How good is Sanga?

[Spark]

Don't know. But he needs to stick around for two more seasons, till 2017 may be. Another two batsmen have to step up to fill Sanga's and Mahela's boots. Chandimal is one of them for sure. Having very high hopes of Kaushal Silva, but he is 30+ at the moment. But 5 seasons averaging 40, at the top wouldn't do any harm.

Yeah this is what I mean. A few years averaging 40 will make some people feel it "devalues his legacy" somehow when given the needs of the team the exact opposite is true.

 

[Blocky]

I don't see him having those "few years averaging 40" personally. He has a very uncomplicated batting style, he adjusts quicker than almost anyone I've seen and he scores runs for days at home in conditions that suit him. The biggest difference between he and Tendulkar comes down to the big daddy hundreds. It used to be why people rated Lara ahead of Tendulkar, the ability to go on and make a score that changed the match, rather than a sparkling hundred - towards the end of his career Tendulkar started doing that but no where near as prolific as Sanga has been.

Even if Sanga starts to score less centuries, which granted could happen - I think you'll see him hit enough big daddies that'll keep his average season by season above 50.

 

[Blocky]

He also doesn't have the elbow and back injuries that the little master was said to have struggled through in his later years.

 

[Blocky]

But to temper that - I think you'll see Sanga retire at the end of the world cup from all formats.

 

[hendrix]

But to temper that - I think you'll see Sanga retire at the end of the world cup from all formats.

I think that was his plan but i believe SL has asked him to carry on in Tests for a little while while they go through their transition period.

 

[Blocky]

I think that was his plan but i believe SL has asked him to carry on in Tests for a little while while they go through their transition period.

Sure - but my understanding is that he's said "Maybe I have a few more months left in me" - I highly doubt he'll play post 2015. I guess it depends on how close he gets to 13000 and whether or not he wants to chase that as a milestone. I'm also not sure that Sri Lanka play an awful lot of cricket this year post the world cup, I can't find a schedule which has any matches for them post the WC.

Here you go

http://www.espncricinfo.com/new-zealand-v-sri-lanka-2014-15/content/story/816369.html

What he said yesterday about test cricket.


"I would love to equal Bradman," Sangakkara said. "It just depends on how everything pans out after this World Cup. It's really hard to predict what will happen and what my thoughts will be about my future. I've promised the selectors that I'll really have a chat and reconsider to see if there are a few more months of cricket in me, Test-wise."

He's not going to be around that much longer, unfortunately for world cricket. I'd love to see him kick on and play late like Misbah has because I think within 2-3 years, he'll surpass Tendulkar in runs and break a tonne of other batting records in the process too, but I think he has his heart set on being gone by 2016.

 

[The Sean]

The FTP actually had Sri Lanka playing 10 Tests against four different opponents between June 2015 and January 2016, but I've no idea if the Holy Trinity have decided yet whether or not that is allowed.

 

[jonbrooks]

One hell of an innings. The Sanga naysayers on this thread seem to have retired hurt, except the guy who still rates Jayawardene above him, presumably because "cricket is more than just a game about statistics" :-)

I am definitely not a Sanga naysayer. He's a superb batsman and an ATG. No one can deny that. However I stand by my point that cricket is more than just statistics. Hadlee had a better average and more wickets than Lillee but most would agree that Lillee was the slightly better bowler. Likewise for Sanga, his stats make fantastic reading but there are many batsmen who are better than him.

 

[weldone]

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Here's Tendulkar averaging more than Sangakkara over more than 130 Tests with more hundreds

This is even better
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

13607 runs in 159 matches @ 59.41, with 47 centuries !

In other news, Viv Richards opined yesterday that Tendulkar and Sangakkara are the 2 best batsmen of the modern times in terms of adapting well to different formats. I think that's slightly unfair to Lara and Ponting; isn't it?

 

[weldone]

So the "peak" of Tendulkar's career has an average of .3 or so more than Sanga's entire career. Yet the peak of Sanga's career has an average of 10 more than Tendulkars best period. Go figure.

You don't get the point, do you? The point is that Tendulkar's "peak" is longer than Sangakkara's career.

 

[Spark]

That wasn't quite what I got as the point tbh. The point was more that Tendulkar gives you a player of basically Sanga's quality stats-wise (which, let's be honest, is what Sanga's claim to greatness is primarily based on) plus quite a few more years of perfectly adequate Test standard batsmanship on top.

 

[weldone]

You don't get the point, do you? The point is that Tendulkar's "peak" is longer than Sangakkara's career.

That wasn't quite what I got as the point tbh. The point was more that Tendulkar gives you a player of basically Sanga's quality stats-wise (which, let's be honest, is what Sanga's claim to greatness is primarily based on) plus quite a few more years of perfectly adequate Test standard batsmanship on top.

I thought I was implying the same thing.

 

[Blocky]

You don't get the point, do you? The point is that Tendulkar's "peak" is longer than Sangakkara's career.

You're removing years that make Tendulkar look better than he actually was, while talking about his peak career - which only happens to be about .3 of a run better than Sanga's entire career, considering Sanga has played in a weaker side for most of that period, at #3 - while also being a wicket keeper.

Looking at Sanga's peak - no other player has sustained an average of 65+ over as many tests as Sanga has since giving away the gloves.

 

[weldone]

1993 to 2010 is 18 years - that's longer than most people's careers, and Tendulkar regularly faced about 10 among world's all-time best 20 bowlers during that time too...13.5k runs @ 59.5 in 18 years against these bowlers is just insanely mind-boggling...if you can't see the awesomeness of this, then I have nothing to say

Sanga has done nothing even remotely close to that. It's a pointless comparison.

 

[Jono]

Providing competent if not ATG batting whilst the team is in transition and taking an average hit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Retiring early to retain a high career average

Yeah this is what I mean. A few years averaging 40 will make some people feel it "devalues his legacy" somehow when given the needs of the team the exact opposite is true.

These people are idiots though, and when people speak about players retiring to secure their high average and legacy, it is a good thing because you know going forward to discard their opinions on everything cricket related.

 

[hendrix]

1993 to 2010 is 18 years - that's longer than most people's careers, and Tendulkar regularly faced about 10 among world's all-time best 20 bowlers during that time too...13.5k runs @ 59.5 in 18 years against these bowlers is just insanely mind-boggling...if you can't see the awesomeness of this, then I have nothing to say

Sanga has done nothing even remotely close to that. It's a pointless comparison.

He's done plenty close to that, but not as much as that, IMO.

 

[viriya]

Don't know. But he needs to stick around for two more seasons, till 2017 may be. Another two batsmen have to step up to fill Sanga's and Mahela's boots. Chandimal is one of them for sure. Having very high hopes of Kaushal Silva, but he is 30+ at the moment. But 5 seasons averaging 40, at the top wouldn't do any harm.

High likelihood that 2015 is his last year based on what he's saying.

 

[viriya]

These people are idiots though, and when people speak about players retiring to secure their high average and legacy, it is a good thing because you know going forward to discard their opinions on everything cricket related.

Anyone who thinks Sachin hung around 2 more years than he should've because "the team needed him for transition" is lying to themselves. It was quite obvious he was chasing milestones. Every single one of my Indian friends agrees he hung around too long for no real good reason. India has the world's best batting talent, probably enough to fill 2 sides, and they are showing that in Australia atm. For all the flak Rohit has been getting for all of his 9 tests, I highly doubt he would've averaged 27 over 2 years if he had been given the chance back then.

 

[Blocky]

The whole "Tendulkar scored more runs during his peak years" isn't true once you count Sanga's peak years. Sanga scores more centuries per innings, bigger centuries, more runs per test, more runs per innings, a better strike rate in his bigger innings, etcetera.

The whole "But Tendulkar did it against better bowlers" also isn't true when you consider how many attacks were weak and the general overall averages of Tendulkar's pomp in the 00s versus averages of Sanga's pomp in the 10s - less and less batsmen are managing the 50+ averages, more and more bowlers are averaging lower than 25 with the ball.

I think the current generation of fast bowlers are probably better than any generation since the Lillee/Hadlee/Garner/Marshall/Holding era. The spinners aren't as good as the Murali/Warne era but then both of these guys scored runs against the very best spinners.

I say it again, Tendulkars "peak" years are only .3 runs per innings better than Sanga's entire career.

 

[akilana]

1993 to 2010 is 18 years - that's longer than most people's careers, and Tendulkar regularly faced about 10 among world's all-time best 20 bowlers during that time too...13.5k runs @ 59.5 in 18 years against these bowlers is just insanely mind-boggling...if you can't see the awesomeness of this, then I have nothing to say

Sanga has done nothing even remotely close to that. It's a pointless comparison.

He didn't average 59 against any of those great bowlers. He was just okay against Donald and co, Wasim/waqar and McGrath etc. I don't think he averaged over 55 against any of those great attacks.