How good is Sanga?

[indiaholic]

This post is about as classy as Sanga's batting in testing conditions. Besides, your post cannot be correct because I have not seen you in my corner in ages

@the other posts in this thread : firstly yes, Pakistan over the last decade has seen the flattest pitches which is why while it is great to do well against them, it isn't good enough when you are talking about someone being an ATG.

I dislike Sanga but I have nothing personal FFS(he whines too much on the field is a cheat and puts on a fake accent that sounds like Justin B but that doesn't make it personal)I have happily admitted being wrong about something in the past. I thought de villiers was just someone capable of scoring in pressure free situations but his innings vs Aus made me change my mind and I even admitted it, but if youth ink scoring runs on the worst pitches you could possibly get in England is going to change my mind, then not happening...no more than him failing on lively pitches or turning pitches will change yours.

While I may have gone overboard with my rant, people go overboard with their praise of Sanga too acting like there is light shining out of his every orifice. Fact is...and the records prove it...that whenever he is against attacks in testing conditions he generally comes up well short. He is a good two levels below Ponting, Lara and Sachin and a good level below Dravid and Kallis. He is comparable to the Sehwags, Mahelas and Mohammad Yousufs. You can blame the schedule and whatever for it (and while that does have merit it also helps sometimes like in the recent series where he most certainly would have had to deal with a livelier pitch in a bigger series) it is what it is.

I think you make quite a few good points and you don't need to rely on endless hyperbole and that generally angry tone. Even you know he is better than Mahela. Why weaken your argument by bringing in other pointless points?

 

[Jassy]

He is better than Mahila but not by as much as people would like you to believe. Hyperbole is saying he is comparable to Ponting and Lara. He is much closer to Mahila than He is to Kallis.

 

[viriya]

Lol what a load of bollocks. Aren't you the bloke who was arguing that dravid with an average of 41 or something had failed in Aus but when pointed out that Sanga outside Asia averaged less than that you quickly backtracked? Averaging 2 short of 50 would be acceptable if it didn't also include a pathetic pitch where Mahila scored 500 runs lol. Dravid averages more than 50 outside the Sc and has test tons everywhere. Tendulkar has what 15 tons plus outside Asia and doesn't average 40 or whatever against the good sides even at home, Kallis has a record the Bangladesh basher can dream of perhaps....ABD is miles ahead of Sanga. The biggest whine from Sanga fans is that he averages some crazy number as a pure batsman. See what he averaged even when he kept wickets. Pujara, Kohli and Rahane will soon have more tons outside Asia than Sangakkara and the ton Rahane got on the Lords green top is better than anything Sangakkara has ever managed. I have had enough of this Sang nonsense now. You can keep calling him better than Bradman for all I care.

Ab is too busy smashing Aus to worry about Bangladesh Sanga needs to do well vs Bangladesh because he sucks vs Aus and all good attacks in testing conditions. Over and out.

You brought up some stats that didn't make sense based on performances of other batsmen vs specific teams - now don't go running to quote some more numbers.. fix your earlier claim first. As I recall Mahela didn't get 500 runs (I might have to check that), and the whole of SA including the great ABV and Amla managed a total of 169 on this flattest of flat decks. How unfortunate that they couldn't cash in!

 

[smash84]

Jassy, I wonder if you are trolling or you actually believe what you are saying? Pretty much most batsmen will struggle against high class pace bowling, except maybe viv at his peak. It can be argued that Tendulkar only significantly improved his record against pakistan by the time its bowling attack had become quite pedestrian.

 

[Migara]

Lol what a load of bollocks. Aren't you the bloke who was arguing that dravid with an average of 41 or something had failed in Aus but when pointed out that Sanga outside Asia averaged less than that you quickly backtracked? Averaging 2 short of 50 would be acceptable if it didn't also include a pathetic pitch where Mahila scored 500 runs lol. Dravid averages more than 50 outside the Sc and has test tons everywhere. Tendulkar has what 15 tons plus outside Asia and doesn't average 40 or whatever against the good sides even at home, Kallis has a record the Bangladesh basher can dream of perhaps....ABD is miles ahead of Sanga. The biggest whine from Sanga fans is that he averages some crazy number as a pure batsman. See what he averaged even when he kept wickets. Pujara, Kohli and Rahane will soon have more tons outside Asia than Sangakkara and the ton Rahane got on the Lords green top is better than anything Sangakkara has ever managed. I have had enough of this Sang nonsense now. You can keep calling him better than Bradman for all I care.

Ab is too busy smashing Aus to worry about Bangladesh Sanga needs to do well vs Bangladesh because he sucks vs Aus and all good attacks in testing conditions. Over and out.

LMAO. What was Sanga's average in Australia against these testing attacks?

And earlier I have shown Sachin and Sanga has very similar number of innings per century away from home.

 

[Jono]

While I may have gone overboard with my rant, people go overboard with their praise of Sanga too acting like there is light shining out of his every orifice.

And this is why CricketWeb and other message boards for most sports are ****ing horrible at times.

You don't actually dislike or think Sanga is as **** as you make out but you do it because you try and overcompensate for people who overrate him in your eyes. Its why posts and posts of rubbish are made, because people try and "balance out" the sporting world for some reason.

I have never understood it. A few too many Sachin crazies exist and say he's better than Bradman so other ****s overcompensate by completely trashing his record and going over the top, rather than just arguing reasonably that he is good but not better than Bradman.

You are doing it with Sanga. I very much doubt you think a batsman with his record is as bad as you make out.

 

[Jono]

And don't try and pretend that if Sanga had failed in England you wouldn't have come here and gloated. Admit that you would have.

 

[simonlee48]

He is better than Mahila but not by as much as people would like you to believe. Hyperbole is saying he is comparable to Ponting and Lara. He is much closer to Mahila than He is to Kallis.

No way . Sanga is much closer to Kallis than Mahela.

 

[simonlee48]

Pretty much most batsmen will struggle against high class pace bowling, except maybe viv at his peak.

Quite true but we don't have many ATG pacers in the last 10-12 years.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Jassy conveniently ignores the series winning greentop hundred in nz, where the rest of his side made about 20. The man can play and has played matchwinning innings against good bowling attacks and great bowling attacks.

 

[viriya]

Quite true but we don't have many ATG pacers in the last 10-12 years.

The last 10-12 years has had McGrath, Pollock, Steyn, Johnson who all have great records befitting ATG status. Ntini, Harris, Philander, Akhtar, Gillespie, Anderson also are/were better than average.
Compare that with the 90s and you have Ambrose, Donald, Walsh, Wasim, Waqar as ATG.. then Caddick, Fraser, Gough, McDermott, Bishop filling in.
80s its Hadlee, Marshall, Imran, Holding as ATG.. then Botham, Garner, Alderman, Kapil etc

I don't really see how the last 10-15 years have been that weak in the pace department.. I think it's too much nostalgia.

 

[Teja.]

The last 10-12 years has had McGrath, Pollock, Steyn, Johnson who all have great records befitting ATG status. Ntini, Harris, Philander, Akhtar, Gillespie, Anderson also are/were better than average.
Compare that with the 90s and you have Ambrose, Donald, Walsh, Wasim, Waqar as ATG.. then Caddick, Fraser, Gough, McDermott, Bishop filling in.
80s its Hadlee, Marshall, Imran, Holding as ATG.. then Botham, Garner, Alderman, Kapil etc

I don't really see how the last 10-15 years have been that weak in the pace department.. I think it's too much nostalgia.

cbf with the debate at hand but just addressing this post factually you also had McGrath being almost as good and Pollock being notably better in the 90s along with the people you mentioned. Johnson is pretty far away from being an all-time great so that's still 7 v. 3.

Additionally, WRT to the 1980s, Garner had 210 wickets @ 20.6 in the 1980s, ffs and pretty much everyone in the cricket world acknowledges him as an ATG. We also had Lillee for the first half of the 80s taking a mammoth 171 wickets in just 34 tests. Walsh was gun for the second half of the 80s too.

So, yes when you change the facts to suit your argument, we had as many ATG pacers post-2000 than we had in the 1980s and 1990s.

Again, I'm not really debating on whether Sanga's legacy is effected due to this etc. - just calling you out for inaccurate posting.

 

[Teja.]

I mean I disagree thoroughly with the Sanga > Tendulkar argument but I understand why it's being made. All-time great is also a fairly arbitrary tag.

That said, the fact that you'd consider Johnson an ATG but Joel ****ing Garner merely a 'fill in'/'better than average' blows my mind completely. Garner would make every test side across cricketing history. Jesus christ, man.

 

[viriya]

cbf with the debate at hand but just addressing this post factually you also had McGrath being almost as good and Pollock being notably better in the 90s along with the people you mentioned. Johnson is pretty far away from being an all-time great so that's still 7 v. 3.

Additionally, WRT to the 1980s, Garner had 210 wickets @ 20.6 in the 1980s, ffs and pretty much everyone in the cricket world acknowledges him as an ATG. We also had Lillee for the first half of the 80s taking a mammoth 171 wickets in just 34 tests. Walsh was gun for the second half of the 80s too.

So, yes when you change the facts to suit your argument, we had as many ATG pacers post-2000 than we had in the 1980s and 1990s.

Again, I'm not really debating on whether Sanga's legacy is effected due to this etc. - just calling you out for inaccurate posting.

I went with when those bowlers played most of their careers - McGrath/Pollock played the bulk of their careers in the 2000s and definitely that was when they were at their peak. I didn't pick the decades arbitrarily - it's based on when the midpoint of the player careers were.
Johnson/Garner is debatable.. I'm not saying Garner isn't one but imo he isn't clearly an ATG. He does have great stats but so does Philander during a time when batsmen are dominating more than in the 80s.
I think Johnson has done enough to be considered a near-ATG - if he continues his form for another 1-2 years it would be more solid I agree.. compared to Garner he definitely has had more match-winning and significant spells.
I realize that Garner is affected a lot by being 2nd or 3rd best option in his own team, so it's very hard to make a fair comparison between the two, but an average difference of 7 does not tell the whole story.
cricrate | Joel Garner vs Mitchell Johnson

 

[Red]

Any "system" that somehow places Johnson as a significantly better bowler than Garner is completely ****ed in the head imo.

 

[Red]

Johnson has been ridiculously good for the last two years, and has had times in his career when he has been unreal, but if I was a coach of a team and I was given a choice of Johnson and Garner for the next five years based on what we know about how they perform, I'd take Garner every time with no second thoughts at all.

 

[viriya]

Any "system" that somehow places Johnson as a significantly better bowler than Garner is completely ****ed in the head imo.

It doesn't.. something like McGrath vs Pollock. I wouldn't classify McGrath as being significantly better, but slightly (10% if I had to be quantitative) better.

The thing with Johnson is he has been inconsistent until the last 2 years, but whenever he has gotten it right he has completely dominated. Australia won the ashes because of him, and then beat the #1 team because of him - pretty much as a huge difference between the two sides. He has also had similar dominating times previously - just now he is consistently performing at that level. Garner didn't do that in his career - he was more consistent but not dominating.

It's whether you pick a consistent very good performer or an inconsistent potentially dominating performer.

I probably should've picked Garner as an ATG above - I think if you take his ODI figures into account he is definitely an ATG. I just think it's not as clear if you just consider Tests. Also it seemed from the above that I considered Johnson to be significantly better which I don't - I can see why someone would pick Garner over Johnson.

 

[simonlee48]

It doesn't.. something like McGrath vs Pollock. I wouldn't classify McGrath as being significantly better, but slightly (10% if I had to be quantitative) better.

.

Then you don't understand fast bowling. McGrath was significantly better than Pollock. McGrath has a very strong case for being in the top 5 pacers in history. Pollock comes no where near that league.

Also, Johnson an ATG? He just had a purple patch of 6-7 tests and that's not going to put him as an ATG if he goes back to bowling the way he used to bowl earlier.

I don't really see how the last 10-15 years have been that weak in the pace department.. I think it's too much nostalgia.

It's not nostalgia. It's a fact. It should be very obvious to any one who has watched cricket in 80s/90s/00s. Let's pick up avg below 26 and 100 wickets see 80s/90s/00s to quickly compare.

Bowlers avg < 26 and of # wickets > 100 in 80s - http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...0;spanval2=span;template=results;type=bowling

Bowlers avg < 26 and # of wickets > 100 in 90s - http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...0;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling

Bowlers avg < 26 and # of wickets > 100 in 00s - http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...0;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling

Decline of quality bowlers is the main reason for 00s producing 19 batsmen averaging 50+. Just for context, in 90s we had 4 batsmen with 50+ avg and 80s we had 5 if you keep the number of runs to 2K+

 

[Dan]

Who cares how Johnson bowls? He averages 7 runs per wicket more than Garner. We all know that the intangibles don't matter -- cricket is a game of statistics and pure efficiency.

 

[viriya]

Then you don't understand fast bowling. McGrath was significantly better than Pollock.

IMO McGrath is significant better than someone like Gillespie (25-40%).. the difference between him and Pollock is in the 10-20% range. This is a pointless argument though.

It's not nostalgia. It's a fact. It should be very obvious to any one who has watched cricket in 80s/90s/00s. Let's pick up avg below 26 and 100 wickets see 80s/90s/00s to quickly compare.

Bowlers avg < 26 and wickets > 100 in 80s - Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Bowlers avg < 26 and wickets > 100 in 90s - Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Bowlers avg < 26 and wickets > 100 in 00s - Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

I was answering the quote that said last 10-12 years. The correct query is the below (07/22/2002 - 07/22/2014):
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

6 bowlers vs 8 bowlers in the 80s. Not that different.