How good is Sanga?

[Red]

Also, if you get 1 truly great player among 5K cricket players in entire planet then he is likely to stand out by larger margin. When you have 20 great players among 10M cricket players in entire planet then it's not possible for anyone to stand out by the same margin. It will never happen with cricket being played by so many folks in all kinds of different conditions. You could still get some one who can stand out but not by 40 run margin. Badman is the best batsman in my opinion but sticking to that 100 avg as basis of him averaging the same in current era seems far fetched to me. Cricket has evolved out of few elite( some normal folks too in Aus/Eng) playing in 2-3 countries to kids playing in large numbers in many countries.

So more people playing cricket nowadays means Bradman wasn't as good as he seemed compared to modern players because more kids and folks play now? Mmmk...

 

[Red]

Btw, the fielding in Bradman's era was in no way significantly worse than it is now, as is sometimes suggested....

 

[simonlee48]

I love how this stupid debate always ends up with the other side essentially saying Bradman couldn't have been that good because, you know there's no way anyone can be that good.

It's a simple matter of some one being so much better than pack in some specific 'period'. If one period has so few guys playing cricket in entire planet and pretty much 2-3 countries playing cricket then any freak has a lot higher chance of being far ahead of pack. Situation is totally different now in terms of popularity. That's why I think it's unlikely for anyone to average 40 higher than the next best. Some can be still that good but chance of happening that is very slim.

I spelled out my reasons. Sure, many will disagree and that's fine but I have yet to hear anyone give me a good counter argument for this.

 

[simonlee48]

So more people playing cricket nowadays means Bradman wasn't as good as he seemed compared to modern players because more kids and folks play now? Mmmk...

It's not more by some little margin. It's more by tens of thousands. Population has not grown by that margin but number of players did.

I will rephrase what I said. No one has the same chance to stand out by the margin Bradman did. 1 freak among 1000 possible players will have a drastically higher chance to stand out by 40 runs from the second best when compered to period when you have 10 freaks among 1M possible players.

I didn't compare Bradman with anyone else here. I am making a point about how easy or difficult it can be to stand out by 40 runs in two vastly different situations. Why not you address it rather than making it a debate about Bradman vs current players. Give me a good counter argument for the point I raised. I am all ears.

Sure, there is no way to say it with 100% certainty but I am talking about simple probability here. Badman could be easily as good as you are claiming and he would have been better than the second best by 40 runs even now but I put the probability of happening that as extremely slim.

Btw, the fielding in Bradman's era was in no way significantly worse than it is now, as is sometimes suggested....

I started watching from mid 80s. SA/Aus/NZ have been class apart from some time now. We used to get isolated one good fielder in one team earlier but now it has become part of the game. I have not really seen any cricket in 20s/30s. I saw only some clips. I am only going by how I see fielders pretty much only going to fetch the ball from boundary rather than making good effort to stop it. Very limited sample size, agreed. My impression may be wrong here but that's what gave me this impression.

 

[viriya]

Problem is nothing has changed with his knock against Pakistan. It wasn't on some rank turner to be really discussed and he has always scored heavily against Pakistan. Nothing new in this knock which goes against prevailing dogma. He could play 5 more knocks like this on the same pitch against same Pakistani attack but quoting them will not change anyone's opinion. It has nothing to do with what was being discussed earlier.

So if he makes 5 more 200+ knocks like this vs pak in a row its completely irrelevant? Oh he's always scored runs vs pak so it doesn't count.. I get it now.

Let's all ignore that then he would average 63 overall and have 15 double hundreds.. Since only runs in SA or Aus count in world cricket anymore. Might as well cancel all other tests. What's the point it doesn't test a batsman's skill so why waste time?

 

[Red]

I will repeat what I said. No one has a chance to stand out by the margin Bradman did. 1 freak among 1000 possible players will have a drastically higher chance to stand out by 40 runs from the second best when compered to period when you have 10 freaks among 1M possible players.

I didn't compare Bradman with anyone else here. I am making a point about how easy or difficult it can be to stand out by 40 runs in two vastly different situations. Why not you address it rather than making it a debate about Bradman vs current players. Give me a good counter argument for the point I raised. I am all ears.

That EVERYONE else thru all history averages 50-60. Bradman averages 100

 

[viriya]

Yes I can't see Bradman having a much different record if he had played today.. He did cash in royally vs SA and Ind but I expect him to average 85+.. Biggest factor in favor of him was that his best contemporaries averaged less than 60.. If it was all about batting being easier during his career other batsmen would have comparable records which they don't.

Whether he would've struggled vs quality spin in rank turners is going to be pure conjecture - it's impossible to know for certain.

 

[viriya]

Nice write-up by Andrew Fernando:
A run-machine that just won't stop

 

[simonlee48]

So if he makes 5 more 200+ knocks like this vs pak in a row its completely irrelevant? Oh he's always scored runs vs pak so it doesn't count.. I get it now.

It counts but does it really address anything we all were talking earlier? We all know that he scores heavily against Pakistan.

 

[viriya]

The point here is that pak is a quality test attack and he is continuously scoring big vs them.. "We all know he scores big vs them" doesn't cover how no one else does so the same way.

I can understand people pointing out certain performances overseas like his record in SA, but to brush aside great performances as irrelevant is a little ridiculous IMO.. You don't see people hanging on sobers' record in NZ or dravids record in SA when evaluating what they've done overall..

What sanga did today is historic - the first batsman since Bradman to get to double figures in doubles and a chance to pass Bradmans 12 before retirement (in a way comparable to gavaskar passing Bradmans 29).. That he ended the innings with a rarely seen 59+ average is also significant.

 

[simonlee48]

That EVERYONE else thru all history averages 50-60. Bradman averages 100

Here is 1500+ run in entire history : Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Something should jump out here. Average of near 60 is pretty much filled with players from older era. Don't look at one or two players. Just look at the trend. We have played more than 50% of total tests in the last 30-35 years and you have only 2 players. Don't you think, we have disproportionate number of players averaging that high from older eras? I am not saying that all of them would average 40 in current era. But taking all those guys averaging near 60 and then making a case for all of them to average same in current era seems far fetched to me.

I am not questioning the greatness of any player in that list.

 

[simonlee48]

I can understand people pointing out certain performances overseas like his record in SA, but to brush aside great performances as irrelevant is a little ridiculous IMO.. .

Discussion was never about his inability to score against Pakistan. Every one knows it and no one really think that he can't score heavily against Pakistan. Every big score against Pakistan is more props to him because it's not easy to do but context of discussion was different. In that context, scoring this ton won't change any ones mind. That's what Maxima was trying to say earlier.

 

[viriya]

That's just bad analysis.. 3/4 60+ averages are in careers of <25 tests.. Pujara was up there before the eng series ffs.. It just doesn't mean anything.

 

[viriya]

If you rate a batsman higher if they do well, even if you consider a factor that is not satisfied more important (overseas runs), it can change your mind. You would be close minded otherwise.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Here is 1500+ run in entire history : Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Something should jump out here. Average of near 60 is pretty much filled with players from older era. Don't look at one or two players. Just look at the trend. We have played more than 50% of total tests in the last 30-35 years and you have only 2 players. Don't you think, we have disproportionate number of players averaging that high from older eras? I am not saying that all of them would average 40 in current era. But taking all those guys averaging near 60 and then making a case for all of them to average same in current era seems far fetched to me.

I am not questioning the greatness of any player in that list.

This is pretty lame.

 

[simonlee48]

This is pretty lame.

Why? Do you think that batsmen of earlier era were better or it's due to them playing less cricket and also playing only in few venues?

That's just bad analysis.. 3/4 60+ averages are in careers of <25 tests.. Pujara was up there before the eng series ffs.. It just doesn't mean anything.

Thank you. You are pointing out one of the reasons why so many averaged higher then. Now if all of them had to play in 8 countries and against 8 oppositions, do you think that they would have dropped their average just like Pujara or they would have continued to average 60 even after playing 80-100 tests? Which outcome looks more probable to you? We can't say for sure but simply talk about probable outcome for most of players in this list.

All I am saying that taking average of XYZ from 20s/30s and saying that that it translates to the same average now seems illogical to me. We have no way to tell for certain. It could be higher or it could be lower but I think it's being lower is much more probable.

 

[viriya]

Its hard to say, but 60 vs 55 is not big difference - 100 vs 55 is though - especially when its over 50 tests. If you look at batsmen careers early career purple patches rarely last past 20 tests.. You don't get a non-great batsman averaging 60 after 40 tests - let alone 100..

 

[simonlee48]

Its hard to say, but 60 vs 55 is not big difference - 100 vs 55 is though - especially when its over 50 tests. If you look at batsmen careers early career purple patches rarely last past 20 tests.. You don't get a non-great batsman averaging 60 after 40 tests - let alone 100..

I didn't say that most of them will drop to 55. I think most of them will drop more if all of them had to play 80-100 tests. Also, I never said that 100 will drop to 55. I think it will drop by some margin but still it will be drastically higher than 55. I have absolutely no doubt that Bradman is the best batsman. He belted the best opposition of his time and that is as good as it gets in any era. He did it so much better than anyone else in history that it will be weird to say he is not the best. But I do think that probability of him averaging the same in modern era with 100-120 tests seems low to me. Again, just an educated guess on my part and I shared the thought process behind it.

 

[Blocky]

The difference between Bradman and other players came down to the fact that he converted more often than not a start into a big score (150+) - if you look at the ratio of scores per innings (i.e 50+) - he's actually not drastically different to other great players of any era. It was his centuries per innings and his big centuries (12 out of 29 were double centuries, 18 out of 29 were 150+) that gave him the edge in average.

Also, let's just discount Pakistan despite them having three bowlers with more than 50 wickets, all averaging less than 30. Let's also discount the way that Ajmal ran through the Sri Lankan line up and made the pitch look like pure venom once the three great players had been dismissed. Part of the reason Lara used to get so much credit is how much better he handled Murali and Warne than other players of the era... you're now seeing Sangakkara handle an off-spinner who in my view is only a couple of cogs down in that echelon of greats with the same level of ability Lara used to handle Murali.

You can't revise history to make your case look better, fact is, Sanga continues to score runs all over the world at an average of 70+ since he gave away the gloves. If he keeps that up for another 2-3 years, he'll A: Probably have the highest average since Bradman. B: Probably eclipse Bradman in the number of double centuries scored, C: Probably eclipse all but Tendulkar on run scoring charts. If he can play 4 to 5 years, he'll surpass Tendulkar.

 

[Red]

Here is 1500+ run in entire history : Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Something should jump out here. Average of near 60 is pretty much filled with players from older era. Don't look at one or two players. Just look at the trend. We have played more than 50% of total tests in the last 30-35 years and you have only 2 players. Don't you think, we have disproportionate number of players averaging that high from older eras? I am not saying that all of them would average 40 in current era. But taking all those guys averaging near 60 and then making a case for all of them to average same in current era seems far fetched to me.

I am not questioning the greatness of any player in that list.

They played a lot less games. It's easier to average 60 over 50 tests than 150 tests. Played more in their prime/purple patch.

Still doesn't explain Bradman's record. If Bradman wasn't so remarkable, why didn't McCabe, Ponsford or Hammond even average 70/80?