How good is Sanga?

[Ikki]

The most important mark against him IMO is his record all-round is not that strong even though in aggregate it is. One of the more important facets IMO is to be great home and away and rarely average less than 40 against an opponent.

As a comparison of players who average less than 40 home or away against an opponent*:

Tendulkar: 1

Home: South Africa
Away: None

Ponting: 1

Home: None
Away: India

Lara: 3

Home: India
Away: India, New Zealand

Sangakkara: 6

Home: Australia, England, New Zealand
Away: India, South Africa, West Indies

He really needs to improve that to be considered to be in that tier.

*with a decent sample, not just 1 game/a couple innings played.

 

[viriya]

That he averaged <40 in WI is an irrelevant statistic. He has only played 4 tests there and last played there in 2008. To hold that against him is just nitpicking to the extreme. Do you really think he wouldn't consistently do well vs WI?

That he averages <40 India is something I find surprising - I'm not sure it proves anything though.

The only valid one is the vs SA statistic, and he averages better there than Dravid - the oh-so-great away batsman.

This is why I don't consider away records the holy grail in rating batsmen. There are so many factors that could explain it - small sample size, bad form during the period etc, it doesn't really tell you whether a batsman actually had some weakness.

 

[Maximas]

But there are many holes, no one else he is competing with has so many, although his 'poor' countries are somewhat offset by his really good records in Aus/NZ, mind you that isn't particularly reliable data either

 

[OverratedSanity]

How many times will this topic keep spiralling back to the same 3-4 arguments.
Farce of a thread.

 

[viriya]

Ponting averages <40 vs Zim away and vs Ban at home. Burn him!

 

[G.I.Joe]

No. It's completely different. The only way your comparison makes sense is if yo uare trying to say that Don's Era > X's Era, thus rendering any comparison irrelevant?

What I'm saying is that you cannot know either way - Bradman's era may have been stronger/weaker/equal to X's era. The comparison is apt. The a1>>>>>b1 and a2>b2, therefore a1>>>a2 conflation is valid only if you know for sure that b1 and b2 are about equal. If you cannot guarantee the equality of the baseline, you cannot guarantee what follows from it.

 

[indiaholic]

How many times will this topic keep spiralling back to the same 3-4 arguments.
Farce of a thread.

But it must be said, I enjoyed reading your posts on this thread.

 

[indiaholic]

I seriously believe that people who consider Sanga to be the equal of Lara/Tendulkar/Ponting are basing their beliefs on the availability heuristic. Sanga is a special batsman who is in the form of his life. His feats are more easily available to people's memories than that of the other three. Moreover, we tend to judge stories by how they ended and let's face it, Sachin and Ponting had ****ty endings to their stories.

 

[Ikki]

That he averaged <40 in WI is an irrelevant statistic. He has only played 4 tests there and last played there in 2008. To hold that against him is just nitpicking to the extreme. Do you really think he wouldn't consistently do well vs WI?

That he averages <40 India is something I find surprising - I'm not sure it proves anything though.

The only valid one is the vs SA statistic, and he averages better there than Dravid - the oh-so-great away batsman.

This is why I don't consider away records the holy grail in rating batsmen. There are so many factors that could explain it - small sample size, bad form during the period etc, it doesn't really tell you whether a batsman actually had some weakness.

He's played 4 tests (7 innings). It's not a great sample, but it's a decent cut-off in general. I think he'll do well if he plays them (they're not a great team) but the fact that he has 5 other countries of <40 averages makes the point pretty strong. If he had 3 of them and the WI record was one of them, I'd agree that it'd be harsh to hold it against him for the above reasons.

Basically, there are 18 instances (9 opponents to face home and away from home) in which 1/3 of them he averages <40. When you're talking about the "best after Bradman" group, that's a significant weakness IMO.

Ponting averages <40 vs Zim away and vs Ban at home. Burn him!

I did mention: *with a decent sample, not just 1 game/a couple innings played.

He played 1 inning in Zim and 2 innings at home to Bang. Pretty silly to count those. It's pretty bankable he would have shellacked them if he played them as much as most players did during his time.

 

[viriya]

Point is what you consider a "decent sample size" is entirely subjective. It really doesn't make a lot of sense to break up a player's career stats to even 5 test chunks and rate them through that unless the difference is very significant (Ponting in India or Warne in India for example are prime examples of cases that tell you something about the player).

In Sanga's case, he has done well against every team at least at home or away (especially since he became a pure batsman), and his exploits in NZ/Aus and recently in Eng show that he doesn't have some technical deficiency that stops him from getting runs in unfamiliar conditions.

Dravid in a recent cricinfo piece literally said Sanga had no apparent weakness - I think he knows a thing or two about batsmenship than most.

 

[Coronis]

How many times will this topic keep spiralling back to the same 3-4 arguments.
Farce of a thread.

Welcome to CricketWeb.

 

[Ikki]

Point is what you consider a "decent sample size" is entirely subjective. It really doesn't make a lot of sense to break up a player's career stats to even 5 test chunks and rate them through that unless the difference is very significant (Ponting in India or Warne in India for example are prime examples of cases that tell you something about the player).

In Sanga's case, he has done well against every team at least at home or away (especially since he became a pure batsman), and his exploits in NZ/Aus and recently in Eng show that he doesn't have some technical deficiency that stops him from getting runs in unfamiliar conditions.

Dravid in a recent cricinfo piece literally said Sanga had no apparent weakness - I think he knows a thing or two about batsmenship than most.

If 4 tests is not a decent sample size to compare for home or away against an opponent, then you're going to have trouble comparing players across most eras. Again, it's not great, but it's something. Pretending that 1 or 2 innings are enough however is absurd. There's a clear difference there.

Even Ponting's India record is weird if you logically break it down. Was he poor against spin in general? Not at all. IIRC he averages 50 in matches against Murali and his record against spinners not named Harbhajan is generally very good. Is it because he has a problem playing in the sub-continent? No, because India is his only poor record. Is it just about India in general even? No, as he generally walloped India in Australia.

However, one still has to make the concession that whatever the factor is - recognisable or not - it still exists. And to have 6 instances of <40, 3 home and 3 away, is just not good enough for that tier. That's in the Hayden/Sehwag tier*. One can be technically fantastic, no weaknesses, but performance matters. You could have only one reliable shot but if the result is you averaging 50 home and away against everyone, then the argument against your technical deficiency is moot IMO.

*Just checked to see what they have exactly, coincidentally both also have 6 instances of <40 averages home or away like Sangakkara. For interest's sake, I checked Jayawardene's and he has 7 instances. It doesn't seem to be a coincidence that these batsmen, while being lauded, have been questioned about their ability to play in all conditions.

 

[smash84]

Ikki, dude its good to have you back and read your arguments again. Even if I don't agree with some of them

 

[viriya]

Even Ponting's India record is weird if you logically break it down. Was he poor against spin in general? Not at all. IIRC he averages 50 in matches against Murali and his record against spinners not named Harbhajan is generally very good. Is it because he has a problem playing in the sub-continent? No, because India is his only poor record. Is it just about India in general even? No, as he generally walloped India in Australia.

You can explain away Sanga's supposed issues pretty much the same way. Did he have an issue with WI? No, he was prolific vs them at home. Did he have an issue vs SA bowlers? No, he was prolific vs them at home. Did he have an issue with NZ bowlers? No, he was prolific vs them away. etc etc.

"ATG can't have more than 3 teams <40 home or away" is just an arbitary way to evaluate them. I could possibly come up with some random criteria for every other batsmen to exclude them similarly.

 

[Dan]

You can explain away Sanga's supposed issues pretty much the same way. Did he have an issue with WI? No, he was prolific vs them at home. Did he have an issue vs SA bowlers? No, he was prolific vs them at home. Did he have an issue with NZ bowlers? No, he was prolific vs them away. etc etc.

Yeah, but Ikki's point is that it still exists and it cannot be ignored, even if its existence makes no logical sense.

 

[viriya]

Yeah, but Ikki's point is that it still exists and it cannot be ignored, even if its existence makes no logical sense.

I'm not saying it should be ignored. Just that it's not a good enough criteria on its own. Every best-since-Bradman candidate has one or two issues that can be used to exclude them from ATG status if you make that factor the only one to consider.

 

[simonlee48]

You can explain away Sanga's supposed issues pretty much the same way. Did he have an issue with WI? No, he was prolific vs them at home. Did he have an issue vs SA bowlers? No, he was prolific vs them at home. Did he have an issue with NZ bowlers? No, he was prolific vs them away. etc etc.

There are only 5 teams , who can bowl reasonably well home and away both. Aus, SA, Eng , NZ and Pakistan. Sanga hasn't been prolific against 4 out of these 5. Now who are left. India and WI. India is pretty poor but they are still good at home. WI is pretty poor in both but they can bowl reasonably well at home in some series. That covers all non-minnows.

I am not saying that Sanga has done bad here but being prolific against good bowling is only true for Pakistan.

 

[Ikki]

Yeah, but Ikki's point is that it still exists and it cannot be ignored, even if its existence makes no logical sense.

Not necessarily that there might be no logic to it, but that the logic might not be recognisable to us.

I'm not saying it should be ignored. Just that it's not a good enough criteria on its own. Every best-since-Bradman candidate has one or two issues that can be used to exclude them from ATG status if you make that factor the only one to consider.

I reckon it's very good criteria. Hypothetically you could have 3 great pace attacks from 3 countries with identical conditions. If you succeed against 1 of those countries; should your failure in the other 2 not count? Of course they should count IMO.

One has to factor in all things: a spinner might be better bowling in the home of the batsman than his own home; or the expected conditions (i.e. weather) that usually makes a bowling attack more dangerous is absent; or heck the crowd or stadium size can even play a factor. Just assuming a player has ticked a box once in one set of circumstances doesn't mean it can be applied across the board IMO.

Especially in a sport like Cricket which is heavily reliant on the conditions of play, which for me is the beauty of the sport. It's the essence of the reason people even bring up home and away records. This is the same rationale but with a more detailed criteria. The very best after Bradman don't have that many weak spots on their record, there's no reason why Sangakkara should be excused. It's not like he's averaging so ridiculously everywhere else that he's averaging 99.94 overall.

 

[viriya]

There are only 5 teams , who can bowl reasonably well home and away both. Aus, SA, Eng , NZ and Pakistan. Sanga hasn't been prolific against 4 out of these 5. Now who are left. India and WI. India is pretty poor but they are still good at home. WI is pretty poor in both but they can bowl reasonably well at home in some series. That covers all non-minnows.

I am not saying that Sanga has done bad here but being prolific against good bowling is only true for Pakistan.

The only team he hasn't been prolific vs either home or away is england, and he averages 40+ vs them away.

 

[simonlee48]

The only team he hasn't been prolific vs either home or away is england, and he averages 40+ vs them away.

Correct about either home or away but sample size gets less. If we look at against 5 bowling sides(home+away) then you have a better sample size.

We can't have it both ways. One time we can't argue that he has less significant sample size and that's why he has low average in India, WI etc . But other times, not take his total games home+away against oppositions, which makes the sample size significant. He has been prolific only against one good bowling side.