Final - New Zealand v Australia (29th March)

[viriya]

Doesn't make sense to make an apples to apples comparison with Ponting's record and say it's very similar.

The reason I compared him to Ponting was because they were both #3s, they both have careers of similar length and their records are very similar. Their careers also overlapped from 2000-2012.

You could argue that Sanga benefited from the rule changes - I think it's mainly that he found a new dimension in his game. He rarely benefited from the last 10 overs cos he wouldn't generally be batting then, and the 2 new balls would actually hurt him if he's coming in during the first 5 overs as usually is the case. I think those benefits are not as significant as having Hayden and Gilchrist to open for you and not having to face Aussie bowlers.

To be clear I'm not saying Sanga > Ponting in ODIs, just that they are comparable. Most people would probably pick Ponting over him because of more memorable knocks.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Man how can you gus say Vettori vs Sanga isn't even close. Sanga is better for me, but their roles are as different as can possibly be and Vettori was one of the very best at what he did. Being way too dismissive of Dan the man.

 

[viriya]

Please don't deliberately miss the point. You chose 2004-2009 and say he averaged 40. Fine but again, that conveniently masks the fact that after that great 2004 where he averaged 53 he then had averages of 37,44,31,39 and 35. Which is why I said he was up and down. He wasn't a consistently great until after 2010.

I was only pointing out that he wasn't average as Contra said. He had a better record than Dravid (who became a better ODI bat later in his career) during that time.

Sanga will always be underrated because he didn't start great. First impressions mean that whatever he's done recently is discounted by many because "he was average for a long time" or "he just was did well for the last 4 years". His career progression was atypical which should be irrelevant when comparing it to others.

 

[Prince EWS]

It's true that Sangakkara was pretty good from 2004 onwards; but he was absolutely dire from 2000 to 2004. After 100 ODIs he was still averaging less than 30 and striking at less than 70. One hundred ODIs!

I think you can loosely break his ODI career into three parts:

2000-2004: rubbish
2004-2010: good to very good
2010-2015: world class

I definitely think Ponting was both good for a longer period and world class for a longer period.

 

[viriya]

Man how can you gus say Vettori vs Sanga isn't even close. Sanga is better for me, but their roles are as different as can possibly be and Vettori was one of the very best at what he did. Being way too dismissive of Dan the man.

Dan not being comparable to Sanga is really no disrespect. There's not many who were/are.

Maybe I was harsh to say he was only "very good". He was definitely one of the best ODI spinners ever - just that there are a good 4-5 that were clearly better.

In Sanga's case, there are not many who were clearly better at the #3 spot.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I was only pointing out that he wasn't average as Contra said. He had a better record than Dravid (who became a better ODI bat later in his career) during that time.

Sanga will always be underrated because he didn't start great. First impressions mean that whatever he's done recently is discounted by many because "he was average for a long time" or "he just was did well for the last 4 years". His career progression was atypical which should be irrelevant when comparing it to others.

Meh. Balanced out by people who will overrate him slightly because his recent batting has been phenomenal and fresh in everyone's minds.

 

[viriya]

It's true that Sangakkara was pretty good from 2004 onwards; but he was absolutely dire from 2000 to 2004. After 100 ODIs he was still averaging less than 30 and striking at less than 70. One hundred ODIs!

I think you can loosely break his ODI career into three parts:

2000-2004: rubbish
2004-2010: good to very good
2010-2015: world class

I definitely think Ponting was both good for a longer period and world class for a longer period.

Sanga:
2000-2003 (3 years): 29 @ 70 - average
2004-2009 (6 years): 40 @ 77 - good to very good
2010-2015 (5 years): 53 @ 85 - world class

Ponting:
1996-2000 (4 years): 40 @ 72 - good to very good
2001-2007 (7 years): 45 @ 85 - world class
2008-2012 (4 years): 35 @ 79 - good

Sanga's world class period was better than Ponting's but Ponting's was longer
Sanga's good to very good period was better than Ponting's and was longer
Sanga's average period was worse than Ponting's good period and was shorter

I can see why people would pick Ponting, but it's really very close.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Comparing Ponting's world class period in the mid 2000s with Sanga's current period and saying Sanga's peak form is better coz 53>45 is kinda silly Viriya. That's what I meant when I said an apples to apples comparison of stats across eras just never works.

 

[viriya]

Comparing Ponting's world class period in the mid 2000s with Sanga's current period and saying Sanga's peak form is better coz 53>45 is kinda silly Viriya. That's what I meant when I said an apples to apples comparison of stats across eras just never works.

Amla averaged 50+ from 2004-2009 as well. Just because there are 4 ATG ODI batsmen around right now who average 50+ (Amla, Kohli, AB and Dhoni) does not mean the era is easier. The only difference is SR, not average.

Either way, 53 > 45 even if you adjust for your era point imo.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Amla averaged 50+ from 2004-2009 as well. Just because there are 4 ATG ODI batsmen around right now who average 50+ (Amla, Kohli, AB and Dhoni) does not mean the era is easier. The only difference is SR, not average.

Either way, 53 > 45 even if you adjust for your era point imo.

Again, stop misconstruing my point about eras by making it seem like I'm underrating Amla, Ab and Kohli.

How did you come to that conclusion in the last line though?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Also I'm going to be a **** and ask you which other era had 4 batsmen averaging 50+? They're all great yeah, but you can't then say the averages haven't gone up. They have, just like you said.

 

[Daemon]

Amla averaged 50+ from 2004-2009 as well. Just because there are 4 ATG ODI batsmen around right now who average 50+ (Amla, Kohli, AB and Dhoni) does not mean the era is easier. The only difference is SR, not average.

Either way, 53 > 45 even if you adjust for your era point imo.

cbf checking this because I'm on my phone but surely Amla hasn't been playing ODIs since 2004?

 

[viriya]

Again, stop misconstruing my point about eras by making it seem like I'm underrating Amla, Ab and Kohli.

How did you come to that conclusion in the last line though?

This era is easier when it comes to making runs faster, it helps SR - not average. That's why I'm saying 53 > 45 even if you adjust for era. You could argue that Ponting would be striking higher if he played now (at his peak) - I wouldn't agree that he would average higher that easily.

Sanga got better late - it wasn't about ODI rule changes, he just got better as a batsman. It's reflected in his Test record as well where no rule changes applied.

 

[viriya]

cbf checking this because I'm on my phone but surely Amla hasn't been playing ODIs since 2004?

You're right - I was looking at the same time frame as Sanga's mid-career. Amla started in 2008 so played for 2 of those years. Before the more recent rule changes.

 

[viriya]

Also I'm going to be a **** and ask you which other era had 4 batsmen averaging 50+? They're all great yeah, but you can't then say the averages haven't gone up. They have, just like you said.

AB, Amla and Kohli are exceptions. Pietersen averaged 50 from 2004-07 but we've never seen anything like these 3 batsmen.

AB averages 70 @ 109 from 2010 ffs.. you think it's because the era is easier? He is just a freak. Retiring as the GOAT ODI batsman.
Kohli is undoubtedly the GOAT chaser.
Amla - well no one has racked up ODI tons as easily as him ever.

If you put those 3 aside, this era is comparable to the 2000s in terms of ODI averages.

Not SR - that's definitely higher.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I didn't say AB, Amla and Kohli aren't great. Stop arguing something which I didn't even say.

 

[Debris]

AB, Amla and Kohli are exceptions. Pietersen averaged 50 from 2004-07 but we've never seen anything like these 3 batsmen.

AB averages 70 @ 109 from 2010 ffs.. you think it's because the era is easier? He is just a freak. Retiring as the GOAT ODI batsman.
Kohli is undoubtedly the GOAT chaser.
Amla - well no one has racked up ODI tons as easily as him ever.

If you put those 3 aside, this era is comparable to the 2000s in terms of ODI averages.

Not SR - that's definitely higher.

Where are you getting these statistics from? I would actually be really interested in seeing a year by year breakdown of overall batting averages and strikerates for ODIs.

 

[jcas0167]

Can we all agree, in retrospect at least, that having Jesse Ryder would not have improved our team, chances in the final or otherwise?

If he had played Elliott probably wouldn't have been in the side & McCullum would have been in the middle order. Arguably, he may have fared better opening than McCullum did in the final but the way Starc was bowling there's a reasonable chance he would have gone cheaply too.

 

[Daemon]

AB, Amla and Kohli are exceptions. Pietersen averaged 50 from 2004-07 but we've never seen anything like these 3 batsmen.

AB averages 70 @ 109 from 2010 ffs.. you think it's because the era is easier? He is just a freak. Retiring as the GOAT ODI batsman.
Kohli is undoubtedly the GOAT chaser.
Amla - well no one has racked up ODI tons as easily as him ever.

If you put those 3 aside, this era is comparable to the 2000s in terms of ODI averages.

Not SR - that's definitely higher.

No it isn't

edit ok wait i'm wrong

 

[Hurricane]

Personally I vote we use this thread to discuss our ODI ATG XIs