but only with some context. As long as you keep context then stats do tell you a story.

If we are talking about the last 20-25 years then I will rate Sanga behind SRT, Lara, Ponting, Dravid and Kallis. Nothing to do with stats. Based on what I have seen and I have seen enough of all of them. AB will land somewhere in middle when is done but let's keep him away for now.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Sangakkara should absolutely be given credit for the fact that he cashed in against Bangladesh, and removing all games played against them completely does him a dis-service.

That said, his career average gives him too much credit for that fact, as he played a disproportionate percentage of his games against them when compared to most other batsmen of his standing. If Sangakkara and Challenger X played the same percentage of their games against the 'Deshis and Sanga was more successful then Challenger X can taste his own inferiority in that area, but that's not what happened. You're obviously bound to have a better batting average if you play a larger portion of your matches against weaker attacks.

Yeah, this. And Sanga has played a massive proportion of his matches in the sc. I'm not one of those who says the whole SC is just one big road, but he's played in familiar conditions a lot more than say someone like Tendulkar or Dravid or Lara. He'spproved he can perform overseas as well of course but, obviously if he plays fewer tests in alien conditions his average is bound to not suffer as much. That, coupled with the fact that he's awesome is why his average is crazy.

 

[akilana]

Sachin doing well in the 90s is a fact but him being outstanding against those greats bowlers of the 90s is a bit of a myth. He averaged in the mid 30s against Donald, Akram and Waqar. I think he destroyed McGrath less Australian attacks a few times in 90s but cannot remember him doing well against McGrath in 90s or after in tests. He had a couple of fifties against Ambrose though.

 

[akilana]

Like Sanga, he took full advantage of the minnows of the 90s -- SL.

 

[akilana]

if he plays fewer tests in alien conditions his average is bound to not suffer as much.

It's not true.

 

[OverratedSanity]

It's not true.

Care to explain that? And don't give me some rubbish about Sanga averaging 60 in an overseas nation in 4 matches thus he would average 60 even if he played 70 matches there.

If you play more in conditions you're used to, you're bound to take advantage and have better numbers. It applies to every batsman in history.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Sachin doing well in the 90s is a fact but him being outstanding against those greats bowlers of the 90s is a bit of a myth. He averaged in the mid 30s against Donald, Akram and Waqar. I think he destroyed McGrath less Australian attacks a few times in 90s but cannot remember him doing well against McGrath in 90s or after in tests. He had a couple of fifties against Ambrose though.

He pretty much always played well against McGrath if you'd actually watched him bat in the 90s instead of looking at statsguru. He faced Akram and Waqar just twice, once in his first series (where he managed to save a test match) and once in the 99 series where he got probably his best hundred.

Against Donald, he did have his problems, I agree. Donald generally had the wood over him and troubled him a lot with his incoming delivery. Sachin didn't face Ambrose too much either... Did well in the 97 series but it hadssome pretty disgraceful pitches. Sachin was comfortably the best batsman in the 90s but you have a point in that he seemed to miss most great bowlers due to strange scheduling. Didn't face the greats as much as someone like Lara, for example.

 

[harsh.ag]

I think we really missed having a WSC style test series in the 90s. Would have been spectacular to watch

Sanga is a great bat. I personally don't enjoy his batting style all that much. For a left hander, he should look so much better. But that's all right. It helps that he seems to be a really nice guy, and has played his cricket with grace and aplomb. Hope he is remembered for a long time to come.

 

[Jono]

I love Sanga, really do. Favourite non-Lara batsman to watch and in general he is just awesome sauce. But I really wonder how many people have him in their all-time XI. Not just talking about fans, current players, ex-players. analysts etc.

I understand that sometimes players are underappreciated, overrated, judged harshly because of their country etc. But really Tendulkar makes or is in serious contention of world Xis, and Sanga simply is not. Is the whole world wrong?

 

[akilana]

He pretty much always played well against McGrath if you'd actually watched him bat in the 90s instead of looking at statsguru. He faced Akram and Waqar just twice, once in his first series (where he managed to save a test match) and once in the 99 series where he got probably his best hundred.

Against Donald, he did have his problems, I agree. Donald generally had the wood over him and troubled him a lot with his incoming delivery. Sachin didn't face Ambrose too much either... Did well in the 97 series but it hadssome pretty disgraceful pitches. Sachin was comfortably the best batsman in the 90s but you have a point in that he seemed to miss most great bowlers due to strange scheduling. Didn't face the greats as much as someone like Lara, for example.

stop with your bs if you have watched him play instead of yada yada rubbish like you are only one that watched a cricket match. ****ing **** gets repeated in every thread as a defense

 

[akilana]

Care to explain that? And don't give me some rubbish about Sanga averaging 60 in an overseas nation in 4 matches thus he would average 60 even if he played 70 matches there.

If you play more in conditions you're used to, you're bound to take advantage and have better numbers. It applies to every batsman in history.

you explained it in your 2nd para. If you play more in a condition, you will become used to it

 

[OverratedSanity]

stop with your bs if you have watched him play instead of yada yada rubbish like you are only one that watched a cricket match. ****ing **** gets repeated in every thread as a defense

Troll somewhere else please. Don't make me put to be some Sanga hater, I was the one who actually said Sanga deserves to be compared to Sachin.

And I'll keep repeating it. Sachin averaging less than 40 against McGrath is nothing more than a meaningless statistic, just like every other vs Player X stat trotted out.

 

[Prince EWS]

Is the whole world wrong?

Yes. Regularly. About any number of different things.

But not this one.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I love Sanga, really do. Favourite non-Lara batsman to watch and in general he is just awesome sauce. But I really wonder how many people have him in their all-time XI. Not just talking about fans, current players, ex-players. analysts etc.

I understand that sometimes players are underappreciated, overrated, judged harshly because of their country etc. But really Tendulkar makes or is in serious contention of world Xis, and Sanga simply is not. Is the whole world wrong?

Nah, that's a pretty weak point. Murali doesn't ever make too many world XIs, does he? Doesn't mean he's automatically worse than Warne. All I can say is, wait a few years for Sanga to retire and his legacy will slowly grow IIt's already begun to happen with Murali.

Genius not being recognized in their own time etc etc

 

[akilana]

Troll somewhere else please. Don't make me put to be some Sanga hater, I was the one who actually said Sanga deserves to be compared to Sachin.

And I'll keep repeating it. Sachin averaging less than 40 against McGrath is nothing more than a meaningless statistic, just like every other vs Player X stat trotted out.

Lol wut. You mean you are being a bad troll?