How good is Sanga?

[simonlee48]

That he didn't make as many significant Test knocks as a lot of his other contemporaries (even in his team) is a fair argument though.

Not as much as Dravid or Sehwag was. Tendulkar contributed for an amazingly long career but he didn't have significant innings like those two did aside from a few instances.
.

Flawed argument. People tend to bracket innings in win as significant.

SRT in 90s: 4 out of his 22 tons end up being in wins. [ Only 18% in wins]
SRT in 00s: 12 out of 21 of his tons ended up in wins. [57% in wins ]

Can we say that he played better and had more significant innings in 2000s when comapred to 90s? That will be wrong on many levels. He was in peak in 90s and played many great innings but only 4 tons came in wins. He was not in his peak but his majority of tons came in wins in 2000s and that's due to the team. Dravid, Sehwag etc had higher chance of tons being in wins due to the same reason but it hardly means that they played more significant innings in their career than SRT.

 

[Daemon]

It's funny how people use that ridiculous runs scored in wins stat to prove whatever point they have at the time and then conveniently point to performances like Dravid's in England 2011 when they have a different agenda in mind.

 

[viriya]

Flawed argument. People tend to bracket innings in win as significant.

SRT in 90s: 4 out of his 22 tons end up being in wins. [ Only 18% in wins]
SRT in 00s: 12 out of 21 of his tons ended up in wins. [57% in wins ]

Can we say that he played better and had more significant innings in 2000s when comapred to 90s? That will be wrong on many levels. He was in peak in 90s and played many great innings but only 4 tons came in wins. He was not in his peak but his majority of tons came in wins in 2000s and that's due to the team. Dravid, Sehwag etc had higher chance of tons being in wins due to the same reason but it hardly means that they played more significant innings in their career than SRT.

I'm not equating significant innings with wins. That's only a minor factor. Biggest factor is how big the innings is.

 

[Blocky]

Let's see...

Of those with 100 or more innings in test cricket.

Barrington has the highest average, Sangakarra second.
Sangakkara has the lowest amount of innings per century record.
Sangakarra has the highest runs per test match record.
Sangakarra is tied with Lara with the most amount of double centuries or greater, and has scored double centuries at a faster rate than Lara.

And that's not even taking just the innings where Sangakkara was a batsman only.

So he scores more runs per test, has a higher average per innings, has a better winning percentage where he's scored a century, scored as many, if not more double centuries, has a triple century ( Kallis, Ponting and Tendulkar do not) and has the lowest amount of innings per century for any player who has 100 or more innings.

Not to mention, scores runs all around the globe, scores runs at a good clip and is versatile in all forms of cricket - and captained with distinction (Something Tendulkar, Lara and Kallis can't claim and something Ponting shouldn't).

But calling him the greatest modern batsman? That's a stretch? Not by any metric or stretch of the imagination in my view.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

How big an innings is corresponds just as much to the attack/pitch and opportunity as the quality of the batsman. That isnt to say to batsmen shouldn't deserve a huge amount of credit for hugr scores because they do, but the average 200/300 is scored on a road, and when you have sehwag and dravid in before you the chance to make a huge score on a road is somewhat. limited.

 

[Blocky]

How big an innings is corresponds just as much to the attack/pitch and opportunity as the quality of the batsman. That isnt to say to batsmen shouldn't deserve a huge amount of credit for hugr scores because they do, but the average 200/300 is scored on a road, and when you have sehwag and dravid in before you the chance to make a huge score on a road is somewhat. limited.

Sure, ignore the fact that he has more big daddy hundreds than Tendulkar could muster in many more innings... but then you've got to ignore that he scores more hundreds per innings, scores more runs per test and has a higher number of centuries contributing to a winning test than tendulkar does.

 

[Mike5181]

I have no issue with someone calling Sangakkara the best batsman of the modern era. I do however think we should acknowledge the fact that he's benefited from, at times, significantly more games against Bangladesh. He's played 15 tests against them. In comparison, Brian Lara played them twice. Sanga should be in the discussion for the "best since Bradman" regardless, but this should at least be noted when you're looking at specific things like "hundreds per innings", and "number of centuries contributing to a winning test". There's no way Lara's record wouldn't have improved significantly had he been afforded the same number of opportunities against them.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[simonlee48]

I'm not equating significant innings with wins. That's only a minor factor. Biggest factor is how big the innings is.

So significant is scoring big scores no matter if it was challenging conditions or not? Well, then all of us can go cricinfo and pick up big scores by every batsmen and bracket them as significant innings. I am sorry, I don't agree with that at all.

Forget about the whole laundry list, I saw SRT in teen when he came to Aus. Kid made century in Syndney and Perth. Before he came here he made a fabulous century in Eng while batting with tails. Around the same time he went to SA and played a great knock against Donald. I don't think any of those innings were big scores but all of them were very significant innings in my opinion if we are not giving much weight to his team winning.

 

[hendrix]

It's not out of the realms of logic for Sangakkara to be considered the greatest after Bradman. As you point out, he holds a bevy of statistical records over his competitors

It's also not out of the realms of logic for Steyn to be considered the greatest fast bowler of all time. He takes more wickets at a greater strike rate than any bowler in history.

There are arguments one could make for Tendulkar, Hobbs, Sobers. There are arguments that can be made for Marshall, Ambrose, McGrath.

 

[simonlee48]

Let's see...

Of those with 100 or more innings in test cricket.

Barrington has the highest average, Sangakarra second.
Sangakkara has the lowest amount of innings per century record.
Sangakarra has the highest runs per test match record.
Sangakarra is tied with Lara with the most amount of double centuries or greater, and has scored double centuries at a faster rate than Lara.

And that's not even taking just the innings where Sangakkara was a batsman only.

So he scores more runs per test, has a higher average per innings, has a better winning percentage where he's scored a century, scored as many, if not more double centuries, has a triple century ( Kallis, Ponting and Tendulkar do not) and has the lowest amount of innings per century for any player who has 100 or more innings.

Not to mention, scores runs all around the globe, scores runs at a good clip and is versatile in all forms of cricket - and captained with distinction (Something Tendulkar, Lara and Kallis can't claim and something Ponting shouldn't).

But calling him the greatest modern batsman? That's a stretch? Not by any metric or stretch of the imagination in my view.

Exaggeration here. Sanga is averaging in mid 30s in 3 countries. That's not really scoring runs all around the globe. That's basically home of 3 non-minnows out of 7. It's also not 1-2 odd tests we are talking about. 6 test in India, 8 tests in SA and 4 tests in WI. That's 18 tests.

You should also realize the fault in comparing runs per test or number of tests for each century. Different batsmen play different proportion of their career against BD bowlers. BD bowlers give 50 runs to pick up each wicket.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Sure, ignore the fact that he has more big daddy hundreds than Tendulkar could muster in many more innings... but then you've got to ignore that he scores more hundreds per innings, scores more runs per test and has a higher number of centuries contributing to a winning test than tendulkar does.

Wasn't even replying to you but oh well. What does it take for you people to realise cricket isn't played on a spreadsheet. You could at least have gone to the effort of excluding minnows.

 

[viriya]

So significant is scoring big scores no matter if it was challenging conditions or not? Well, then all of us can go cricinfo and pick up big scores by every batsmen and bracket them as significant innings. I am sorry, I don't agree with that at all.

Challenging conditions and oppositions matter, but for a batsman to make an impact in a Test he generally has to make a big hundred. Tendulkar did that over his career but not in the same way some of the other modern greats did.

How big an innings is corresponds just as much to the attack/pitch and opportunity as the quality of the batsman. That isnt to say to batsmen shouldn't deserve a huge amount of credit for hugr scores because they do, but the average 200/300 is scored on a road, and when you have sehwag and dravid in before you the chance to make a huge score on a road is somewhat. limited.

Having Sehwag or Dravid in his side helped him if anything - it more often than not ensured that Tendulkar came in to bat with no pressure. If it stopped him from getting big hundreds, it should've at least ensured that he got more hundreds/innings or more not outs than other modern greats but neither is the case.

I have no issue with someone calling Sangakkara the best batsman of the modern era. I do however think we should acknowledge the fact that he's benefited from, at times, significantly more games against Bangladesh. He's played 15 tests against them. In comparison, Brian Lara played them twice. Sanga should be in the discussion for the "best since Bradman" regardless, but this should at least be noted when you're looking at specific things like "hundreds per innings", and "number of centuries contributing to a winning test". There's no way Lara's record wouldn't have improved significantly had he been afforded the same number of opportunities against them.
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Good point, Lara is obviously in that same conversation, and if you matched Sanga's % of Test innings vs common opposition to Lara's to make Ban/Zim a non-factor (ignoring vs WI for Sanga and vs SL for Lara to make it a clean comparison):
Sanga averages 50.47
Lara averages 50.84
..so there's hardly any difference.

 

[Flem274*]

It's not out of the realms of logic for Sangakkara to be considered the greatest after Bradman. As you point out, he holds a bevy of statistical records over his competitors

It's also not out of the realms of logic for Steyn to be considered the greatest fast bowler of all time. He takes more wickets at a greater strike rate than any bowler in history.

There are arguments one could make for Tendulkar, Hobbs, Sobers. There are arguments that can be made for Marshall, Ambrose, McGrath.

I suspect I'm going to declare Steyn the best of all time when his career ends.

He's got everything - simplicity but also intelligence and skill, can bowl a controlled spell of swing bowling or just lose his nut and send down a hostile spell. Icy calm with his plans yet emotional and expressive. Mixes style with substance.

Plus he looks genuinely pissed off whenever he has to bat. Just such a hero.

 

[viriya]

It's not out of the realms of logic for Sangakkara to be considered the greatest after Bradman. As you point out, he holds a bevy of statistical records over his competitors

It's also not out of the realms of logic for Steyn to be considered the greatest fast bowler of all time. He takes more wickets at a greater strike rate than any bowler in history.

There are arguments one could make for Tendulkar, Hobbs, Sobers. There are arguments that can be made for Marshall, Ambrose, McGrath.

Agreed, my only argument is that Sanga has done enough to be in the same conversation as Lara, Tendulkar, Kallis, Ponting and Dravid in Tests. If he can continue something close to the perpetual purple patch he seems to be in for a couple more years (~20 more tests), I think he will become the clear frontrunner.

On Steyn, he is clearly in the greatest Test fast bowler of all time conversation already. If he continues his excellent level of performance for a couple more years I think it will be hard to not pick him over everyone else.

 

[OverratedSanity]

It seems that I'm in the minority here but for me, Ponting and Dravid still > Sanga.

The gap is closing though, very quickly

 

[simonlee48]

It seems that I'm in the minority here but for me, Ponting and Dravid still > Sanga.

The gap is closing though, very quickly

Having seen bat all of them I agree.

 

[watson]

Sure, ignore the fact that he has more big daddy hundreds than Tendulkar could muster in many more innings... but then you've got to ignore that he scores more hundreds per innings, scores more runs per test and has a higher number of centuries contributing to a winning test than tendulkar does.

Even if you are mathmatically correct Blocky and Sangakkara was more effective than Tendulkar at winning cricket matches then it still won't any difference in the long run.

For In a 100 years from now cricket historians will concede that the greatest batsman at the turn of the 21st century were Sachin Tendulkar and Brian Lara. Around these men will sit a great tomb of mythological essays and lore with the likes of Sangakkara, Ponting, and Kallis being mere side shows. In other words, for every story about the greatness of Sangakkara there will 10 stories about the greatness of Tendulkar.

 

[viriya]

It seems that I'm in the minority here but for me, Ponting and Dravid still > Sanga.

The gap is closing though, very quickly

Both Ponting and Dravid started their career terminal declines around the same time (in terms of # of Tests) as where Sanga is now:
cricrate | Kumar Sangakkara vs Ricky Ponting
cricrate | Kumar Sangakkara vs Rahul Dravid

It would be interesting to see how the next 2-3 years go for Sanga - he has a chance to create some distance from the others.

 

[simonlee48]

Agreed, my only argument is that Sanga has done enough to be in the same conversation as Lara, Tendulkar, Kallis, Ponting and Dravid in Tests. If he can continue something close to the perpetual purple patch he seems to be in for a couple more years (~20 more tests), I think he will become the clear frontrunner.

What perpetual purple patch you are talking about? You don't take aggregate runs or tons as a sign of purple patch. You always try to see if a batsman is scoring heavily against good bowling units. If a batsman is in purple patch then he will score. Aus, SA, NZ, and Eng have been better bowling units in the last 5 years and see what this purple patch has resulted in this same period against these bowling units.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Sanga is hardly having a purple patch in the last 5 years. I think his purple patch was earlier.

 

[viriya]

What perpetual purple patch you are talking about?

The one where he has this run of scores:
75, 319, 105, 147, 61, 79, 55, 24, 76

and yes, his 2006/07 purple patch was better:
287, 14, 39, 4, 100*, 156*, 8, 6, 200*, 222*, 57, 192, 92, 152