How good is Sanga?

[weldone]

Well that's not what I said at all really.

Let's say there are two parallel universes one which is this one and the other where Tendulkar retired after the WI series and shaved the last 2 years and 16 Tests off his career (Retiring with 15183 @ 56.02 51/63) then I'm not sure I'd rate the former any higher at all, especially when it's apparent that there wasn't exactly a lack of alternatives.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't subscribe to the view that simply being picked and playing a match that somebody else didn't automatically makes you better - because there's so much more to it than that.

I won't, either. I'll rate the 2 versions about equally.

 

[vic_orthdox]

We're talking about better. Andy Flower, Heath Streak and Shakib Al Hasan are probably more valuable to their sides than Ricky Ponting or Michael Holding.

And Sangakkara is more valuable to the Sri Lanka batting order than Tendulkar has ever been to Indian batting since 1996.

If I had to choose a guy to play for me out of the modern greats at the beginning of their career, it'd be Tendulkar. I think that's a separate question as to whether he was the best player.

 

[Jarquis]

Well that's my point. Playing on isn't in itself representative of anything other than the fact you were picked. Admittedly how often you are picked usually correlates with how good you are but sometimes it doesn't and that's why you need to look at what they actually achieve on the park.

If two players have almost identical careers but one has periods of being a sub-standard Test batsman that the other doesn't then it doesn't 'enhance his legacy' for me. I'm not saying that's the case for Tendulkar as he actually achieved quite a bit while really bloody young but the end of his career basically does nothing for me.

 

[weldone]

Well that's my point. Playing on isn't in itself representative of anything other than the fact you were picked. Admittedly how often you are picked usually correlates with how good you are but sometimes it doesn't and that's why you need to look at what they actually achieve on the park.

If two players have almost identical careers but one has periods of being a sub-standard Test batsman that the other doesn't then it doesn't 'enhance his legacy' for me. I'm not saying that's the case for Tendulkar as he actually achieved quite a bit while really bloody young but the end of his career basically does nothing for me.

Exactly. If you read the arguments carefully, you'll notice that you're agreeing more with us there than the thierry henry/Blocky side.

What we're saying is this: Let's divide Tendulkar's career into 3 parts:1. pre-1997: He achieved much in this period and was the 2nd best batsman in the world by 1996 after Lara, 2. 1997-2011: That's basically Sanga's career (but against better oppositions IMO; I'll personally rate 97-2011 Tendulkar higher than Sanga for this reason but not sure about pews, howe, dan, jono and others), 3. The post-2011 period: He didn't achieve much, so this can be considered a non-event.

 

[Jono]

Chennai 2013 against Australia, I think was not so great..

Why? India were in trouble, I remember correctly. In either case, if its not that great, Raina, and Rohit should ****ing play a knock like that.

 

[Prince EWS]

If two players have almost identical careers but one has periods of being a sub-standard Test batsman that the other doesn't then it doesn't 'enhance his legacy' for me.

I don't think anyone has argued that it does. I've argued two things in respect to this situation:

1. In the example you gave, it should neither tarnish nor enhance someone's legacy.
2, If two players have almost identical careers but one has a bit tacked on the end or the start of playing not to the average standard produced in the rest of the career but still positively contributing, it does enhance their legacy.

When it comes to Tendulkar, his performances when he was 38-40 should neither tarnish nor enhance his legacy -- he was crap and might and might as well have not been playing -- and his performances as a teenager should enhance it -- they weren't to the standard of the meat of his career, but most players aren't selected at that age and it was a positive that he could contribute. The beginning part, unlike the very end, was a genuine positive.

TH was genuinely arguing that, like weldone thought you were saying, if two players have identical careers up to a point and then one retires but the other keeps playing and drops off a bit, or one debuted at an earlier age and wasn't quite as good, the one who played less is better. I don't rate Tendulkar higher now than I would if he retired 18 months earlier because he did nothing, but many people rate him lower because his average dropped and his record supposedly suffered, and that's what I'm making the case against. Playing on should never tarnish one's legacy but it obviously doesn't always enhance it either; you do have to actually play decently or it's the same as having retired.

 

[Jono]

:

 

[Athlai]

I don't think anyone has argued that it does. I've argued two things in respect to this situation:

1. In the example you gave, it should neither tarnish nor enhance someone's legacy.
2, If two players have almost identical careers but one has a bit tacked on the end or the start of playing not to the average standard produced in the rest of the career but still positively contributing, it does enhance their legacy.

When it comes to Tendulkar, his performances when he was 38-40 should neither tarnish nor enhance his legacy -- he was crap and might and might as well have not been playing -- and his performances as a teenager should enhance it -- they weren't to the standard of the meat of his career, but most players aren't selected at that age and it was a positive that he could contribute. The beginning part, unlike the very end, was a genuine positive.

TH was genuinely arguing that, like weldone thought you were saying, if two players have identical careers up to a point and then one retires but the other keeps playing and drops off a bit, or one debuted at an earlier age and wasn't quite as good, the one who played less is better. I don't rate Tendulkar higher now than I would if he retired 18 months earlier because he did nothing, but many people rate him lower because his average dropped and his record supposedly suffered, and that's what I'm making the case against. Playing on should never tarnish one's legacy but it obviously doesn't always enhance it either; you do have to actually play decently or it's the same as having retired.

There is a problem with this argument though. Not everyone is a Tendulkar, some players are genuinely **** or were lucky to have their record as good as it was. The last 2-3 years of most players career's who are actually ****, should be something that tarnishes their record.


Like Sinclair.

 

[duffer]

I don't think anyone has argued that it does. I've argued two things in respect to this situation:

1. In the example you gave, it should neither tarnish nor enhance someone's legacy.
2, If two players have almost identical careers but one has a bit tacked on the end or the start of playing not to the average standard produced in the rest of the career but still positively contributing, it does enhance their legacy.

When it comes to Tendulkar, his performances when he was 38-40 should neither tarnish nor enhance his legacy -- he was crap and might and might as well have not been playing -- and his performances as a teenager should enhance it -- they weren't to the standard of the meat of his career, but most players aren't selected at that age and it was a positive that he could contribute. The beginning part, unlike the very end, was a genuine positive.

TH was genuinely arguing that, like weldone thought you were saying, if two players have identical careers up to a point and then one retires but the other keeps playing and drops off a bit, or one debuted at an earlier age and wasn't quite as good, the one who played less is better. I don't rate Tendulkar higher now than I would if he retired 18 months earlier because he did nothing, but many people rate him lower because his average dropped and his record supposedly suffered, and that's what I'm making the case against. Playing on should never tarnish one's legacy but it obviously doesn't always enhance it either; you do have to actually play decently or it's the same as having retired.

Very good.

 

[Jarquis]

I don't think anyone has argued that it does. I've argued two things in respect to this situation:

1. In the example you gave, it should neither tarnish nor enhance someone's legacy.
2, If two players have almost identical careers but one has a bit tacked on the end or the start of playing not to the average standard produced in the rest of the career but still positively contributing, it does enhance their legacy.

When it comes to Tendulkar, his performances when he was 38-40 should neither tarnish nor enhance his legacy -- he was crap and might and might as well have not been playing -- and his performances as a teenager should enhance it -- they weren't to the standard of the meat of his career, but most players aren't selected at that age and it was a positive that he could contribute. The beginning part, unlike the very end, was a genuine positive.

TH was genuinely arguing that, like weldone thought you were saying, if two players have identical careers up to a point and then one retires but the other keeps playing and drops off a bit, or one debuted at an earlier age and wasn't quite as good, the one who played less is better. I don't rate Tendulkar higher now than I would if he retired 18 months earlier because he did nothing, but many people rate him lower because his average dropped and his record supposedly suffered, and that's what I'm making the case against. Playing on should never tarnish one's legacy but it obviously doesn't always enhance it either; you do have to actually play decently or it's the same as having retired.

Re: Bolded
Well, I've nothing to argue now. Agreed.

 

[Prince EWS]

There is a problem with this argument though. Not everyone is a Tendulkar, some players are genuinely **** or were lucky to have their record as good as it was. The last 2-3 years of most players career's who are actually ****, should be something that tarnishes their record.


Like Sinclair.

Nah Sinclair's mid-late career direness is a great example of what I was saying actually. He had 999 runs @ 50. The fact that he tanked it afterwards is a great example of why performing for longer is important and valuable.

Assuming all other things equal, I'd rate a player who retired after 14 Tests averaging 47 as high as I would a player ending his career after 33 Tests averaging 32: not very highly, and both lower than someone who averaged 36 over 33 Tests. If I wanted to big up Sinclair then I'd dump the whole thing, become a skill absolutist and say Sinclair achieved a higher level of overall skill for a period and is therefore better than players who were much more valuable, but I won't do that because I think it's crap.

The same thing applies at the top end.

 

[Jono]

vBulletin created the like function on message boards for this very day.

 

[Athlai]

Nah Sinclair's mid-late career direness is a great example of what I was saying actually. He had 999 runs @ 50. The fact that he tanked it afterwards is a great example of why performing for longer is important and valuable.

Assuming all other things equal, I'd rate a player who retired after 14 Tests averaging 47 as high as I would a player ending his career after 33 Tests averaging 32: not very highly, and both lower than someone who averaged 36 over 33 Tests. If I wanted to big up Sinclair then I'd dump the whole thing, become a skill absolutist and say Sinclair achieved a higher level of overall skill for a period and is therefore better than players who were much more valuable, but I won't do that because I think it's crap.

The same thing applies at the top end.

fair enough, but worth keeping in mind that a certain amount of longevity must come into play first.

 

[Prince EWS]

That was my whole point.

 

[weldone]

vBulletin created the like function on message boards for this very day.

Haha ya, I think I've used it the most times today too.

 

[Athlai]

That was my whole point.

But how much whiskey have you drunk tonight

 

[Prince EWS]

Haha ya, I think I've used it the most times today too.

Apparently I've received 37 in the last 12 hours. I think I need a time out.

 

[Prince EWS]

But how much whiskey have you drunk tonight

It's not how much whiskey I've had that's important, but how long I've been drinking it.

 

[Dan]

It's not how much whiskey I've had that's important, but how long I've been drinking it.

Good from you.

 

[akilana]

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.

He didnt average 63 against Australia with McGrath in the side. Not sure about the other averages you provided.