How good is Sanga?

[viriya]

I'm not having it both ways - I'm just amusing those who are all about breaking down by teams. The whole analysis is flawed imo because sample size is an issue if it's <10 tests. I'd much rather look at overall numbers in different ways, with adjustments for quality of opponent/location/match situation etc (as I do in my ratings).

 

[DingDong]

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.

hahaha checkmate. but viriya i wouldn't say anything anti ponting in this forum. u probably weren't around when about many non aussies got infracted for saying ponting was not a great in the ponting retirement thread. there are some awful ponting fan boi mods around here so i'd be careful

 

[simonlee48]

I'm not having it both ways - I'm just amusing those who are all about breaking down by teams. The whole analysis is flawed imo because sample size is an issue if it's <10 tests.

What's the issue with breaking down by teams then? He has played 10 tests against every team.

 

[viriya]

He averages 40+ vs all teams. Even if he hadn't, it shouldn't preclude him from being considered an ATG (consider Sobers and his 24 avg vs NZ).

 

[simonlee48]

He averages 40+ vs all teams. Even if he hadn't, it shouldn't preclude him from being considered an ATG (consider Sobers and his 24 avg vs NZ).

I don't think that averaging below or higher than some random figure is a good way to put anyone in ATG category. You should always look at their performances against all oppositions and also how players did in different conditions but there shouldn't be any mathematical fix formula to decide who is ATG.

I was only saying that he has played enough against all opposition and it's fair to see how he did against everyone. We have a good idea of bowling strength of all countries during his career and we can see if some trend exist or not.

 

[viriya]

I'm not sure what you're getting at when you were the one who started this 40+ home/away point in the first place. It was most definitely not me.

I'm not saying there is some holy grail formula to rate players, but I do think you can get a better overall understanding of the actual worth of a performance from breaking down everything you can glean from a scorecard instead of just looking at some career summary average vs home/away which ignores all context of each match.

 

[simonlee48]

I'm not sure what you're getting at when you were the one who started this 40+ home/away point in the first place. It was most definitely not me.

I'm not saying there is some holy grail formula to rate players, but I do think you can get a better overall understanding of the actual worth of a performance from breaking down everything you can glean from a scorecard instead of just looking at some career summary average vs home/away which ignores all context of each match.

Where?

 

[viriya]

Correction, you didn't explicit bring up the 40+ "requirement" but you did separate "good" teams and "bad" teams by doing much more than just consider overall team records.

 

[simonlee48]

Correction, you didn't explicit bring up the 40+ "requirement" but you did separate "good" teams and "bad" teams by doing much more than just consider overall team records.

Did I bring up any implicit requirement for 40+ to proclaim anyone ATG? All of us make mistake and it's all right to simply move on rather than trying to spin it for the heck of spinning.

What's wrong with seeing , who you are scoring runs against? If you won't judge batsmen based on opposition bowling strength then it's meaningless to have any discussion. Aus, SA, NZ, Pakistan and Eng are 5 better bowling sides but not necessarily 5 better teams. You are mixing stuff here. I never said good team or bad team. I talked about good bowling sides. Even this angle was not really a discussion about ATG for me. I never said Sanga is an ATG or not.

 

[viriya]

Bowling side = team when rating a batsman.. Let's not get too crazy with the wording used here.

 

[simonlee48]

Bowling side = team when rating a batsman.. Let's not get too crazy with the wording used here.

And you find it crazy idea to see if batsmen are scoring runs against better bowling sides?

Scoring runs against WI and SA are not the same thing. You will always get different amount of brownie points.

 

[Dan]

Wow, didn't think this thread could get any more tedious, but you learn something new every day.

Indeed Spark. Indeed.

 

[Maximas]

Well don't read it if you don't like it

 

[Coronis]

Well don't read it if you don't like it

It is their job to read it... anyway for me I'm going to keep my final rating for Sanga until you know, he actually retires. At the moment I'm standing with Tendulkar Lara and Ponting, with Kallis and Dravid down another notch in those respective orders.

 

[watson]

NUFAN has put Sanga at No.4 ahead of Tendulkar in his ATG XI in the ATG thread. So that's pretty much case closed I reckon. Nothing more to discuss

 

[Dan]

It is their job to read it...

Pretty much, and the unread posts icon annoys me

 

[Maximas]

Thread still doesn't improve when people come in and trash talk it from their gold pedestals up above, in any case it's always a bit of fun when Spark's warnings/assessments appear to go completely unnoticed

 

[Ikki]

I'm not having it both ways - I'm just amusing those who are all about breaking down by teams. The whole analysis is flawed imo because sample size is an issue if it's <10 tests. I'd much rather look at overall numbers in different ways, with adjustments for quality of opponent/location/match situation etc (as I do in my ratings).

The thing is unless you play 180 tests, 10 home and away against every country; you won't ever meet that requirement if you want to look at their career record in detail.

If you play just 4 tests, home and away, against everyone; that is a 72 Test career - and by your standard, that means we can't judge them at all (4<8<10).

Judging overall numbers that way is to look at the batsman's record from too much of a distance IMO. A batsman can have a 50+ average against all opposition, 70 at home and 30 away; but that's not a complete batsman by most people's recognition. Such a batsman has a glaring weakness away from home. Yet with your analysis, said batsman could be the best after Bradman. IMO, that's simply not a good way to look at it.

There's an irony that you think looking at scorecards in greater detail will tell you more about a batsman than simple home and away averages (I agree, BTW) but you'd rather look at the overall record against an opposition than their home and away breakdown, which seems to contradict the rationale for wanting greater understanding through a more defined context. Even in terms of sample size the argument isn't consistent: a scorecard will show you 1 or 2 innings worth of information.

 

[Jono]

Thread still doesn't improve when people come in and trash talk it from their gold pedestals up above, in any case it's always a bit of fun when Spark's warnings/assessments appear to go completely unnoticed

True and

 

[viriya]

And you find it crazy idea to see if batsmen are scoring runs against better bowling sides?

Scoring runs against WI and SA are not the same thing. You will always get different amount of brownie points.

Agreed that its not the same thing, that's why you give more credit for runs vs SA but still consider all innings of a career. If a player doesn't have a glaring difference in home/away stats, the value of breaking things up (where the sample size gets small enough to be an issue) diminishes. That's why rating each innings on its own and then aggregating them with a longevity bonus makes more sense.