How good is Sanga?

[Blocky]

When we say 'another double at home against Pak won't change anyone's mind' that doesn't mean we don't think it doesn't count, just doesn't make the points made earlier in the thread about overseas stuff redundant

It comes off the back of him scoring 342 at 85.5 against England in England - the same England that has just ripped England apart twice in two test matches. I'm sure before this series if you'd said "Kohli isn't on the same level as Sanga" that you'd have had a tonne of people argue with that. Sanga "failed" against South Africa by only averaging 43 in a two test series - that's against the best bowling attack in world cricket at present. Kohli's career average is lower than a "failing" series for Sanga. The quality of bowling in the Pakistan attack is lower than South Africa, unquestionably, but they are one of the few attacks to have three experienced bowlers averaging less than 30 and in Ajmal, they do have the best spinner in the game at present.

It's really just the sheer weight of never-ending runs and the fact that he continues to do things for a decade that had previously been considered run scoring "purple patches" for other batsmen. The only instance of a player doing better than Sanga for an extended period of time was that insane 2002-2006 period that Ponting went through, but even then, 2006-2014 Sanga stacks up not too badly against that.

 

[Maximas]

Don
Tendulkar, Lara
Sanga, Ponting, Kallis
Dravid

Just for reference because it seems I've switched sides in the debate with all this Bradman talk!

Sanga's ability to consistently get massive scores is quite unique, however he hasn't done it all over the world, there is some inconsistency in his overseas record, as well as his overall record against the good teams. While Sachin for example doesn't have such a high average or percentage of big scores per innings or whatever he was able to replicate his impressive SC figures away from home with incredible consistency, that's why many rate Sachin abover Sanga

 

[Red]

Don
Tendulkar, Lara
Sanga, Ponting, Kallis
Dravid

Just for reference because it seems I've switched sides in the debate with all this Bradman talk!

Sanga's ability to consistently get massive scores is quite unique, however he hasn't done it all over the world, there is some inconsistency in his overseas record, as well as his overall record against the good teams. While Sachin for example doesn't have such a high average or percentage of big scores per innings or whatever he was able to replicate his impressive SC figures away from home with incredible consistency, that's why many rate Sachin abover Sanga

Chappell? Viv? Weekes? Hammond?

Or are you just mentioning Bradman with modern guys?

 

[Red]

Anyways, I'm slowly coming round to the fact there's a new 2nd best (in my head).

His name? Everton Weekes.

 

[Maximas]

Chappell? Viv? Weekes? Hammond?

Or are you just mentioning Bradman with modern guys?

Yep

 

[Blocky]

Anyways, I'm slowly coming round to the fact there's a new 2nd best (in my head).

His name? Everton Weekes.

Playing a very weak Indian side, scoring more than a quarter of your runs against them and being called "2nd best" - Yup.

 

[Dan]

Yeah, nobody is saying for a second that another double ton against Pakistan is meaningless; it clearly is. But critics of Sangakkara aren't suggesting that the holes in his record preventing him from becoming the best since Bradman is a lack of 150+ scores at home vs Pakistan.

They're suggesting that his away performances are the only question mark over his status in the pantheon of batting greats.

Weight of runs is not an issue. Overall average is not an issue. Making double tons against a decent bowling attack in home conditions is not an issue. Every man and his blind dog know Sangakkara can do all of those things.

The issue, rightly or wrongly (and I know you'd argue for the latter, with six paragraphs of statistics and reinforcing exactly the same points once more), surrounds his ability to be an ATG batsman in all conditions. If, in the minds of the doubters, he achieves that over the next two years and assuages the concerns of those people, then in their minds the barriers to calling him the 2nd best of all-time will diminish. The England series would, presumably, have done that somewhat -- but elements of those barriers might still remain until he does it again elsewhere.

While another double ton against Pakistan at home counts for a lot of different things, and reinforces a lot of his successes, skills and abilities, nobody is calling those specific attributes into question.

Making a double ton at home doesn't 'fix' your away record.

 

[bagapath]

four years ago, i had started a thread for this discussion...

and my first post was this....


Greatest cricketers since 1980

based on the thread on sagakkara where some posters seem to be in a hurry to bunch him with greater batsman, i am starting this thread to categorize test cricketers into various levels of greatness. and predict who cricket history would consider all time greats out of those who played between 1980 - 2010.

i will start with the batsmen and divide them into four different levels of greatness if that makes sense at all. I will try to limit each level to 10 at the most. will do the same exercise for bowlers later. I have not ranked the players within each level.

The Greatest Batsmen since 1980

Level 1

Viv Richards
Greg Chappell
Sunil Gavaskar
Sachin Tendulkar
Brian Lara
Ricky Ponting

Level 2

Matthew Hayden
Virender Sehwag
Rahul Dravid
Allan Border
Steve Waugh
Javed Miandad
Inzamam Ul Haq
Jacques Kallis
Adam Gilchrist
Martin Crowe

Level 3

Kumar Sangakara
Mohammad Yousuff
Kevin Pietersen
Mahela Jayawardane
Gordon Greenidge
Graeme Smith
David Gower
Shiv Chanderpal
Andy Flower
Justin Langer

Level 4

David Boon
Michael Clarke
Graham Gooch
VVS Laxman
Mark Waugh
Damien Martyn
Sanath Jayasuriya
Aravinda de silva
Richie Richardson
Michael Hussey

this thread is meant to be as dumb as everything else i have ever written on cricket web. and it is meant to be fun. so u r welcome to join the spirit and throw in stats, circular arguments, individual biases and a bit of humor to make the discussion as alive as possible.

I wonder what the major changes are in this classification, especially with regard to Sanga!

 

[Maximas]

I think the England series confirmed Sanga as an ATG for me, even if he has a bit of a decline from now, but a good series in NZ and India and I'd seriously consider his case as the greatest since Bradman,

 

[DriveClub]

Sehwag, Hayden, Inzi, Crowe not better than Sanga

 

[Dan]

The Greatest Batsmen since 1980

Level 1

Viv Richards
Greg Chappell
Sunil Gavaskar
Sachin Tendulkar
Brian Lara
Ricky Ponting
Jacques Kallis ^1
Kumar Sangakkara ^1

Level 2

Matthew Hayden
Virender Sehwag
Rahul Dravid
Allan Border
Steve Waugh
Javed Miandad
Michael Clarke ^2
Graeme Smith ^1

Level 3

Inzamam-ul-Haq v1
Adam Gilchrist v1
Kevin Pietersen
Mahela Jayawardane
Gordon Greenidge
Martin Crowe v1
Shiv Chanderpaul
Andy Flower

Level 4

Mohammad Yousuf v1
David Gower v1
Justin Langer v1
David Boon
Graham Gooch
VVS Laxman
Mark Waugh
Damien Martyn
Sanath Jayasuriya
Aravinda de Silva
Richie Richardson
Michael Hussey

IMO.

CBF adding any new players, but Cook would have to slot in at Level 3 based on his more recent exploits, and I'd have Richie Richardson dropping out entirely.

 

[DriveClub]

I think Dravid could be tier 1

 

[viriya]

Making a double ton at home doesn't 'fix' your away record.

That's true, but no one has just "away record" as the only criteria to rate a batsmen. Say you have 5 factors and that's one. His double hundred doesn't improve that, but most likely improves other factors. If you're rating the batsmen overall, it can make a difference even if your most important factor is away performances. To say "the box is already ticked" so it's irrelevant is to make any performance that he does that is not away useless when rerating him - which makes no sense.

 

[Maximas]

Indeed, but we are talking best since Bradman, you really need to have all the boxes emphatically ticked

 

[viriya]

Indeed, but we are talking best since Bradman, you really need to have all the boxes emphatically ticked

When the existing "best since Bradman" candidates don't have all boxes ticked (big scores, match-winning, dominating in familiar conditions, etc), I beg to differ. Every non-Bradman batsman has boxes that are not ticked if you looked closely.

tbf I don't think Sanga is the best since Bradman yet, but he is in the group that includes Lara, Tendulkar, Kallis, Dravid and Ponting, with Lara ahead still.

 

[Dan]

That's true, but no one has just "away record" as the only criteria to rate a batsmen. Say you have 5 factors and that's one. His double hundred doesn't improve that, but most likely improves other factors. If you're rating the batsmen overall, it can make a difference even if your most important factor is away performances. To say "the box is already ticked" so it's irrelevant is to make any performance that he does that is not away useless when rerating him - which makes no sense.

We're rating Sangakkara on the entire package as a batsman, but the only non-Super ATG attribute (at present) is his away record. A 200 vs. Pakistan at home reiterates how ****ing gun he is at building long innings and scoring runs, but doesn't answer that tiny nagging pedantic question about replicating all those great things we know he can do away from home, in all conditions.

Ergo, it's not going to change opinions as it doesn't address the one remaining concern about Sanga's batsmanship. For those of us who already love Sanga, the reaction is "look at his ability to consistently make huge scores". For the doubters, it's "yeah, sure, but I want to see him do it overseas before calling him the second greatest of all time".

If Sanga ends up with 11 double hundreds instead of 12, nobody would hold it against him. They wouldn't suggest that his lack of 200 in a 2014 home Test vs. Pakistan was a hole in his record. It does, however, reinforce all those things that everyone unanimously agrees upon -- Sanga makes big scores more often than anyone else, and is ridiculously consistent against good attacks.

The 200 is meaningful; nobody is suggesting for a second that it isn't. But it isn't going to overcome the one thing that most people hold against Sangakkara being #2 behind Bradman -- an away record that doesn't quite stack up.

At the end of the day, if Sangakkara scores 3 or 4 more home double tons, it will solidify and solidify and solidify his status as one of the greatest batsmen of all time -- a genuine ATG -- by proving that he's an incredible batsman. But those home double tons won't make him stand head-and-shoulders above the rest of the contenders for #2 of all time. Fixing that away record will. The platform is undoubtedly strengthened by this knock, but he still has to definitively check that last box to access the next tier.

 

[Dan]

Every non-Bradman batsman has boxes that are not ticked if you looked closely.

Which is why none stand head-and-shoulders above as a clear #2 to Bradman.

 

[Prince EWS]

That's true, but no one has just "away record" as the only criteria to rate a batsmen. Say you have 5 factors and that's one. His double hundred doesn't improve that, but most likely improves other factors. If you're rating the batsmen overall, it can make a difference even if your most important factor is away performances. To say "the box is already ticked" so it's irrelevant is to make any performance that he does that is not away useless when rerating him - which makes no sense.

I agree with you, however those like me who do agree with the principle of this post already rate Sangakkara as an all-time great. Those who don't have a different criteria to you or me, and that knock does absolutely nothing to advance his cause in their estimations because it doesn't address their criticisms.

IMO that is pricisely why it's such a flawed way of rating players, but that's neither here nor there. It's not going to change many minds because those who do value it are already converted.

 

[Maximas]

tbf I don't think Sanga is the best since Bradman yet, but he is in the group that includes Lara, Tendulkar, Kallis, Dravid and Ponting, with Lara ahead still.

I think he is still chasing Tendulkar and Lara, but isn't far behind at all

 

[viriya]

Which is why none stand head-and-shoulders above as a clear #2 to Bradman.

I'm not claiming that he is the clear "best-since-Bradman". Just that he is clearly in the same group that includes Lara, Tendulkar, Kallis, Dravid and Ponting and not a tier below. Note that I don't consider Tendulkar and Lara as a separate group - although I do consider Lara to be the closest to Bradman atm with Sanga closing in. This is of course only considering Tests because ODIs will change the discussion completely.