How good is Sanga?

[SteveNZ]

You've been disrespectful of Indian fans in another thread but this is beyond that. If you want to judge 1 bill peeps as the same, and treat Twitter trolls exactly the same as OverratedSanity, ***** etc. and myself than I won't debate.

Not to mention virya was the one criticising Sachin for playing on in this thread, an Indian fan.

Ugh.

Apologies if I have, I'm not the sort of person to bait. I just feel like there's a level of one-eyedness when it comes to the lil master. And I get that, he's brought joy to their nation the likes of which I can't comprehend. Same as a Kiwi isn't probably well placed to comment on someone like Dan Carter, who is a god in our eyes but to people overseas probably didn't get the job done as much as he should've.

Even with the teenage and over the hill 40+ years, Sanga's golden periods stack up at or beyond Tendulkar's - do they not? With doubles and triples to weight the argument further?

 

[Maximas]

He's Indian now. Welcome to the club viriya

Mate please leave the little Sri Lankan community alone, there's like 3 of us

 

[Cabinet96]

But why not? Him sucking more than Sanga ever did for a period of time is (arguably) a perfectly good reason to rate him lower.

The concept of "Sanga didn't play during those times" is just weird and artificial to me and assumes that all players should start and stop at the same ages or that they age at the same rate. I'm much more interested in "player A had an extended slump that player B never did" than "player A had a really really long career and player B had a long career".

Maybe each argument is equally valid but I dunno, that's just how I feel yo.

Sanga probably sucked more than him though, that's why he wasn't playing test cricket, that's the point.

 

[Jono]

Mate please leave the little Sri Lankan community alone, there's like 3 of us

 

[Blocky]

Taking the first couple of paragraphs out of the argument, the point is that over a period of Sanga's career, Tendulkar's record is just as good. It's only because he played younger and older (or after his peak, shall we say) that his overall record is poorer. You shouldn't rate him lower because he played in those periods, even if you're not going to rate him higher for it.

But it's not though.

Tendulkar during his absolute peak years (i.e removing his starting couple and ending couple) averages .3 more than Sanga does over his entire career.
Sanga without the gloves averages 70 - 10 more than the "peak" we're talking about Tendulkar having at any stage during his career.

So peak vs peak, Sanga is ahead
Overall career, Sanga is ahead.

The argument from a Sachin perspective really needs to come down to

1. Sachin's record against Australia vs Sanga's record vs Australia
2. Sachin's "40+" in every nation he played in vs Sanga missing out in a couple ( high thirties)
3. Ignoring any effect that being keeper may have on a batsman and judging Sanga's entire career irregardless while removing the starting and ending years of Tendu

Those are the only things that are in his favor other than who you find more aesthetically pleasing ( which for me is Tendulkar )

Runs per innings - Sanga
Runs per test match - Sanga
Conversion Rate - Sanga (just)
Conversion Rate of 100 to 150+ - Sanga, by a long way
Highest innings - Sanga
Highest average - Sanga

The other thing that I think's a little unfair for sides that aren't India, Australia, England and recently South Africa is that Sri Lanka play a lot more two test and three test series than India, Australia, England, South Africa, etc. It's hard to compare overseas records when one team gets five tests to play and another only gets two.

 

[Maximas]

Apologies if I have, I'm not the sort of person to bait. I just feel like there's a level of one-eyedness when it comes to the lil master. And I get that, he's brought joy to their nation the likes of which I can't comprehend. Same as a Kiwi isn't probably well placed to comment on someone like Dan Carter, who is a god in our eyes but to people overseas probably didn't get the job done as much as he should've.

Even with the teenage and over the hill 40+ years, Sanga's golden periods stack up at or beyond Tendulkar's - do they not? With doubles and triples to weight the argument further?

Gotta consider the era Tendulkar peaked in though

 

[Cabinet96]

But it's not though.

Tendulkar during his absolute peak years (i.e removing his starting couple and ending couple) averages .3 more than Sanga does over his entire career.
Sanga without the gloves averages 70 - 10 more than the "peak" we're talking about Tendulkar having at any stage during his career.

So peak vs peak, Sanga is ahead
Overall career, Sanga is ahead.

The argument from a Sachin perspective really needs to come down to

1. Sachin's record against Australia vs Sanga's record vs Australia
2. Sachin's "40+" in every nation he played in vs Sanga missing out in a couple ( high thirties)
3. Ignoring any effect that being keeper may have on a batsman and judging Sanga's entire career irregardless while removing the starting and ending years of Tendu

Those are the only things that are in his favor other than who you find more aesthetically pleasing ( which for me is Tendulkar )

Runs per innings - Sanga
Runs per test match - Sanga
Conversion Rate - Sanga (just)
Conversion Rate of 100 to 150+ - Sanga, by a long way
Highest innings - Sanga
Highest average - Sanga

The other thing that I think's a little unfair for sides that aren't India, Australia, England and recently South Africa is that Sri Lanka play a lot more two test and three test series than India, Australia, England, South Africa, etc. It's hard to compare overseas records when one team gets five tests to play and another only gets two.

Only really read your first sentence because I'm lazy, but please refer to Howe who already made the argument I'm about to make and won't make again, because I'm lazy.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

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

My point's that there's essentially no difference between them except that Tendulkar was playing test and doing ok between the ages of 16 and 23 and Sangakkara was in domestic cricket, debuting at 22. And then there's a couple of dodgy ending years that Sanga seems keen to avoid. The only way you can say Sangakkara's record is clearly better is by claiming that not playing tests and doing decently in them for 7 years are the same, which is senseless

 

[Jono]

Apologies if I have, I'm not the sort of person to bait. I just feel like there's a level of one-eyedness when it comes to the lil master. And I get that, he's brought joy to their nation the likes of which I can't comprehend. Same as a Kiwi isn't probably well placed to comment on someone like Dan Carter, who is a god in our eyes but to people overseas probably didn't get the job done as much as he should've.

Even with the teenage and over the hill 40+ years, Sanga's golden periods stack up at or beyond Tendulkar's - do they not? With doubles and triples to weight the argument further?

I am biased in favour of Sachin, no doubt. But he was actually pretty friggin' magnificent and half of Sachin's praise before the Indian internet cricket community took off was based on the views of foreigners. The standing ovations at Lord's when he came in to bat, the reception and adulation he'd get at the SCG. The comments opposition players would make about him.

Half of the reason why Sachin (and Lara) are held in such high regard is because of the views of non-Indian and non-WI fans.

Anyway 5 years ago I wouldn't have even seen a debate of Sanga vs. Sachin. There is a debate now. But if you say I'm biased for having Sachin > Sanga, I can't be biased for having Ponting > Sanga. And I do, and I love Sanga to bits (2nd fav bat to watch ever) and did not like Punter as a sportsperson during his career.

 

[Blocky]

Gotta consider the era Tendulkar peaked in though

Is also one where a number of players around the world peaked considerably in their careers too..

Ponting, Lara, SWaugh, Dravid, Kallis, Chanderpaul, Hayden, Martyn, Langer, Sanga himself,

Batting and bowling averages were higher in the 00-10s than they were in 10-15 so far.

 

[Maximas]

How about the 90s mate

 

[OverratedSanity]

Is also one where a number of players around the world peaked considerably in their careers too..

Ponting, Lara, SWaugh, Dravid, Kallis, Chanderpaul, Hayden, Martyn, Langer, Sanga himself,

Batting and bowling averages were higher in the 00-10s than they were in 10-15 so far.

00-10 was Tendulkar's peak? Well now I've heard everything.

 

[Blocky]

Only really read your first sentence because I'm lazy, but please refer to Howe who already made the argument I'm about to make and won't make again, because I'm lazy.

And that argument itself is lazy, because it drops any period where Tendulkar might have been "below his best" and asks us to trust that comparing Tendulkar's best 130 tests vs Sanga's 130 tests is a fair indicator. Exactly what the discussion has been about.

Take their best hundred tests, i.e when Sanga hasn't been a wicket keeper for his side and review then - Sanga averages basically 70 as a pure batsman.

 

[Blocky]

How about the 90s mate

Bowling averages were lower in the 90s than the 00s, but higher than they are in 10-15 so far.

But if you look at the players/contempories I compared him against, they're all guys who played during the 90s too except Sanga.

 

[Prince EWS]

Anyway 5 years ago I wouldn't have even seen a debate of Sanga vs. Sachin. There is a debate now. But if you say I'm biased for having Sachin > Sanga, I can't be biased for having Ponting > Sanga. And I do, and I love Sanga to bits (2nd fav bat to watch ever) and did not like Punter as a sportsperson during his career.

Haha it's weird how these things happen and a player who you used to defend has his stature rise to the point where you end up having to argue against them. For most of his career I've rated Sangakkara a fair bit higher than the mean; it looks like the mean is just about to pass me by.

Best example of this was when people started using Samaraweera as an example of someone who'd done well overseas to talk down Mahela and Sanga. Samaraweera, who for years was the best example people could put up for 'inflated averages for subcontinent players at home'.

 

[Blocky]

According to the "Lets compare the 130 tests that Tendu was prime" against Sanga's 130 tests, his prime is apparently 1997 to 2011.

 

[Maximas]

Didn't Samaweera have 1 good tour in his whole career pretty much?

 

[Jono]

Blocky, where do you have Sachin placed in ranking of modern ATG batsmen? Say last 15-20 years?

 

[Blocky]

Blocky, where do you have Sachin placed in ranking of modern ATG batsmen? Say last 15-20 years?

As high as second, marginally though.

I find it hard separating Kallis, Ponting, Dravid, Lara and Tendulkar.

The reason I have Sanga higher than them is A: Conversion ratio of centuries per innings that beats them all, B: A thirst for big scores that is unrivaled by any of them except Lara, C: More consistency around the world than Lara.

 

[Jono]

As high as second, marginally though.

I find it hard separating Kallis, Ponting, Dravid, Lara and Tendulkar.

The reason I have Sanga higher than them is A: Conversion ratio of centuries per innings that beats them all, B: A thirst for big scores that is unrivaled by any of them except Lara, C: More consistency around the world than Lara.

Cool. Thanks.

 

[cnerd123]

But why not? Him sucking more than Sanga ever did for a period of time is (arguably) a perfectly good reason to rate him lower.

The concept of "Sanga didn't play during those times" is just weird and artificial to me and assumes that all players should start and stop at the same ages or that they age at the same rate. I'm much more interested in "player A had an extended slump that player B never did" than "player A had a really really long career and player B had a long career".

Maybe each argument is equally valid but I dunno, that's just how I feel yo.

This is interesting.

Sachin didn't choose to play during the years when he wasn't at his peak. That's why I won't want to hold it against him. Unlike with say, a Tennis player, or an Olympic athlete, he didn't have much say in which Tests he got to take part in. No cricketer really does. They all want to play as much as possible.

He was selected out of nowhere as a kid, he battled through the elbow injury slump for the sake of the team, and hung around after the WC to ensure the transition went smoothly. This should add to is legacy, instead of detracting from it. Or atleast have no effect on it.

Likewise, the fact that Sanga was a keeper should add to his legacy, and the fact that he was selected (relatively) late and may retire without a decline should not be held against him.

Going by this, I feel Sachin has a greater legacy. A brilliant peak, and almost another full career's worth of serviceable batting for a team that needed him around.