How good is Sanga?

[Flem274*]

Jassy's corner - GIJ, Indiaholic, OS

Planet delusion - Jono, Flem and his pony.

Don't forget the rocks. Lots of rocks.

Judging by their stance, those are apparently all lodged in the head.

Exactly why they need to be mentioned, IMO.

Just wait though, when Phlegm wakes up he's going to start with all that geology **** and redraw the boundaries. Nothing but a cheap attempt to breathe life into his inanimate argument.

All of us enlightened gentlemen know that Sangakkara was nothing but a glorified Mark Ramprakash!

 

[Red]

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.

Thanks for clarifying. The link>graph you provided seems to suggest that Johnson is a significantly better bowler than Garner is. FWIW there is no doubt in my mind that Garner is an ATG, but ATGs are a matter of opinion only. Personally, I wouldn't blink twice if someone named Garner in a World ATG team, but I'd be interested if someone named Mitchell Johnson in one.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I've lost sympathy for viriya defending Sanga in this thread. Garner not an ATG... Fmd what is this? That's a worse statement than Jassy about Sanga.

 

[simonlee48]

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.

First , you can't take different number of years and then compare number of bowlers. Since you are so much interested in these numbers I will normalize it for you to put context behind all these numbers to make an apple to Apple comparison.

• 10 years in 80s - 1698 wickets were picked up by those bowlers.
• 10 years in 90s - 2142 wickets were picked up by those bowlers
• Last 12 years, which is more than 10 years - Only 975 wickets were picked up by those bowlers

Did anything jumps out at you? If not then I will add a vital context to drive the message home.

• 10 years in 80s - 1698 wickets were picked up by those bowlers. [ Total 266 tests were played in this period ]
• 10 years in 90s - 2142 wickets were picked up by those bowlers [ Total 347 tests were played in this period ]
• Last 12 years, which is more than 10 years - Only 975 wickets were picked up by those bowlers [ Total 521 tests were played in this period ]

Relatively , bulk of wickets were taken by those bowlers in 80s/90s. Batsmen had to face great bowlers majority of times. A stark contrast to the last 12 years and that's why we have 19 batsmen with 50+ avg in 00s.

It should be very clear now and we can stop this debate. Clearly, quality of fast bowlers, which batsmen had to consistently face, in the last 10-12 years is not comaparable to 80s/90s. There is a huge difference. If you are a batsman and going to face one great bowler in every 10 tests then you could fail in 1 but still cash-in in other 9 tests to get a great career stats. So stats are stats and not much meaningful if you don't see it with any context.

 

[viriya]

I picked that range of years based on your quote of 10-12 years.. I do agree that 80s and 90s had more quality fast bowlers than the 2000s, but not that significantly and not if you expand it to 12-14 years (since 2000)..

To expand on this further, consider all bowlers (not just pace) averaging <30 by decade:
70s: Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
80s: Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
90s: Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
00s: Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
10s: Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

# of bowlers:
70s: 13
80s: 13
90s: 23
00s: 10
10s: 12

This suggests that the 90s was an anomaly in terms of above average bowlers, but the other decades are surprisingly similar. Note though that some bowlers feature in more than one list. Also for the 10s there will potentially be more since we're not even halfway through.

 

[simonlee48]

I picked that range of years based on your quote of 10-12 years.. I do agree that 80s and 90s had more quality fast bowlers than the 2000s, but not that significantly and not if you expand it to 12-14 years (since 2000)..

So me trying to give context proved pointless. I will try one more time.

Notion of quality of bowling is based on what kind of pacers/bowlers you have on average in each test played in that period. I just showed you that great pacers were responsible for bulk of the wickets in 80s/90s when compared to the last 10-12 years. It means, you had to face them to score runs in 80s/90s. There were less opportunities to score easy runs. You can't simply cash in against inferior bowlers because you had to face great bowlers frequently.

Counting the number of bowlers in 80 and 00s is a good start but you have to normalize it. How many tests are played in 80s? How many in 00s? In how many tests those great bowlers are actually bowling? Answer is clear. In lot less number of tests you have those good/great bowlers actually playing in 00s when compared to 80s. That's what defines the quality of bowling in average tests match.

I hope I was able to drive the message home. I don't have much to add.

 

[viriya]

So me trying to give context proved pointless. I will try one more time.

Notion of quality of bowling is based on what kind of pacers/bowlers you have on average in each test played in that period. I just showed you that great pacers were responsible for bulk of the wickets in 80s/90s when compared to the last 10-12 years. It means, you had to face them to score runs in 80s/90s. There were less opportunities to score easy runs. You can't simply cash in against inferior bowlers because you had to face great bowlers frequently.

Counting the number of bowlers in 80 and 00s is a good start but you have to normalize it. How many tests are played in 80s? How many in 00s? In how many tests those great bowlers are actually bowling?

I hope I was able to drive the message home. I don't have much to add.

You started with less great fast bowlers and now you're talking less normalized by tests.. I went the number of bowlers since that's where you started.. Normalizing by number of tests obviously will show a higher chance of facing great fast bowlers in the 80s and 90s considering whole teams (SL till mid 80s, Zim till 90s and Ban till 00s) didn't play in some periods. I never said the quality of bowlers was similar normalized, just that the number was similar since your initial statement was:

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

Don't see anything about normalized by decade in the above statement.

 

[Athlai]

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.

This is such a good smackdown.

 

[harsh.ag]

Haven't followed the convo here, but going by Jono's post, I can see where it's headed.

Anybody who doesn't think Sanga comes very close to the best of the best there has ever been (bar Bradman obvs) is kidding himself. Only intangibles can separate him from the very top.

 

[simonlee48]

You started with less great fast bowlers and now you're talking less normalized by tests..

Correct. I started with that and even without normalizing it , we had more number of great pacers in 80s/90s.

I went the number of bowlers since that's where you started.. Normalizing by number of tests obviously will show a higher chance of facing great fast bowlers in the 80s and 90s

It started with Sanga having less than 50 avg against SA, Aus, NZ and Eng. One fellow poster said that every one will have trouble facing quality fast bowlers. I simply pointed out that we have less number of great bowlers in the last 10-12 years as compared to 80s/90s. Clearly, I meant average quality of bowling faced by Sanga was not the same as 80s/90s. That was the context. You were arguing all along that there was not much different but finally got the message.

Since, you are now admitting that 80s/90s had far higher chance to face great fast bowlers then we are in agreement. Sanga didn't have to face quality fast bowlers as frequently as batsmen in 80s/90s had to face. So him averaging below 50 against SA, Aus, NZ and Eng can't be simply explained by every one having trouble facing quality fast bowlers. Apart from SA, other 3 didn't always had quality fast bowlers in the last 10-12 years. It doesn't mean that Sanga can't play fast bowlers. He has played great knocks in NZ if my memory serves me right. It simply means that he has not been very successful against pace dominated attacks.

Having said all this, nothing wrong with Sanga. He is a great batsman. I rate him just below Kallis and Dravid but I am not sure what you were trying to argue all along with Garner, Johnson etc earlier and saying that quality of bowling is not much different in the last 10-12 years when compared to 80s/90s.

 

[simonlee48]

Haven't followed the convo here, but going by Jono's post, I can see where it's headed.

Anybody who doesn't think Sanga comes very close to the best of the best there has ever been (bar Bradman obvs) is kidding himself. Only intangibles can separate him from the very top.

He does come close but I am getting a feeling that Sanga has some fans in this forum who want to push him where he doesn't belong . Similar to some Sachin's fans in many forums who try to push him as the best in history.

 

[Coronis]

Bloody hell viriya, stop digging. Let jassy do that.

 

[viriya]

This is just too much nit-picking imo. Pretty much all modern greats had teams they didn't do well against. When they have proven themselves everywhere but just not as frequently vs some teams it usually doesn't make us stop considering them as ATG..
Dravid 39 vs Aus
Dravid 34 vs SA
Kallis 41 vs Aus
Kallis 39 vs SL
Lara 35 vs Ind
Lara 41 vs NZ
Tendulkar 42 vs Pak
Tendulkar 42 vs SA
Sanga 44 vs Aus
Sanga 40 vs Eng

Why does Sanga have to prove himself more than the others?

 

[simonlee48]

Why does Sanga have to prove himself more than the others?

Because others didn't have opportunity to accumulate 2K+ runs on one single ground like SSC

Seriously, give it up. If some one says that he can't be considered ATG then he/she is wrong. If some one says that Sanga was as good as Ponting or Lara then he/she is wrong. My opinion is simply based on watching all of them bat in their entire career under different conditions against different oppositions. That's what count for me and this aggregate avg or aggregate runs/tons etc is not very useful when comparing players who don't play the same oppositions with similar frequencies in their careers.

One of the problem faced by Sanga is that he played for SL. SL has never played a test series with 4 tests so far. Now when you play a test series in alien conditions then some time it takes you a while to adjust. In short series, tour gets over before you adjust fully. Having said that , I can only judge him based on what I saw him doing in different conditions against different oppositions.

Again, this is just my opinion and some posters will differ here.

 

[marc71178]

Yea, like you ignoring the Sanga vs Pak and Eng I pointed out.

The whole analysis wasn't really worth it when you could just remove the absolute ****e from both players and be done with it, but the abitrary removal of SL/WI was even more irrelevent.

Apparently it's impossible to be a ATG in batting these days since there are no good bowlers.. how sad.. So AB doesn't get to face his own team's attack - autodisqualification.

Way to completely put words in my mouth and twist things. Surely you cannot deny that the standard of bowling at the moment is nowhere near as high as it was 15-20 years ago - I mean James Anderson, much as I love him, has been consistently in the top handful of seamers in recent years, but isn't a patch on some of the quicks of back then.

 

[marc71178]

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.

Wow, did you really just put Mitchell Johnson in the same league as people like McGrath, Donald et al? Try watching some cricket rather than looking at ****ing stats.

I also wouldn't call McGrath (retired 7 and a half years ago) and Pollock (retired 6 and a half years ago) part of the current generation.

 

[King Pietersen]

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.

So good. Happens so often. Have found it to be particularly true in MMA. There are people that claim guys like Fedor, even Brock Lensar are the 2nd comings of Christ, so then, to "balance" it, there are heaps of guys who make out they suck, and trash their record. Probably the worst thing about sports forums in general.

 

[viriya]

Wow, did you really just put Mitchell Johnson in the same league as people like McGrath, Donald et al? Try watching some cricket rather than looking at ****ing stats.

I wouldn't be picking Johnson if I was just looking at stats obviously. And I didn't say he was as good as McGrath or Donald - just that he was near ATG/there already.

 

[viriya]

Because others didn't have opportunity to accumulate 2K+ runs on one single ground like SSC.

Every country has at least one flat deck.. SL used to win test matches in SSC consistently in the 2000s which means the opposition managed to get bowled out twice still. If SSC runs are automatically considered not worthy then we might as well ignore Lara's 375 and 400* among other knocks.. Flat deck in St Johns ending in bore draws..

Point is you still have to go out there and make runs. Just being a flat deck doesn't just give you free runs or everyone would be making double/triple hundreds..

 

[indiaholic]

I wouldn't be picking Johnson if I was just looking at stats obviously. And I didn't say he was as good as McGrath or Donald - just that he was near ATG/there already.

Nope. Nowhere near ATG player. He had an ATG peak. But that was against England and South Africa. Both of them countries Sanga does not play for.