How good is Sanga?

[harsh.ag]

Thing I will remember most about Sanga is the cover drive played down on one knee. Reeked of class. And his on pitch batting camaraderie with Mahela.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Why is Tendulkar's knock at Chennai 2013 not so great? Top knock imo. Just made to look trivial because of dhoni's double, when it was actually a vital contribution in the situation.

Anyway, he, I think you've missed the point. Even I think Tendulkarsshould've probably retired after the home loss to England. The point isnt that him continuing deserves kudos, it's that him being mediocre at the end doesn't make him a worse batsman.

 

[honestbharani]

Well the other showed he wasn't good enough to be selected for a period of time, and help his team play.

Doesn't that depend on the team itself and the other players around though? You are making it seem as though it is just in the players' hands when it never really is. Do you think an 18 year old player with Sachin's FC record would have been selected for India in 2005? And if we start giving brownie points for being good or great in a not so great team then all your Laras, Andy Flowers and Martin Crowes will start to walk in... As I said, you are assuming that the said player would have cracked any test XI at said age, irrespective of what the batting strengths and stocks were for said team at that point of time...

 

[honestbharani]

So the best way to achieve a high thierry henry rating would be to make sure you weren't good enough to play Test cricket until you were amazing at it, then retire as soon as you showed signs of decline. This is really in complete conflict with what would actually be useful to a team.

PEWS.. being good enough to play Test Cricket until you were amazing at it simply means you are penalizing a player for breaking through what one would assume would be an excellent batting side, do well and stay on top for 100+ tests and rewarding a player who played primarily because the other players of that time were not good enough to play..


In a way I find it disrespectful to Sachin to suggest that he is better than Sanga only because he played test cricket when he was 18 to 40.. For me, qualitatively, Sachin was a better batsman than Sanga even at his best because I have seen both play reallly well and Sachin just had that something extra.. I do not see, personally, Sanga play Steyn the way Sachin did when Steyn was roaring in the 2010 series in RSA.. This is the same qualitative judgement I make when I say I saw Sachin and Lara through their careers and I just rate Lara to be slightly better as a test match batsman than Sachin.


Now if you guys are arguing about who contributed or gave more to the team through their careers, then obviously everyone who has had longer careers will come first...

 

[duffer]

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

Heh.

 

[honestbharani]

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

Or the batsmen in his national team sucked less than Sachin's when they were 18...

 

[weldone]

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.

I already posted the link.
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

In this period of 18 years, he averages 63.25 against Australia (McGrath, Warne played for the most part), 62 against Sri Lanka (Murali played for the most part) and 57.73 against West Indies (Ambrose, Walsh played for a large part).

SA and Pak are the only 2 oppositions against whom he averages 44-45.

 

[weldone]

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.

What are you on about?

 

[honestbharani]

Why is Tendulkar's knock at Chennai 2013 not so great? Top knock imo. Just made to look trivial because of dhoni's double, when it was actually a vital contribution in the situation.

Anyway, he, I think you've missed the point. Even I think Tendulkarsshould've probably retired after the home loss to England. The point isnt that him continuing deserves kudos, it's that him being mediocre at the end doesn't make him a worse batsman.

Well, I think I already stated that in a previous post.. To me, Sachin's longevity does not add or detract from his legacy.... He debuted early, became great, then became mediocre but stuck around and then retired... To me, it sorta cancels itself out.. If you ask me to rate Sachin and compare him to another batsman, his years in the game do not make me rate him positively or negatively against any other batman, given the batsman he is being compared to had decent enough length in his test career....


The reason I say that is we are working on dangerous territory here.. If you start saying longevity and being available to play means a lot, then you start looking at how many games a player missed due to fitness issues and hold it against another player who has stayed more fit.. Player A plays 150 tests over 20 years.. Player B plays 130 tests in 15 years.. Who was more valuable given they are both very very close to each other as great batsmen or bowlers or whatever... IMHO, we are just complicating what will always be a subjective argument by trying to objectify it in insensible manner.. As a guy who works frequently with data analysts, I know any pointless piece of information could be made to look like good data points as long as it is in favor of one's opinion..

 

[Prince EWS]

If you start saying longevity and being available to play means a lot, then you start looking at how many games a player missed due to fitness issues and hold it against another player who has stayed more fit

That's right. As you should IMO.

 

[weldone]

At the end of the day, Tendulkar was averaging 40 in Test cricket (or whatever, something close to that) at the age when most people are more concerned with that new and cool alcohol thing, copping a feel, playing CoD or Habbo or something, and complaining about having to analyse why the curtains were blue in a novel.

No way that averaging 40 in Test cricket when your peers are all popping pimples and failing algebra should ever be held against you. It's ****ing amazing.

so good

 

[weldone]

I can't believe anyone is trying to claim the "overall number of years that they did it that counted" in lieu of Sangakarra spending from 2005-2015 averaging over 70, amassing more than 100 runs per test on average (no one else except the Don has done that for a longer period)

Chanderpaul is quite close to Sangakkara in the 2005-2015 period.

So now we know - Sangakkara is the best after Don, followed by Chanderpaul.

 

[honestbharani]

That's right. As you should IMO.

But again, you are now comparing the value they brought or added to the team more than their actual batsmanship.... This is my point here.. If a player has played for a reasonable length of time around the world in different conditions against different types of opposition, you can start comparing their quality of batsmanship and try to work out who was the better batsman in terms of how good they were as batsmen alone over their careers... Now if you talk about fitness, you should also talk about players who added more to their team apart from their primary roles.. And then you just have to concede that Kallis is the greatest cricketer of this generation..


Though I do know that is what you want out of every thread at CC, tbh..

 

[weldone]

How hard is it to differentiate 27 and 40 ffs. "whatever, something close to that".. ok

How difficult is it to understand that Dan was talking about Tendulkar's initial years and not the last years, by reading the rest of his post?

 

[weldone]

Difficult question to answer coherently without invoking theoretical dimensions. I have lower expectations for his career than I did a couple of years ago, but if you want a compare two Cooks from parallel universes -- one from which he retired two yeas and one from which he retired yesterday -- I'd rate them about equally, or perhaps the "retired yesterday" version ever so slightly higher. I refuse to make assumptions about how I think a player might have gone if he played on once he retires (other than for fun, obvs); the burden of proof lies with the player.

This is such a good post!

However, I always expected Cook's form to decline unlike most others.
(And I think the same about Warner now FTR - though his form will decline after 1-2 more years IMO)

 

[anil1405]

I already posted the link.
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

In this period of 18 years, he averages 63.25 against Australia (McGrath, Warne played for the most part), 62 against Sri Lanka (Murali played for the most part) and 57.73 against West Indies (Ambrose, Walsh played for a large part).

SA and Pak are the only 2 oppositions against whom he averages 44-45.

Not an expert in using statsguru but it looks like in 9 tests that Sachin was involved with McGrath, this is how his record looks like:

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[honestbharani]

This is such nitpicking though... Do we really have to compare player V player to understand who was a better batsman? I have seen Lara take apart McGrath and Warne together at their peak on tracks quite helpful to bowling.. I saw Sachin blunt and then conquer Steyn and Donald on their backyards and never look like he will make one false stroke... I have not quite seen Sanga or Ponting or Kallis do it at that level against that kind of bowlers and hence I feel these guys are slightly above those two. Regarding the rest of their records, all 5 have such immense records that you can slice and dice them and prove/disprove just about anything you want...

 

[weldone]

I think once you're talking about 100+ tests then the longevity debate goes out the window.

Why? why? why? I am visiting CW for years now for this one answer.

It's like saying when 2 batsmen average over 50 for a decent period against decent opposition then the greatness debate goes out of the window, because both were great.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Average in match involving player X is one of the most misleading stats that people use tbh. Along with centuries in wins/5fers in wins.

 

[weldone]

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

Haha ya, that was so funny.