How good is Sanga?

[Ikki]

Say a batsman averages 100 at home and 35 away. In my view, his weakness away is more than offset by his absolute dominance at home. His overall would be 67.5 and even with that weakness away I would rate him higher than another who averages 45 both home and away.

The defining feature of bradman was that he used to get huge scores at a much higher frequency than any batsmen before or since. It's not that he maintained some minimum average home/away vs different opponents. He may have, but that's not what made Bradman who he is. He wasn't tested in dustbowls in India vs quality spin with variations. He didn't face reverse swinging toe crushing yorkers. But we still look at his numbers and realize that he is way ahead of the pack.

That's why I value gleaning all available information from a scorecard (with higher value given to runs vs better bowling attacks and away from home among other factors) over breaking up his career tests into pieces. And yes, the whole point of 10 tests+ is to show that its not practical to rate career stats broken down like that in statistical sample size terms (as well as due to th reasons above).

I think you'll find most people don't agree with that and care about how an average comes to be. If you have a poor away record, no matter how much you score at home people will downrate you because of it. You can talk about a guy averaging 100 at home, but no one has done that (Bradman the closest). Even if they did, many people will not rate that person for the simple fact that he's only good in one country - his own. Bradman's defining feature is scoring lots of runs, against everybody, everywhere, at a far higher rate than anyone in history.

Again, I have a problem with the bolded. I'm not sure if you're deliberately trying to fashion an argument to fit your needs here, or you're unaware of the contradictory statements you're making. The reason for looking at scorecards in detail is to glean a more accurate context of what is going on. A person may average 100 for a test, but what if that's not even the highest or what if that's the highest by far? It adds a certain context and value. By the same token, two players can average 55; with one guy averaging that home and away, regardless of the conditions, and the other guy averaging 75 at home and 35 away. Most cricket fans will rate the former better for his mastery of the conditions and his reliability.

 

[viriya]

Yes, when considering scorecards average runs is not a factor. Since away runs will get a bonus the hypothetical scenario where two batsmen average the same but one averages more away will e handled and that batsman would be rated higher.

 

[Blocky]

ps... more statistics for you by way of the Reliance ICC Rankings

Sangakkara has the highest number of tests (83) as #1 ranked batsman in the world.
Sangakkara has a higher highest rating (938) than Tendulkar ever had (898)
Sangakkara's current test ranking (920) is higher than Tendulkar has ever been rated.
Only Ponting of any modern batsman has ever rated higher at 942.
Viv Richards highest rating is equal to Sangakkara's highest rating.

But yes, Tendulkar must be better right?

 

[simonlee48]

No he didn't face India in India, he just faced Hedley Verity on dry spinning pitches several times.

Facing India in India is actually not easy because they don't have flat pitches in all venues. Pakistan has not done great in Asian conditions after 2 Ws. Mainly due to flat tracks. Wasim/Waqar were great on flat tracks but you can't say that for bowlers who followed them. See below,

Pakistani bowling gave 37 runs for each wicket in Asia in the last 10 years : Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[viriya]

That was about Bradman - Verity is long dead and gone sadly.

And this is the relevant bowling average list (since Sanga's debut overall team bowling averages):
Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

As you can see Ban, Zim and WI have been the teams with clearly weak bowling attacks. Nothing much to choose from the rest with Australia the only team clearly ahead.

 

[simonlee48]

ps... more statistics for you by way of the Reliance ICC Rankings

Sangakkara has the highest number of tests (83) as #1 ranked batsman in the world.
Sangakkara has a higher highest rating (938) than Tendulkar ever had (898)
Sangakkara's current test ranking (920) is higher than Tendulkar has ever been rated.
Only Ponting of any modern batsman has ever rated higher at 942.
Viv Richards highest rating is equal to Sangakkara's highest rating.

But yes, Tendulkar must be better right?

MoYo and Sanga both have peak rating higher than Tendulkar. Both are surely better.

 

[simonlee48]

That was about Bradman - Verity is long dead and gone sadly.

And this is the relevant bowling average list (since Sanga's debut overall team bowling averages):
Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

As you can see Ban, Zim and WI have been the teams with clearly weak bowling attacks. Nothing much to choose from the rest with Australia the only team clearly ahead.

My comment was about Pakistan in Asia. Had nothing to do with how Pakistan fares in non-Asian conditions. Indians have done better not because they have better bowlers but due to pitch not being flat for all venues. That was the point I was conveying. Wasim/Waqar were great on flat tracks but no bowler in Pakistan can do what they used to do.

 

[viriya]

MoYo and Sanga both have peak rating higher than Tendulkar. Both are surely better.

Have to agree, apart from the fact that the ICC ratings has a lot of holes in it (hint: I know of a much better one that takes 11 factors into account instead of just 4), the peak rating of a batsman just means he had the best purple patch. What really should be considered is the average innings rating of a batsman with a longevity bonus (which is also available in a certain website which shall remain unnamed )

 

[viriya]

My comment was about Pakistan in Asia. Had nothing to do with how Pakistan fares in non-Asian conditions. Indians have done better not because they have better bowlers but due to pitch not being flat for all venues. That was the point I was conveying. Wasim/Waqar were great on flat tracks but no bowler in Pakistan can do what they used to do.

I am aware - I'm just pointing out that the idea that the Pak bowling attack was the worst after Ban and Zim is really something that needs a lot of conditions to "prove". If you just go by overall records the bowling stats show that they are pretty much at the same level as the top 8 bar Aus.

 

[Blocky]

That was about Bradman - Verity is long dead and gone sadly.

And this is the relevant bowling average list (since Sanga's debut overall team bowling averages):
Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

As you can see Ban, Zim and WI have been the teams with clearly weak bowling attacks. Nothing much to choose from the rest with Australia the only team clearly ahead.

Sanga's debut was 2000, not 2004.
Prior to 2000, the easiest bowling attacks to play against would have included India (horrible through that period), New Zealand post Hadlee/Crowe, Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka (pre Murali becoming a genius)

Every single modern batsman has played weak bowling attacks, every single modern batsman has gotten out to weak bowling attacks. Not every single modern batsman has compiled endless years of domination both in Ratings (#1), Average (#1), Double Centuries (#1), Centuries Per Innings (#1) and MoM Awards to Tests for Batsmen (#1)

 

[Blocky]

Have to agree, apart from the fact that the ICC ratings has a lot of holes in it (hint: I know of a much better one that takes 11 factors into account instead of just 4), the peak rating of a batsman just means he had the best purple patch. What really should be considered is the average innings rating of a batsman with a longevity bonus (which is also available in a certain website which shall remain unnamed )

The peak of a batsman, sure - MoYo has a higher rating because he had three seasons where he averaged 100.....

Sangakkara has had more than 10 seasons averaging over 70. The consistency of his run scoring since 2006 has been sublime. The only person who has come close to sustaining that level of batsmanship for an extended period was Ponting during his four years of godliness. Sanga didn't quite reach the same peaks, but he's never had the troughs ever.

 

[simonlee48]

I am aware - I'm just pointing out that the idea that the Pak bowling attack was the worst after Ban and Zim is really something that needs a lot of conditions to "prove". If you just go by overall records the bowling stats show that they are pretty much at the same level as the top 8 bar Aus.

I wasn't really ranking Pakistan bowling in all conditions after Wasim/Waqar retired. I was only pointing out that how easy it has been to score runs against Pakistan in Asia after Wasim/Waar era. It's mainly the pitch they have and not that much to do with bowlers. Giving 37 runs and being only better than BD/WI proves that. I wasn't making any other point.

 

[viriya]

Speaking of Ponting, Sanga has tracked Ponting's career quite well until recently:
cricrate | Kumar Sangakkara vs Ricky Ponting

This was around the time Ponting started his decline that ended with his retirement. Instead Sanga has gone on his 2nd major purple patch.

 

[Jono]

Yeah its ridiculous Sanga is having a second purple patch so late in his career.

 

[simonlee48]

Yeah its ridiculous Sanga is having a second purple patch so late in his career.

When do you put as cut off for his second purple patch getting started?

 

[Blocky]

Averages 62+ over a long career as #3 batsman, some of that career he was also keeping in.
Averages 70+ when not designated keeper - Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Now, part of the reason Sobers and Kallis are argued to be "more complete cricketers" than The Don is their ability to be their sides best bowler on a given day, one of their best fielders and then turn it on with the bat. The reason Gilchrist is just about undisputed as "the best keeper ever" is because he managed such an extraordinarily high average batting at #7... Sanga batted at #3 for the bulk of his keeping career and still managed an average of 40 while doing it. Since giving away the gloves, he's been untouchable as a batsman in almost every condition

Take a look at the link above, his lowest average while not being a designated keeper is 47.33 against England. His lowest average in a nation while not being a designated keeper is 37 in South Africa (from 10 innings)

Ultimately, because he's not one of the Big 3 - he's been harshly penalised because ultimately, he won't get 25-30 attempts at South Africa or Australia during his career, much like other players who don't play for India, Australia or England (and arguably now South Africa) - as we've seen in recent years with his performances against England, Australia and South Africa - when he has had a chance to play them, home or away, he's managed to go out and perform at the same type of scoring (100+ runs per test) against them that he does against "all of the weaker teams"

Reality is, when you have such a huge weight of things in your favour and the only thing against is "Oh, he plays for Sri Lanka therefore only plays Australia once every 5 years" is bull**** - because on that notion, we need to discount anyone outside of the Top 3.

 

[Blocky]

Speaking of Ponting, Sanga has tracked Ponting's career quite well until recently:
cricrate | Kumar Sangakkara vs Ricky Ponting

This was around the time Ponting started his decline that ended with his retirement. Instead Sanga has gone on his 2nd major purple patch.

Even your rating has Kumar second best (equal) since Bradman, all time.

 

[Blocky]

Yeah its ridiculous Sanga is having a second purple patch so late in his career.

Since 2004 ( when he started to keep less ) - the lowest he's averaged in any one year is 45.5 - every other season bar one, he's averaged over 50.... that one other season was 49.2
He's had 6 out of 10 seasons averaging higher than 60, 8 out of 10 averaging higher than 50. He's never had the type of bad season that pretty much every other player has had, since he dropped the gloves.
Purple for Sanga is when he's averaging 80+ - and he's done that in 6 out of 10 years - can that really be considered a purple patch?

 

[sledger]

Couldn't play the short ball as well as Bevan.

 

[Blocky]

Couldn't play the short ball as well as Bevan.

Yet generally has the majority of his runs coming from the Pull or the Cut shot from the short ball... OK.