How good is Sanga?

[Blocky]

It's ironic because the argument that Lara supporters used to make in favour of him against Sachin was that Lara put on runs against the better teams and better bowlers while Sachin did it against weaker teams.

Now revisionist history would turn that argument around to suit Sachin.

 

[Jono]

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.

Yeah I in particular love how we have yet to replace Ganguly at #6.

He probably could have retired in 2012 after the Eng series in India, but anytime earlier would have been horrible for India. Anyone who thinks a team should have Laxman, Dravid and Tendulkar all retire simultaneously doesn't understand transition. Doing that at the same time as Sehwag became crud is also stupid.

 

[Stace]

Tendulkar = The little master
Sangakkara =The headmaster

 

[Dan]

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, "he averaged 40 in his last two years, letting the team and his statistical legacy down!" is a complete myth when the next-best batting option wouldn't have been likely to average 40 in Test cricket.

Ricky Ponting a prime example IMO. He was pretty **** by his standards for the last couple of years of his career, averaging about 37 IIRC. Killed his career average, but FMD when the alternative to him is more Shaun Marsh, Rob Quiney or some other pretty useless shunt before the advent of Steve Smith (not to mention the likely reduced batting output of a moved-up Clarke, and the experience deficit left by his absence when a lot of players were still establishing themselves/Clarke was first becoming captain), I don't think you can possibly argue that not averaging his career average for those last 2 years "let the team down".

Ruined his statistical legacy, yes. Which goes to show how ****ing inane and asinine debates about statistical legacies actually are.

 

[Jarquis]

Should've picked Ronnie Mac

 

[viriya]

Yeah, "he averaged 40 in his last two years, letting the team and his statistical legacy down!" is a complete myth when the next-best batting option wouldn't have been likely to average 40 in Test cricket.

Ricky Ponting a prime example IMO. He was pretty **** by his standards for the last couple of years of his career, averaging about 37 IIRC. Killed his career average, but FMD when the alternative to him is more Shaun Marsh, Rob Quiney or some other pretty useless shunt before the advent of Steve Smith (not to mention the likely reduced batting output of a moved-up Clarke, and the experience deficit left by his absence when a lot of players were still establishing themselves/Clarke was first becoming captain), I don't think you can possibly argue that not averaging his career average for those last 2 years "let the team down".

Ruined his statistical legacy, yes. Which goes to show how ****ing inane and asinine debates about statistical legacies actually are.

Averaging 40 would've been fine.. he averaged 27 though. And India have a lot of batting options even compared to Australia - it's not the same comparison.

 

[cnerd123]

He actually averaged 26 in his final 15 innings (10 matches).

Since the WC ended, he scored 1229 runs in 23 matches at an average of 32.34 with 9 fifties - this was in Aus, Eng and against NZ and WI at home.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Not terrible returns, but you could argue a new batsman could have done better. However you have to factor in Sachin's experience in the dressing room and his mentoring of the younger batsmen. Plus throwing a youngster in against Eng and Aus away from home could have wrecked them (Like Raina).

 

[Prince EWS]

To me, even if he played on for another 20 years averaging 7, it still shouldn't detract from his legacy. If someone wants to play cricket then he should make himself available. If he's not up to it and is selected anyway, that's on the selectors; not the player,

 

[Cabinet96]

Yeah, "he averaged 40 in his last two years, letting the team and his statistical legacy down!" is a complete myth when the next-best batting option wouldn't have been likely to average 40 in Test cricket.

Ricky Ponting a prime example IMO. He was pretty **** by his standards for the last couple of years of his career, averaging about 37 IIRC. Killed his career average, but FMD when the alternative to him is more Shaun Marsh, Rob Quiney or some other pretty useless shunt before the advent of Steve Smith (not to mention the likely reduced batting output of a moved-up Clarke, and the experience deficit left by his absence when a lot of players were still establishing themselves/Clarke was first becoming captain), I don't think you can possibly argue that not averaging his career average for those last 2 years "let the team down".

Ruined his statistical legacy, yes. Which goes to show how ****ing inane and asinine debates about statistical legacies actually are.

Yeah, and you could argue his carrying on helped players like Smith, by allowing them a few years to improve their game and get ready, rather than be part of yet another selection merry go round.

 

[Dan]

Since the WC ended, he scored 1229 runs in 23 matches at an average of 32.34 with 9 fifties - this was in Aus, Eng and against NZ and WI at home.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Not terrible returns, but you could argue a new batsman could have done better. However you have to factor in Sachin's experience in the dressing room and his mentoring of the younger batsmen. Plus throwing a youngster in against Eng and Aus away from home could have wrecked them (Like Raina).

Well, when you have ~15000 Test runs at 55, you arguably should get quite a bit of leeway before being sacked for a younger guy. How many older guys have been prematurely thrown out (or threatened to have it happen) because their period of bad form, which most batsmen would come out the other side of, just so happened to occur at 35 years of age.

When you've got an ATG batsman on your side, it's a pretty big call to drop him 2-3 games after the 2011 World Cup because you think it's terminal decline, not just a rough patch. Very, very easy to select in hindsight.

 

[Cabinet96]

Worth noting a significant amount of people probably considered him the best batsman in the world when the World Cup ended. They weren't going to give up on him because his 12 months after that was poor.

 

[cnerd123]

Well in Sachin's case he was never going to be dropped, was he?

Just responding to those who think he overstayed his time in the team - perhaps he did, but there is more to cricket than simply the runs you score. A man with his talent and experience is invaluable in a young side that is rebuilding, even if he is averaging 26 wit the bat. Mike Brealey averaged less over his entire career!

 

[Jono]

Basically if you hold the last few years of Ponting, Tendulkar and Dravid against their whole legacy and career you suck. Who cares if you are ordinary at 38. How does it take away from you being the teams best bat a few years before for ages? All the runs you scored for your team in the years before still matter even if your average isn't as big by career end.

 

[cnerd123]

Basically if you hold the last few years of Ponting, Tendulkar and Dravid against their whole legacy and career you suck. Who cares if you are ordinary at 38. How does it take away from you being the teams best bat a few years before for ages? All the runs you scored for your team in the years before still matter even if your average isn't as big by career end.

Following on with that logic, how would you say Sanga's legacy stands against Sachin's?

 

[Jono]

Worth noting a significant amount of people probably considered him the best batsman in the world when the World Cup ended. They weren't going to give up on him because his 12 months after that was poor.

Yep. At the time of the world cup Sachin was the best test batsman in the world in the number 1 ranked team. He retracted quickly from the end of 2011 onwards. End of 2010 he was toning up against Steyn In Cape Town.

 

[Prince EWS]

Basically if you hold the last few years of Ponting, Tendulkar and Dravid against their whole legacy and career you suck. Who cares if you are ordinary at 38. How does it take away from you being the teams best bat a few years before for ages? All the runs you scored for your team in the years before still matter even if your average isn't as big by career end.

See I definitely wouldn't look at like that despite agreeing with you by and large. Someone who is crap at 38 loses points (or perhaps "gains less points" is a better way to put it) when compared to someone who is good at 38, to me.

What I think is really absurd though is marking someone down for being crap at 38 in comparison to someone who retired at 34. Making yourself available should never count against you.

 

[OverratedSanity]

See I definitely wouldn't look at like that despite agreeing with you by and large. Someone who is crap at 38 loses points (or perhaps "gains less points" is a better way to put it) when compared to someone who is good at 38, to me.

What I think is really absurd though is marking someone down for being crap at 38 in comparison to someone who retired at 34. Making yourself available should never count against you.

Hmmm.... what's your opinion on Greg Chappell then? He had, for all intents and purposes, a 12 year career... literally half the career Tendulkar had in terms of length.

 

[Cabinet96]

See I definitely wouldn't look at like that despite agreeing with you by and large. Someone who is crap at 38 loses points (or perhaps "gains less points" is a better way to put it) when compared to someone who is good at 38, to me.

What I think is really absurd though is marking someone down for being crap at 38 in comparison to someone who retired at 34. Making yourself available should never count against you.

Do you ever think less of a batsman for having a poor twilight of their career? In an overall sense of their career I mean.

 

[thierry henry]

Who cares if you are ordinary at 38.

Well by the same token, if someone like Sanga is just as good if not better than usual during his twilight years (and by usual standards I would suggest that at 37 he is well into them), that surely earns him credit over the players who deteriorate significantly over the last few years of their careers.

That's not to say Tendulkar/Ponting's achievements earlier in their careers are devalued by later failures, but it is to say that in a head to head comparison with Sanga (if he continues in this vein) you'd have to accept that he continued with outstanding performances well into cricketing old-age, while some of his contemporaries who were his equal or better during their primes fell away more. And that might (obviously it doesn't for a lot of people) be the decisive factor in deciding that you prefer Sanga overall, if you see him as being in pretty close competition with the Pontings or Tendulkars.

FWIW I do see Sanga as being quite comparable to Sachin or Ponting, and I might just be inclined to rate him higher if he rounds out his career without ever deteriorating (as I would consider 37 to already be a pretty advanced age, and I would say he has already proven his rare ability to be outstanding at this age) as well as having kept for such a big chunk of his career, and having achieved such an extraordinary record when playing as a batsman alone. By all means, I understand the arguments that the "top tier" guys are a level above Sanga, but I just can't get to that place myself.

 

[Jono]

See I definitely wouldn't look at like that despite agreeing with you by and large. Someone who is crap at 38 loses points (or perhaps "gains less points" is a better way to put it) when compared to someone who is good at 38, to me.

What I think is really absurd though is marking someone down for being crap at 38 in comparison to someone who retired at 34. Making yourself available should never count against you.

No that's what I'm getting at. Clearly someone who continues to be awesome gets points.

But someone who is awesome from 20 to 37 but ordinary from 37 to 40 doesn't get less points than someone who is awesome from 25 to 40 but didn't play before that.