How good is Sanga?

[OverratedSanity]

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.

Personally don't care for records against minnows at all. This stuff that great batsmen have to dominate minnows is nonsense. There's a reason Bangladesh are minnows... They've never won a proper test against a good team, but even that not the point. They've hardly ever even caused a top 8 team a flutter of a problem. They had that Test at fatullah, and a test against Pakistan when inzi saved them and a couple of others. The reason runs against them virtually don't count at all is because of Sanga doesn't get the runs, odds are someone else is going to. The runs really count for very very little.

I know I'll get slayed a bit for this, but if it was me, I'd just strike off records against minnows completely. The definition of a minnow for me is a team that is so bad it doesn't deserve test status... Performances against them just shouldn't count as real "test" performances.

 

[simonlee48]

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. I

Sanga averaged 74 against India when playing in SL. In the same period he averaged mid 30s in India. So I am not sure how this will go.

I agree that India is surely weaker in spin department but guys like Ashwin are not doing bad on turners in India. India is still a very difficult proposition when at home and that has something to do with them having sharp turners in recent years. Anyway, we can only speculate here. I will bank on Sanga to improve his record in India but it's not easy to play Indians on turning tracks. I seriously doubt that we will see any carnage.

 

[simonlee48]

Personally don't care for records against minnows at all. This stuff that great batsmen have to dominate minnows is nonsense. There's a reason Bangladesh are minnows... They've never won a proper test against a good team, but even that not the point. They've hardly ever even caused a top 8 team a flutter of a problem. They had that Test at fatullah, and a test against Pakistan when inzi saved them and a couple of others. The reason runs against them virtually don't count at all is because of Sanga doesn't get the runs, odds are someone else is going to. The runs really count for very very little.

I know I'll get slayed a bit for this, but if it was me, I'd just strike off records against minnows completely. The definition of a minnow for me is a team that is so bad it doesn't deserve test status... Performances against them just shouldn't count as real "test" performances.

I am willing to give some points for even those runs but it seems Sanga being better than Amla/AB/Clarke is entirely based on BD factor. Sanga has played more tests against BD than other 3 combined. It seems silly to use this as a deciding factor.

 

[viriya]

The reason runs against them virtually don't count at all is because of Sanga doesn't get the runs, odds are someone else is going to. The runs really count for very very little.

That's not really true though. Take the 319 Sanga made vs them recently. The other batsmen combined for just 268 and SL were bowled out with Sanga going for broke running out of partners in the end. SL would have been looking at a 150+ deficit if he had gotten a duck instead.

 

[viriya]

I will say dominating in familiar conditions and yet having a comparable avg is negative for Sanga.

He doesn't though. Only when you take out Ban/Zim which would actually lower AB's average. Take the last Zim test, the pitch turned from day 1 and run-making wasn't easy even though the opposition was weak. SA made 450+ at Galle but failed to make 400 in Zim. Were runs made in SA's first innings not worthwhile?

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?

If the argument is that he comes in late, he should also average higher since he has an opportunity for more not-outs.

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.

If you want to talk small sample size then you have to apply this to Sanga's small sample sizes in different countries as well. Point is AB hasn't done well vs Ban, and almost all great batsmen do dominate lesser opposition. If you want to do a fair comparison scaling each players tests vs different opposition would be the way to go. Feel free to do this (the Tendulkar vs Sanga scaled comparison showed almost identical averages).

The Bangladesh point is not major though, like I said AB is not far from ATG status - he is only 30 and should be at his prime now.. As it is, he is just below, but not by a lot. One other reason I rate Sanga higher is because of his longevity - AB just has to maintain/exceed his standards for 2-3 more years and he will be up there.

Clarke probably has 2-3 years left and is unlikely to bat as well going forward going by how batsmen decline with age usually (Sanga being the exception here). Amla is older than AB and has played less tests, so less likely to end with as great a career record as AB.

 

[simonlee48]

The Bangladesh point is not major though, like I said AB is not far from ATG status - he is only 30 and should be at his prime now.. As it is, he just below, but not by a lot. One other reason I rate Sanga higher is because of his longevity - AB just has to maintain/exceed his standards for 2-3 more years and he will be up there.

Clarke probably has 2-3 years left and is unlikely to bat as well going forward going by how batsmen decline with age usually (Sanga being the exception here). Amla is older than AB and has played less tests, so less likely to end with as great a career record as AB.

If BD point is not the major one then AB/Amla/Clarke have played only 2-3 years less than Sanga. You could surely give more points to Sanga for those 2-3 years but I don't see any big difference in performance between Sanga and AB/Amla/Clarke. They debuted in early 00s and still playing. Let's see how they do in coming years and who ends up doing better.

 

[OverratedSanity]

That's not really true though. Take the 319 Sanga made vs them recently. The other batsmen combined for just 268 and SL were bowled out with Sanga going for broke running out of partners in the end. SL would have been looking at a 150+ deficit if he had gotten a duck instead.

That's just an incredibly simplistic way to look at that innings.

 

[viriya]

If BD point is not the major one then AB/Amla/Clarke have played only 2-3 years less than Sanga. You could surely give more points to Sanga for those 2-3 years but I don't see any big difference in performance between Sanga and AB/Amla/Clarke. They debuted in early 00s and still playing. Let's see how they do in coming years.

I'm not saying there's a big difference - when it comes to great players there's never a big difference. I also don't think there's a big difference between those batsmen and Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting, Kallis or Dravid either (quantitatively I'd say it's a 10-15% difference which isn't big at all). We are making judgments based on small details here after all.

 

[simonlee48]

I'm not saying there's a big difference - when it comes to great players there's never a big difference. I also don't think there's a big difference between those batsmen and Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting, Kallis or Dravid either (quantitatively I'd say it's a 10-15% difference which isn't big at all). We are making judgments based on small details here after all.

I will say that Sachin/Lara/Ponting were comfortably better than Dravid/Kallis even though statistically they fall in the same range. Simply based on seeing them bat for entire career. I can't really quantify it but agree with over all post. Difference is not huge like - One batsman is as good as only 65% of other.

 

[Riggins]

10-15% is a huge difference.

 

[DingDong]

That's just an incredibly simplistic way to look at that innings.

why?

 

[akilana]

I will say that Sachin/Lara/Ponting were comfortably better than Dravid/Kallis even though statistically they fall in the same range. Simply based on seeing them bat for entire career. I can't really quantify it but agree with over all post. Difference is not huge like - One batsman is as good as only 65% of other.

watched every single innings they played??

 

[simonlee48]

watched every single innings they played??

Watched 70-80% of their knocks. More than enough to judge them and form a strong opinion.

 

[CWB304]

The much bigger problem for me is lumping together Ponting with Lara and Tendulkar as if they share a tier. Very few who saw them bat across their careers would do so. Even guys like Warne and McGrath who were team mates of Ponting never rated him in Lara and Tendulkar's class. One only has to watch a compilation of Ponting's Test innings to see just how regularly he was trapped lbw without being given out (in those pre-DRS days) to realise he had a career-long technical flaw which was only properly exposed towards the end.

 

[Ikki]

I can't believe this travesty of a poll has Sangakkara tied with Tendulkar

Personally don't care for records against minnows at all. This stuff that great batsmen have to dominate minnows is nonsense. There's a reason Bangladesh are minnows... They've never won a proper test against a good team, but even that not the point. They've hardly ever even caused a top 8 team a flutter of a problem. They had that Test at fatullah, and a test against Pakistan when inzi saved them and a couple of others. The reason runs against them virtually don't count at all is because of Sanga doesn't get the runs, odds are someone else is going to. The runs really count for very very little.

I know I'll get slayed a bit for this, but if it was me, I'd just strike off records against minnows completely. The definition of a minnow for me is a team that is so bad it doesn't deserve test status... Performances against them just shouldn't count as real "test" performances.

My policy too. They're so poor as opposition it's worthless. Comparisons in terms of discounting runs are also somewhat worthless as SL tend to play them much more than batsmen from England, S.Africa and Australia for example.

 

[OverratedSanity]

The much bigger problem for me is lumping together Ponting with Lara and Tendulkar as if they share a tier. Very few who saw them bat across their careers would do so. Even guys like Warne and McGrath who were team mates of Ponting never rated him in Lara and Tendulkar's class. One only has to watch a compilation of Ponting's Test innings to see just how regularly he was trapped lbw without being given out (in those pre-DRS days) to realise he had a career-long technical flaw which was only properly exposed towards the end.

He just became rubbish towards the end. Those lbws wouldve been given out even pre-DRS... at his peak the ball wouldnt reach the pads because he'd smash it before it got there.

And really, if it only became a big problem after 130+ tests, it wasn't a career long flaw. For me, Ponting is right up there with Lara and Tendulkar, although probably third.

 

[Spark]

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?

Yeah look even without statistics I can tell you right now that Sanga is well ahead in this department. The only current batsman who can match Sanga in terms of turning starts into big and potentially massive scores is Clarke. He's well ahead of the rest on that front.

 

[Spark]

Re: Pointing and his front pad. I saw bowling attack after bowling attack obsess over it as a potential way to get him out. All that ever happened was he murdered you through midwicket, got to 30 in no time and killed you from there. Typical tell of someone who didn't watch Pointing at his peak as opposed to his decline to think that was a weakness of his.

 

[Flem274*]

yeah to get punter out you needed to troll him outside off and back of a length/bouncing more than usual from a good length early on and hope he didn't get to 30.

 

[Top_Cat]

Or, in other words, bowl the perfect delivery to get Test-standard batsmen out.