***Official**** Sri Lanka in New Zealand 2014/2015

[SteveNZ]

I'm not trying to be a troll - I just can't see the argument for Sachin>Sanga. I admire both as magnificent cricketers.

 

[Jono]

Sangakkara is some kind of special. Laughable that Rigor had to defend saying he's a better Test batsman than Tendulkar, when he so clearly is.

He was saying Lara > Sachin, not Sanga I thought.

 

[SteveNZ]

He was saying Lara > Sachin, not Sanga I thought.

Sorry, quite right he was.

But such is the way of the Indian cricket fan, he probably knew his twitter feed would be submerged in foreign swear words if he didn't clarify it.

 

[Jono]

Yeah they're all mugs let's kill them all.

 

[Jono]

Main thing to take out of this thread is that Mark Richardson isn't stupid enough to think Sanga > Tendulkar.

 

[YorksLanka]

fantastic to see Sanga double up again and more importantly, rescue us from an innings defeat..He really is a class act..Now hopefully our bowlers have seen the lines and lengths that NZ bowled and will try to get inot similar areas to get us a win in this match...Great knock by Chandimal too considering the age of the lad, and the huge amount of pressure he has been under in terms of keeping a place.He has been really messed about by the selctors and still comes back fighting.good on yer chandiguns..

 

[Jono]

and more importantly, rescue us from an innings defeat.

Wait, what?

 

[Maximas]

Chandiguns definately deserved to be dropped after England IMO, guy had to learn to reign it in a bit after falling to the hook all the time, quality player though and he's very much a big part of the future

 

[Maximas]

Wait, what?

Surely meant innings deficit

 

[Jono]

Ah yes of course.

First session tomorrow is just so big.

 

[Teja.]

SteveNZ, if your contention is based on output/batting averages, Tendulkar has both a 130 test streak and a 15 year stretch more than what Sangers is averaging right now.

 

[YorksLanka]

Surely meant innings deficit

sorry yeah my bad...teach me for staying up in the middle of the night to watch cricket!!

 

[Jono]

SteveNZ, if your contention is based on output/batting averages, Tendulkar has both a 130 test streak and a 15 year stretch more than what Sangers is averaging right now.

The worst thing that can happen in this tour thread is it to become a Sanga vs. Sachin thread. Especially with the test so well placed.

If SteveNZ wants to think Sanga > Sachin he can. Just needs to know that Mark Richardson doesn't think that

 

[OverratedSanity]

Agree. But the selectors' mindset is something along the lines of once you've gone to a particular well, there's no point returning when it's proven shallow - even if the one next to it looks as barren, if not worse. And it's hard to argue that.

Sangakkara is some kind of special. Laughable that Rigor had to defend saying he's a better Test batsman than Tendulkar, when he so clearly is.

If SteveNZ wants to think Sanga > Sachin he can. Just needs to know that Mark Richardson doesn't think that

Richardson couldn't say blasphemous things like Sachin>Sanga on air, obviously. He knew it was trouble

 

[Jono]

!!!

 

[Blocky]

SteveNZ, if your contention is based on output/batting averages, Tendulkar has both a 130 test streak and a 15 year stretch more than what Sangers is averaging right now.

Right, now go compare those numbers against Sanga's when he gave up the gloves and see that he's no where near what Sanga has managed since that point.

Courtesy of that thread.

Tendulkar's best period with the bat ( 1997 - 2011 ) - average of 59.x
Sanga's entire career - average of 58.9, likely to be 60 before he retires.
Sanga's best period (post gloves) - average of 70.

So, he scores more runs per innings, he scores a lot more runs per test, he scores hundreds at a faster rate (just), he scores a lot more big daddy hundreds, he also bats three for his side, instead of four.

Every statistical output you seek has Sanga ahead. It's kind of the similar argument when people try to say Warne was greater than Murali - they don't like that Murali's action was dodgy as all **** and he didn't look as classical as Warne, but pure statistical output would suggest Murali was lightyears more effective.

 

[Blocky]

And in the Australian sense of things (before they got pussies for captains like Clarke and Smith) - if you're the best bat in your side, you bat #3. Tendulkar was always sheltered at 4 behind some pretty competent batsman in Sehwag, Dravid and Gambhir.

 

[hendrix]

Disagree. Your most defensively sound batsmen bat 3. Not necessarily best.

 

[Jezroy]

Pretty sure Jarshall was picked as a specialist fielder.

No. He got a magnificent 161 vs Ireland in this high stakes ODI - 1st Match: Ireland v New Zealand at Aberdeen, Jul 1, 2008 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

That was his last ODI as well. For shame.

 

[Blocky]

Disagree. Your most defensively sound batsmen bat 3. Not necessarily best.

Let's see.

Clem Hill.
Don Bradman.
Neil Harvey.
Ian Chappell.
Greg Chappell.
David Boon.
Ricky Ponting.

Since Ricky Ponting retired, no batsman has been able to make #3 their own - yet you don't see Clarke or Smith put their hands up to move there. Australia has pretty much always had their best performing batsman at #3 from since before Bradman all the way through. From Bradman to Harvey, Harvey to Ian Chappell, Ian Chappell to Greg Chappell, Greg Chappell to David Boon, David Boon to Ricky Ponting.... now, "Anyone but Clarke or Smith"