How good is Sanga?

[honestbharani]

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?

If he has included adapting to different formats, I don't have a problem with that. I still rate Lara as the best test match batsman I have seen by a close but clear Margin over Sachin, Sanga and Ponting etc.. But if you include all formats and how well players adapted to each and how close they were to their best when playing in all formats (which I do not agree with, as an aside) I feel Sachin, Sanga are clearly the best. I believe Ponting should surely be in the discussion too but Lara lost his head in ODIs since the late 90s and got too funky with his batting position as a captain to actually be consistently close to his best in that format... In terms of ODIs, Lara is one of the biggest underachievers in terms of ability to actual output...

 

[Jono]

Ah of course I forgot about HB having Lara > Sachin, which has been his view for years.

SteveNZ, there you go. An Indian fan who doesn't have Sachin #1.

 

[Riggins]

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.

was he actually?

 

[honestbharani]

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.

You are assuming that Sachin played only to help his team through a rough transitional time... Going by his book, I highly doubt if that was the case. The man seemed to love his numbers HUGE and you guys have gone on from one point to another without even realizing it... It is ok for any ATG to stay on to help his team through a tough transitional phase even if their output is significantly reduced from their usual high standards, BUT only if there were no better options around. It is not like Sachin hung around for the most difficult overseas tours and retired before a home series to help a youngster make his debut in familiar conditions. He did pretty much the exact opposite. While I agree with the general point being made about retiring on top to preserve stats or whatever, you guys need to understand that retirement is as much a personal decision as any on the cricket field. It is up to the individual. As some article that I read recently points out, if he feels that he is not feeling the same thrill about representing his nation and the fact that he has a young family with whom he would rather spend his time than playing cricket, then he has all the reason in the world to quit at that point, just like Sachin had all the right in the world to continue playing even if it was to just chase a statistical milestone or two..

The selectors need to make the call on if they should continue with the legend on the way down or get in a newcomer based on their respective abilities at that particular point of time. But neither decision is right or wrong as an absolute and there is no way in the world one is greater than the other. I don't think Sachin hanging around deserves any particular praise and neither should Sanga deserve any particular flak if he decides to call it a day after the WC. To me, both guys hung up their boots (assuming Sanga goes after the WC) when they felt they did not feel playing cricket for their country was the thing they most wanted to do at that point. And who are we to argue with that?

 

[cnerd123]

was he actually?

Well, he did dominate school cricket. But he only got selected for Ranji Trophy at 15 because Vengsarkar liked what he saw of him in the nets.

He topped the Ranji run scoring charts that season, and the selectors wasted no time in selecting him for India.

So not exactly out of nowhere, but was rather quick.

 

[Jono]

You are assuming that Sachin played only to help his team through a rough transitional time... Going by his book, I highly doubt if that was the case. The man seemed to love his numbers HUGE and you guys have gone on from one point to another without even realizing it... It is ok for any ATG to stay on to help his team through a tough transitional phase even if their output is significantly reduced from their usual high standards, BUT only if there were no better options around. It is not like Sachin hung around for the most difficult overseas tours and retired before a home series to help a youngster make his debut in familiar conditions. He did pretty much the exact opposite. While I agree with the general point being made about retiring on top to preserve stats or whatever, you guys need to understand that retirement is as much a personal decision as any on the cricket field. It is up to the individual. As some article that I read recently points out, if he feels that he is not feeling the same thrill about representing his nation and the fact that he has a young family with whom he would rather spend his time than playing cricket, then he has all the reason in the world to quit at that point, just like Sachin had all the right in the world to continue playing even if it was to just chase a statistical milestone or two..

The selectors need to make the call on if they should continue with the legend on the way down or get in a newcomer based on their respective abilities at that particular point of time. But neither decision is right or wrong as an absolute and there is no way in the world one is greater than the other. I don't think Sachin hanging around deserves any particular praise and neither should Sanga deserve any particular flak if he decides to call it a day after the WC. To me, both guys hung up their boots (assuming Sanga goes after the WC) when they felt they did not feel playing cricket for their country was the thing they most wanted to do at that point. And who are we to argue with that?

Even if Sachin hung around purely for his stats and not to help the transition from Dravid, Laxman etc., until Rohit, Rahul, Raina and co. play a knock like Sachin did @ MCG 2011 or Chennai 2013 vs. Australia I'll believe that India were ready for him to go in when Dravid and Laxman went.

Agree retirement is personal, no one would hold it against Sanga if he retired now. I don't think PEWS, me and the others are arguing that.

 

[harsh.ag]

Yeah pretty much Only in 1988, when he was still a schoolboy cricketer of sorts, Sunny Gavaskar was quoted as saying, "The two best batsmen in Bombay right now are Dilip Vengsarkar (then the Indian Test captain) and Sachin Tendulkar".

 

[Blocky]

Well, he did dominate school cricket. But he only got selected for Ranji Trophy at 15 because Vengsarkar liked what he saw of him in the nets.

He topped the Ranji run scoring charts that season, and the selectors wasted no time in selecting him for India.

So not exactly out of nowhere, but was rather quick.

There is the small factor of world record feats in school cricket too.

 

[cnerd123]

Kambli was involved in a school cricket record and didn't debut until he was 21 tho. Don't think the Indian selectors put much weight in that.

 

[vic_orthdox]

One note on Sangakkara and potential retirement; there have been the slightest allusions to Sangakkara pulling up stumps a bit earlier due to his record.

I think issues with his employer might also contribute to a shorter career than what might have been...

 

[Howe_zat]

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.

June 2010 - picked as a no.8 and spinner, then dropped after 2 tests
Nov 2010 - picked for Australia A and expanded squad as middle order batsman, left out of Tests
Dec 2010 - picked as no.6 batsman and 5th bowler for one test
Jan 2011 - picked as allrounder batting behind the keeper. One test. Then dropped for 2 years

He was part of the selection merry go round anyway, just because it worked out later on doesn't mean it didn't happen

 

[Cabinet96]

Eh, I don't think he really was. They used hm as a spinner when Hauritz was injured, he was then in the A side and was the first replacement batsman. Obviously not ideal but he was only actually dropped once, which isn't bad when you think of some of the others.

 

[Maximas]

What was bad was how his role wasn't truly clear at the start of his career, was particularly bad with ODIs, his game today was built on shield runs

 

[Prince EWS]

Eh, I don't think he really was. They used hm as a spinner when Hauritz was injured, he was then in the A side and was the first replacement batsman. Obviously not ideal but he was only actually dropped once, which isn't bad when you think of some of the others.

Giving him such conflicting messages about what sort of cricketer they wanted him to be is arguably even worse than dropping him several times. I'm still not convinced the hierarchy ever really expecting him to beprimarily a bowler though. They picked him against Pakistan more for the experience than anything else IMO when you consider North bowled more than he did despite the fact that he bowled pretty decently.

 

[Blocky]

Giving him such conflicting messages about what sort of cricketer they want him to be is arguably even worse than dropping him several times. I'm still not convinced the hierarchy ever really expecting him to be a primarily a bowler though. They picked him against Pakistan more for the experience than anything else IMO when you consider North bowled more than he did despite the fact that he bowled pretty decently.

North, Hodge and Katich really all should have played more - Stuart Law before that.

It's amazing how talented that era of Australian cricket was, two world class leggies, a relatively decent offie (who could also bowl medium), an endless stream of hardened domestic champions just waiting for the chance to come in and perform for their side. Guys like Slater and Mark Waugh being dropped, etc.

 

[harsh.ag]

Who was more unlucky, Marcus North or David Hussey?

 

[honestbharani]

Absolutely...but then if Tendulkar was better at a younger age, and Sanga was better at an older age, and in the end Sanga's record is appreciably better...how do we get to "Tendulkar is better"?

Is it just the argument that Tendulkar had such a long career, and that you can take the middle chunk of his career where he had a similar record to Sanga, and the rest (several years of decent contributions at the beginning and end) is the cream on top which puts him above Sanga- arguably well above, given his career overall was 7-8 years longer than pretty much anyone's?

I understand the argument but it just doesn't do a lot for me. So he played really old, and he played really young, and during those times he wasn't nearly as good as he was during his prime years. That would probably apply to pretty much anyone else ever, Sanga included. I get the longevity argument, but "longevity while being inferior to your prime by about the amount you would expect someone out of their prime to be" seems to me a weird thing to lavish praise on someone for.

I guess if you stay around past your best (or before your best) and your record deteriorates because of it, I'm not going to disregard your excellence at peak, but nor am I going to give you credit for getting worse. And maybe if I'm comparing you to someone who also had a really long career and yet never deteriorated, I might lean towards that guy, because IMO sub-par performances have to count for something. Not diminishing from earlier performances, but they just have to be acknowledged in their own right.

You are also missing the point that no matter what the age, people take time to warm to test cricket a little bit... In Sachin's case, it happened much earlier so he was able to have a longer "peak" as it were than someone like Sanga... The point is, and I have thought about this a LOT (partly due to threads here at CW, partly coz it is all we used to argue as youngsters back in the day), debuting so early has been as much of a help for Sachin's career as a hindrance and to me, it is all so close in terms of positives and negatives that I am willing to say they cancel each other out and at the end of the day, to me, his career can be compared directly to anyone who has had a 15+ year test career without having to add/subtract stuff for longevity or not being as good late in his career etc...

 

[Spikey]

Giving him such conflicting messages about what sort of cricketer they wanted him to be is arguably even worse than dropping him several times. I'm still not convinced the hierarchy ever really expecting him to beprimarily a bowler though. They picked him against Pakistan more for the experience than anything else IMO when you consider North bowled more than he did despite the fact that he bowled pretty decently.

The main problem I have in figuring out what they were doing is that Smith batted at 8. Given his record, and that North was originally picked in part because of his spinners, I think it's fair to say he was picked as a batsman and that North and Smith were sharing the spin duties, in part because they didn't rate the spinners (SOK was the replacement for Hauritz iirc, and you know...), so why not do it that way....but then hes batting behind Paine...

 

[Blocky]

Who was more unlucky, Marcus North or David Hussey?

DHuss, considering he never got to play test cricket despite a FC average of 50+

 

[honestbharani]

Even if Sachin hung around purely for his stats and not to help the transition from Dravid, Laxman etc., until Rohit, Rahul, Raina and co. play a knock like Sachin did @ MCG 2011 or Chennai 2013 vs. Australia I'll believe that India were ready for him to go in when Dravid and Laxman went.

Agree retirement is personal, no one would hold it against Sanga if he retired now. I don't think PEWS, me and the others are arguing that.

Chennai 2013 against Australia, I think was not so great.. MCG 2011 I will give you. As you pointed out, he did take on Steyn just months before the 2011 WC and showed how good he was back then. Mine is a general point about him playing on circa 2012 and 2013 when he was so clearly past it... I am not sure why it deserves any particular kudos when most were home series and we did have batsmen good enough to cut it at least in those conditions... As I said, I am not sure why it should be praised blindly..