How good is Sanga?

[Migara]

He'd probably be both Bangladesh's and Zimbabwe's greatest bowler ever

No.

 

[Migara]

Versus Tendulkar who I've always thought had the signature of down syndrome etched onto his chubby little cheeks.

non of them are senile though

 

[viriya]

Honestly, weighting knocks against weaker teams as a whole is a pretty error-prone way of going about things. Adam Gilchrist's knock in Fatullah, considering the state of the match and that Bangladesh had played out of their skins to that point, is one of the best he ever played. It's just under-rated because of the oppo and that oz won the game. The whole good vs bad bowling thing totally smoothes out factors like that.

This is a very good point. That knock would not have been rated that high on the ICC ratings because its vs a mediocre bowling attack, but on cricrate it would factor in that he came in at 61/4 and made 54% of the team total, rating it his third best innings.

On Ponting, his contribution goes well beyond mere stats and is a large part of why the Aussies just kept on winning throughout his era. Aside from all the stuff he contributed behind the scenes, when and how he scored as much as how many hurt his opponents badly. At the beginning of a match, someone needs to take the lead and assert themselves. The first guy to do that usually wins his team the match, sets the tone for the series and Ponting's mentality was that it was pretty much his duty to do so. When you have someone in your side who's that assertive, and he's the skipper, it lifts the rest of the team like almost nothing else.

I think one thing that's overlooked is that ponting almost always had a great platform to work with. Hayden and Langer has one of the best opening partnerships of all time - it was common for ponting to come into bat at 100/1 or even better those days. So he definitely benefited from that when he went on that tear in the early 2000s. Most number 3s come into bat way earlier than they would prefer, ponting just had the opportunity to put the hammer down once the hayden-langer platform was set.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Overlooked? Half the posts on Ponting mention that whenever he came in to bat it was 705/1 on a road against Ashish Nehra

 

[viriya]

Not in this thread and that post. I'm not doing an analysis on CW's treatment of ponting here.

 

[Riggins]

I think one thing that's overlooked is that ponting almost always had a great platform to work with. Hayden and Langer has one of the best opening partnerships of all time - it was common for ponting to come into bat at 100/1 or even better those days. So he definitely benefited from that when he went on that tear in the early 2000s. Most number 3s come into bat way earlier than they would prefer, ponting just had the opportunity to put the hammer down once the hayden-langer platform was set.

Nah

 

[simonlee48]

Ponting played different minnows of the day though - the NZ bowling attack pre Bond... The Indian bowling attack away from home,

Ah, making a case for Sanga over Ponting and talking about scoring against good bowling. Can't be more funny.

Sanga against SA, Aus, NZ & Eng: Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

It's funny that you talking about Ponting and making a point about India being poor when bowling away.

Sanga in India: Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

So Sanga has not scored heavily against Aus, SA, NZ, Eng & India in India. He scored heavily only against Pakistan and that's sums it up when it comes to his ability to consistently score against good bowlers. Only one good bowling side he has scored heavily in all conditions and that is Pakistan. He was not alone in scoring heavily against Pakistan. Amla/AB/Sehwag/Ponting/Lara and many others did that in this period.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...0;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

--------------

Ponting had issue only in India. He was comfortably better than Sanga.

 

[viriya]

For completion's sake on the point about the point of entry, here are the average point of entry scores for each of the modern greats:

Sanga: 33/1
Dravid: 43/1
Ponting: 50/1
Lara: 61/2 (37/1 at #3)
Tendulkar: 89/2
Kallis: 96/2 (37/1 at #3)

As pointed out, Ponting had the most convenient entry at #3 and Tendulkar and Kallis both got in when the team was in fairly decent positions. Sanga and Lara both came into the crease on average with the team in some trouble (especially Lara).

 

[simonlee48]

For completion's sake on the point about the point of entry, here are the average point of entry scores for each of the modern greats:

Sanga: 33/1
Dravid: 43/1
Ponting: 50/1
Lara: 61/2 (37/1 at #3)
Tendulkar: 89/2
Kallis: 96/2 (37/1 at #3)

As pointed out, Ponting had the most convenient entry at #3 and Tendulkar and Kallis both got in when the team was in fairly decent positions. Sanga and Lara both came into the crease on average with the team in some trouble (especially Lara).

I have a serious questions for all of you. I am quoting Viriya but question is not only to him. Sanga debuted in 00s. Let's pick some of the good batsmen who debuted in early part of 00s.

AB: Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Amla: Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Clarke: Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Sanga: Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo


Can some of you give me solid reasons to rate Sanga higher than AB/Amla/Clarke? Let's keep, BD/Zim aside( I meant runs/tons in each inning kind of idiotic argument which is based on playing a lot against BD as compared to AB/Amla/Clarke ).

 

[Top_Cat]

For completion's sake on the point about the point of entry, here are the average point of entry scores for each of the modern greats:

Sanga: 33/1
Dravid: 43/1
Ponting: 50/1
Lara: 61/2 (37/1 at #3)
Tendulkar: 89/2
Kallis: 96/2 (37/1 at #3)

As pointed out, Ponting had the most convenient entry at #3 and Tendulkar and Kallis both got in when the team was in fairly decent positions. Sanga and Lara both came into the crease on average with the team in some trouble (especially Lara).

I find this a bit of a pointless stat, tbh. On average, OZ had better openers, sure, but this ignores all the times Ponting did the job when coming in at 1/not much anyway. Plus, as has been said many, many times over the years coming in at a tough time can snap a bloke into focus. It's nowhere near as simple to say that higher runs coming in = easier, especially so early in an innings where so many things can happen quickly.

 

[viriya]

I find this a bit of a pointless stat, tbh. On average, OZ had better openers, sure, but this ignores all the times Ponting did the job when coming in at 1/not much anyway. Plus, as has been said many, many times over the years coming in at a tough time can snap a bloke into focus. It's nowhere near as simple to say that higher runs coming in = easier, especially so early in an innings where so many things can happen quickly.

Of course there were times when Ponting had to come in early.. that's why this is the average point of entry over his whole career - it doesn't ignore those times. Sometimes he would come in with not much on the board but the numbers say Sanga would on average come in at a 66% lower score on the board than Ponting. I think it's quite clear that higher runs on the board does make things easier, especially when it comes to early on in the innings when the new ball might be moving around.

 

[viriya]

Can some of you give me solid reasons to rate Sanga higher than AB/Amla/Clarke? Let's keep, BD/Zim aside( I meant runs/tons in each inning kind of idiotic argument which is based on playing a lot against BD as compared to AB/Amla/Clarke ).

In a nutshell, it's his higher propensity to get a big score, and his dominance in familiar conditions.

I think the whole point of the discussion in the last few pages was that it doesn't make sense just to exclude Ban/Zim performances when some player's best performances were vs those weaker teams. Discounting them makes sense, but not straight excluding them. Performances vs them end up in the "doesn't matter if you get runs, doesn't matter if you don't" category which doesn't make sense. A better batsman would dominate weaker opponents. AB averages 17 vs Ban over 4 tests - is that something that should be completely ignored since Ban is weak? He obviously has the ability to do well vs Ban, but he has to actually go out and dominate - it's the results that matter. Incidentally, of the three batsmen, I consider AB the one that could actually get to ATG level.

 

[Burgey]

Wait, are people saying Sangakkara is a better player than Ponting was?

 

[Riggins]

I've read on here before a comparison of Ponting coming in with the score below 50 and the score above 50, and his statistics were almost exactly the same. No idea if it holds for the others, but suspect it would all be pretty similar.

 

[Top_Cat]

Of course there were times when Ponting had to come in early.. that's why this is the average point of entry over his whole career - it doesn't ignore those times. Sometimes he would come in with not much on the board but the numbers say Sanga would on average come in at a 66% lower score on the board than Ponting. I think it's quite clear that higher runs on the board does make things easier, especially when it comes to early on in the innings when the new ball might be moving around.

Again, though, it's a measurable difference without meaning. Does this mean Ponting had it easier than Sangakkara? Does the magnitude of the difference really mean anything? By itself, it's open to wildly differing interpretations. In concert with other data or context it might approach meaning something but even then there are too many uncontrolled variables, bias and confounds to be even remotely sure of anything. And that's saying nothing about the distribution about the mean which I strongly suspect would have long thick tails and a right skew.

Too hard to make the data useable, too easy to poke holes in the measurement, ergo, pointless.

 

[viriya]

Of course it would be used in conjunction with other factors, but to say that it's pointless is a stretch imo. Just because Ponting came to the crease when the team was in a better position on average than Sanga doesn't mean Sanga was better of course - it's just a measure to show what it was trying to, nothing more.

Some more stats for ****s & giggles:
Sanga: mean: 33, stdev: 38, skew: 2.6, median: 22
Ponting: mean: 50, stdev: 53, skew: 1.8, median: 33

Sanga came to the crease with <25 runs on the board 53% of the time, Ponting 39% of the time. Difference is even starker at <5 runs on the board: Sanga 23%, Ponting 14%.

 

[simonlee48]

In a nutshell, it's his higher propensity to get a big score, and his dominance in familiar conditions.

Let's take it one by one. I will stick with AB here to make my point.

Dominance in familiar conditions.

I will say dominating in familiar conditions and yet having a comparable avg is negative for Sanga. A batsman is surely better if avg are comparable but has a balanced record.

AB can play well in all conditions. AB has no place where he averages in 30s but Sanga has 3. I will take balanced record here without hesitation.

Higher propensity to get a big score

AB scores 100 in each 8 inning and Sanga does it in 7. AB has 174, 178, 169, 217*, 278*, 160* kind of scores despite batting lower down the order. How much is the real difference here to give brownie points to Sanga? Also, you can use the reverse argument that AB is more consistent and it's not as if he doesn't score tons. He has 19 tons despite batting lower.

I think the whole point of the discussion in the last few pages was that it doesn't make sense just to exclude Ban/Zim performances when some player's best performances were vs those weaker teams. Discounting them makes sense, but not straight excluding them. Performances vs them end up in the "doesn't matter if you get runs, doesn't matter if you don't" category which doesn't make sense. A better batsman would dominate weaker opponents. AB averages 17 vs Ban over 4 tests - is that something that should be completely ignored since Ban is weak? He obviously has the ability to do well vs Ban, but he has to actually go out and dominate - it's the results that matter. Incidentally, of the three batsmen, I consider AB the one that could actually get to ATG level.

Just for perspective , BD has been giving 50 runs to pick up each wicket in the last 10 years. To put it in another words, average batsmen have scored 50 runs against BD.

No one has played so many games vs teams like BD so it's unfair to take runs against BD as a huge point to prove that Sanga is better than AB/Amla/Clarke when even average batsmen scores 50 runs. I don't find it hard to imagine that Amla/AB/Clarke will score heavily if they play 15 tests against them. Talking about 2-3 tests and 15 tests are totally different thing.

Sachin averages 136, Kallis averages 79, Dravid 70, Chanderpaul 125 --- These are some of the better batsmen who got to play more tests against BD. Sanga just happen to play even more tests agaisnt BD. Trend is for scoring heavily if you get to play them often. More you play against then , chances of getting truck load of runs increases. Heck, even Jaya and Dilshan got 1K+ runs with 70+ avg. I am not saying that it's useless to score runs against BD but seriously, entire argument seems to be built on BD here.

---------------------------------------

It seems AB is as good if not better than Sanga. I am not even bringing AB's ability to play 20(100) and 80(80) in the same series to save and win the test. Ability to play so differently at will is rare. AB has more going for him than Sanga but I am interested to hear why Sanga should be rated higher here.

Sanga/AB/Amla/Clarke debuted in early 00s and still playing. Anyone else is ready to take a shot at why Sanga is much better than AB/Amla/Clarke crowd?

 

[Migara]

The only problem is that you fail to appreciate if Sanga plays a series in WI or IND today, it will be nothing short of carnage given ho weak their bowling attacks are. Heck even Samaraweera, MJ, Jayasuriya average more than 40. Malinda Warnapura averages 56 against them. I

 

[simonlee48]

Wait, are people saying Sangakkara is a better player than Ponting was?

Forget about Ponting. I am interested to hear why Sanga should be rated higher than AB/Amla/Clarke? All of them debuted in early 00s and still playing like Sanga.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Of course there were times when Ponting had to come in early.. that's why this is the average point of entry over his whole career - it doesn't ignore those times. Sometimes he would come in with not much on the board but the numbers say Sanga would on average come in at a 66% lower score on the board than Ponting. I think it's quite clear that higher runs on the board does make things easier, especially when it comes to early on in the innings when the new ball might be moving around.

Then you'd also need to factor in the conditions that both players spent most of their career playing in, because an early point of entry need not massively co-relate with having to face a new ball moving around if you've played fewer matches in such conditions (which happens to be a defense/criticism, depending on your point of view, of Sanga's career).