-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
How good is Sanga?
- Thread starter CWB304
- Start date
Migara
International Coach
ICC rankings are irrelevant in measuring greatness? Meh!
simonlee48
School Boy/Girl Captain
It only tells you about the relative performance of any player in certain period. It doesn't tell you how players from different era compare with each other. If you seriously believe that Blocky is raising great relevant points for comparing players then good for you.
Also, what is this #1 for 83 tests you guys are talking about? I just checked his ranking trend.
It seems he was ranked 1 first time in Dec 2007. He has played less than 60 tests after that. Even if you make a ridiculous assumption that he was ranked one for entire period after getting to rank one first time in his life, he can't be ranked #1 for 83 tests. Sanga is a good batsman but let's not make up ridiculous stats now.
Not only irrelevant points but stats are also getting plucked from no where. Some one can correct me if I am missing something here with Sanga being ranked #1 for 83 tests.
Last edited:
viriya
International Captain
It's based on the number of overall tests he has been ranked #1.. so it counts tests where SL didn't take part because there could be a batsman that got to #1 during that match. The # of tests stat is unfair on any player who played pre 2000s though since there are way more tests played these days compared to before.
There's another stat which is the amount of time at #1, which favors players that played back in time since not a lot of tests = more chance of holding to #1.
Point of all this is the ICC rankings are pretty poor (it's current ranking is decent, but confusing to use historically), but people just quote it since it's the official source. One of the reasons I started cricrate was to do a better job than what the official ratings does.
Migara
International Coach
:facepalm
The length of duration of a ranking is decided by how many tests have been played during two time points. Necessarily doesn't need to be ehat the particular player played. Equal to all the tests played by all the teams.
simonlee48
School Boy/Girl Captain
Thanks for taking time to explain. So even based on what you said, it's irrelevant to take this stat and compare players across eras.
Not relevant for this thread but how you get stats like this? Just curious. I can go to ICC rank and count how long some one was ranked number one but even that is tedious to do.
'
Last edited:
at current tendu>sanga mainly because as others have said he's more proven. nothing against sanga, he's a great player and could potentially be or have been on tendulkar's level had he been given a similar amount of opportunities away from SC but so far he hasn't got those opportunities (especially if you rate him via a pure bat) and he's not likely to improve his RSA record before he retire's, he's going to have to keep up this good form for a couple of years to improve his india record and probably won't get a chance to fix his WI record. he'll probably get the chance to prove himself more in NZ but that's not going to change his records in RSA, india and WI.
and tendulkar's plundering in the 90s and his greater longevity also go in favour of tendulkar.
there are arguments for sanga though, he has plenty of achievements over other batsmen.
and tendulkar's plundering in the 90s and his greater longevity also go in favour of tendulkar.
there are arguments for sanga though, he has plenty of achievements over other batsmen.
Last edited:
Flem274*
123/5
I'll probably get panned for this but I was more afraid of Ponting than any of the others mentioned in here (apart from Bradman etc before someone gets cheeky) and he'll always be my batsman of the modern era. It's probably down to subjective experience since some of my earliest cricketing memories involve Lara unable to buy a run against Shane Bond and Tendulkar proven very mortal by various bowlers (whereas Dravid was merciless whenever he batted), but Punter was The Man in the best team in history. It feels like he never got out between 2002-2007. Every series he walked out to bat in the first test, whether at 1/1 or 100/1, he scored a huge ton which said "Welcome to a test series against Australia. You can fight if you like but you're only delaying the inevitable." That pull shot all but shouted "You suck at bowling and I own you."
I didn't really take Sangakkara seriously as a batsman away from home until his ton against us on a green top against Bondy and his big 190 in Aussie where he was robbed by the umpire. He doesn't play away from Asia all that often but I'm not too fussed by his stats (couldn't even tell you what they are) because those knocks and others prove he is more than capable in any conditions against anybody. Definitely worthy of being ranked alongside Ponting, Tendulkar, Lara, Dravid, Kallis, Smith and Hayden (yes I group them together and yes I put those openers there - I cut openers some slack for having lower averages or slightly lesser records because they're openers and it's inevitable).
I'm definitely becoming less stats focussed though as a cricket fan. I'll always care about results more than prettiness but it's more about what you do and the role you play more than whether you average 39.88 or 40 in some random country.
I didn't really take Sangakkara seriously as a batsman away from home until his ton against us on a green top against Bondy and his big 190 in Aussie where he was robbed by the umpire. He doesn't play away from Asia all that often but I'm not too fussed by his stats (couldn't even tell you what they are) because those knocks and others prove he is more than capable in any conditions against anybody. Definitely worthy of being ranked alongside Ponting, Tendulkar, Lara, Dravid, Kallis, Smith and Hayden (yes I group them together and yes I put those openers there - I cut openers some slack for having lower averages or slightly lesser records because they're openers and it's inevitable).
I'm definitely becoming less stats focussed though as a cricket fan. I'll always care about results more than prettiness but it's more about what you do and the role you play more than whether you average 39.88 or 40 in some random country.
Last edited:
Blocky
Banned
For me, most of the late 90s and 00s, Dravid was the best batsman that India had and Tendulkar was unfairly rated ahead of him. Until Sri Lanka, Pakistan, New Zealand and to a lesser degree the West Indies get a chance to play regular test cricket in series longer than two tests against the top three nations then I think saying "Sangakkara isn't as good as Tendulkar because he hasn't played as much overseas" is futile. As we've seen recently in conditions that India are struggling in, Sanga was in his usual pomp and form.
Also the idea that "Well we should count Sanga's achievements from when he was a keeper and not as good as a bat" while discounting the fall from grace that Tendulkar had through his final seasons and saying that we should only assess Tendulkar in his pomp is a bit of a double standard, even with Sanga spending the majority of his early test career as a wicketkeeper batsman, he still has a higher runs per game average than any of the other moderns and as we've shown, when he gave the gloves away his average immediately improved - we've seen that with other players recently too - only really AB De Villiers is a guy who has had a better run as keeper than he has as batsman only, although his batsman only games haven't gone to the level of say Sangakkara who has now over half his career as a batsman only.
Alec Stewart - as keeper, 34.9 as batsman 46.7
Brendon McCullum - as keeper - 34.8, as batsman 41
So if we don't include the fall from grace that we saw Tendulkar go through, Ponting go through, Kallis go through all around the same age that Sangakkara continues to dominate the modern game - then including Sanga's period as a wicket keeper seems stupid.
Also the idea that "Well we should count Sanga's achievements from when he was a keeper and not as good as a bat" while discounting the fall from grace that Tendulkar had through his final seasons and saying that we should only assess Tendulkar in his pomp is a bit of a double standard, even with Sanga spending the majority of his early test career as a wicketkeeper batsman, he still has a higher runs per game average than any of the other moderns and as we've shown, when he gave the gloves away his average immediately improved - we've seen that with other players recently too - only really AB De Villiers is a guy who has had a better run as keeper than he has as batsman only, although his batsman only games haven't gone to the level of say Sangakkara who has now over half his career as a batsman only.
Alec Stewart - as keeper, 34.9 as batsman 46.7
Brendon McCullum - as keeper - 34.8, as batsman 41
So if we don't include the fall from grace that we saw Tendulkar go through, Ponting go through, Kallis go through all around the same age that Sangakkara continues to dominate the modern game - then including Sanga's period as a wicket keeper seems stupid.
Riggins
International Captain
Jeez. People actually consider this relevant?
bagapath
International Captain
OPWB
I do agree with this, mostly. Being consistent in comparisons is always nice. "If you remove the times Ponting sucked, he was awesome, but if you leave in the times Sangakkara sucked, he doesn't look as awesome."
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
You seem to be trying to give a base value for runs and then making it comparable: i.e. 200 runs against Bangladesh = 70 runs against England.
For me, that's besides the point. No matter how many runs he scores against other teams, it will not make up for his deficiency against teams he doesn't score against. And 6 instances showing such a weakness for consistency across the board is just not good enough.
Blocky
Banned
He was for an extended period, he played the innings that won them matches (alongside Laxman and Sehwag) - that was always the complaint about Tendulkar, struck centuries that didn't really matter to the result of the match. The interesting thing about Sangakkara is that unlike Lara, Tendulkar and co - his double centuries have come in winning efforts - 7 out of 10.
Blocky
Banned
Watling is batting at seven and coming back into the side after a long period out did him the world of good... I think if Watling batted 3 for NZ he wouldn't deliver the same level of results.
Ponting was superb and there was a reason from 2002-2006 that he was unquestioned as a modern great and probably ahead of even Lara and Tendulkar at the time - but no one has had the extended period of results that Sangakkara has delivered - the guy would literally have to suck like Ken Rutherford for the next 30 tests to get his average down to where Ponting and Tendulkar ended up.
Blocky
Banned
Personally I think this is more useful - Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
Also, as was the statement around Steve Waugh when people were comparing him to Lara and Tendulkar (pre Ponting catching fire) - Amla and DeVilliers never had to face Steyn, Morkel, Philander just like Waugh never had to face McGrath, Gillespie and Warne - one of the reasons Lara was rated so highly (and Tendulkar away from home) was that they had to face the best bowling attacks of their day while not getting the opportunity to cash in against the worst bowling attacks
Blocky
Banned
It's an unfair comparison, expecting a wicket keeper who bats at #3 to perform at the peak of his batting potential, especially in conditions like the UK and South Africa where invariably you're out in the field for a while because the Sri Lankan pace bowling attack has never been what you would consider threatening ( with exception to Vaas, quality ) and then your openers, inexperienced at facing new ball in seaming environments get out early and you're in within the third over.
There is no surprise in my view that he caught fire the moment he left the gloves behind and concentrated on his batting - there is also no surprise in my view that even with the gloves, you're having to split hairs between his away average against the Top 8 and Tendulkar's away average against the Top 8... ps Sanga's average has been climbing away from home for the last ten years, by the time he ends his career even if he declines by 15% over the next few years, he'll end up with a better away average from home than Tendulkar did.