How good is Sanga?

[Jassy]

I think what you have just proved is that you're an idiot who wrongly extrapolates from someone stating that he is getting updates for a particular Test match on Cricinfo that it means he only follows cricket in general via that website. Given your patent distaste for "big words" I'm almost ashamed to ask you to look up "logical fallacy".

What you have just proved is that you are a pathological liar and a tool of the highest order. Just when I think you can't possibly get worse you plumb new depths.

 

[grecian]

Lol this thread. Now a guy who only follows cricket casually and on cricinfo is trying to assert Sanga is better than Tendulkar against hardcore fans. Love if. Only if Dawood Ahmed would post here now...

Lol this thread, he's already said he followed one particular match on Twitter, not everyone.

Honestly neither side in this argument coming out great IMHO. Some decent posts for both lots amongst the incredible amount of chaff though.

Has Jono said before though (a post I felt was a bit derivative of well me) that anyone that uses the "I only slag so-and-so off, because of the fanboys" is everything that is wrong with debate on the Internet.

Nice to see Jassy still using it though.

 

[Red]

What you have just proved is that you are a pathological liar and a tool of the highest order. Just when I think you can't possibly get worse you plumb new depths.

Have a drink man

 

[Jassy]

Well this thread was pretty much dead and buried after Spark's post until messers Blocky and CWB came along with their drivel. The latter made a horribly clueless post and when called out on it he backtracked and started clutching at straws. It would be great if people could stop being deliberately obtuse.

Edit : Monk, I probably should!

 

[CWB304]

What you have just proved is that you are a pathological liar and a tool of the highest order. Just when I think you can't possibly get worse you plumb new depths.

The problem for you is that I have actually demonstrated that you're an idiot - by pointing out the logical fallacy you committed, and which most seven year olds have learnt not to make. You are merely asserting that I am a liar - presumably because you believe that contrary to what I have stated, I was avidly following the SL match, and have just posted on this thread because of Sanga's current innings -, but you have produced no evidence to back up your claim. And given that Sanga has made several much more significant knocks between when I stopped posting on this thread and last week when I resumed - including big scores against a strong England seam attack to counter the claims that have been made here about his supposed weakness in English conditions/against the moving ball - which did not spur me to post here triumphantly, I would suggest that the onus is on you to support your claim that I am lying by explaining to everyone why I would be posting now when he is not out but obviously yet to register a century against a side he generally does well against anyway, when I was silent in the face of more notable achievements.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Have a drink man

You can spell out "drunk" with the letters in Tendulkar's name and still have room to spell out "ale". Just another reason why Tendulkar>Sangakkara

 

[Jassy]

@ reference to the moving ball in the England-SL series. So another series followed on cricinfo then. The only idiot here is you, CWB. Total waste of my time. Onto my ignore list you go.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah look, Sanga deserves a bit if credit for doing well in the England series... It was overseas regardless of how the pitches were. But the ball hardly moved. Look at how much movement the bowlers are generating in the series against India. It was a tiny fraction of that in the Sri Lanka series.

 

[Red]

No one will ever be clear cut second best after Bradman until they career average 75+ after a minimum 75 test career.

That's the criteria. No more arguing. 75 after 75.

 

[Migara]

No one will ever be clear cut second best after Bradman until they career average 75+ after a minimum 75 test career.

That's the criteria. No more arguing. 75 after 75.

That's what Bradman would have averaged if he played the modern game. No, 65 after 75 or 62.5 after 100 is good enough to be the second best provided they don't have massive holes in the record.

 

[OverratedSanity]

That's what Bradman would have averaged if he played the modern game. No, 65 after 75 or 62.5 after 100 is good enough to be the second best provided they don't have massive holes in the record.

If he'd played for Sri Lanka, he'd have smahed 10 triples against Bangladesh-Zimbabwe and thus wouldve averaged 120.

 

[CWB304]

I don't post in this thread often. But.. did you even watch Sachin bat?

In terms of the point I was making okay, perhaps Tendulkar, Sanga and Ponting belong in one tier and Kallis and Dravid in the next one down. Regardless, Viv and Lara are in a different category to the others and therefore it's valid to modify the purely stats-driven approach in an attempt to take into account the effect that their destructive capacities could and regularly did have on matches.

 

[CWB304]

Onto my ignore list you go.

Obit anus, abit onus.

 

[Flem274*]

i've scrolled for 30 odd posts but taken nothing in.

edit: actually that's not true, i read grecians post and OS's post about beer

 

[Migara]

If he'd played for Sri Lanka, he'd have smahed 10 triples against Bangladesh-Zimbabwe and thus wouldve averaged 120.

He had India and South Africa to do it during his day.

 

[simonlee48]

Sangakarra has a Sri Lankan sounding name, Russel Arnold wins

A great one.

 

[viriya]

Dravid: Sangakkara has no apparent weakness

 

[watson]

Dravid: Sangakkara has no apparent weakness

I thought that would have been obvious because of his post-keeping record;

Tests: 79
Runs: 8650
Average: 70.32
100s: 30
HS: 319

International No.3 Test match batsman do not score 8650 runs at 70.32 with 'apparent' weaknesses - either technical or temperamental.

 

[CWB304]

Dravid should post here so "Jassy" can set him right about the gaping holes in Sangakkara's resume and the glaring weaknesses in his technique.

 

[Riggins]

That's what Bradman would have averaged if he played the modern game.

lol