Jacques Kallis vs Rahul Dravid vs Kumar Sangakkara

[honestbharani]

There is no way Ponting > Lara.

 

[Gob]

I rate Ponting ahead of these 3, below Lara/Tendulkar as I placed a greater value on his counter attacking batting style. Late career slump obviously dragged the average down like with the case with Viv but when he was at his peak he certainly had an aura of dominance I didn't see from these 3 but they are all very close so won't really argue with people who prefer it differently.

 

[honestbharani]

The hardest of these comparisons for me is where to rank Ponting and then where to rank Younis Khan. They are just hard to place, I feel.

Usually I go

Lara-Sachin
Ponting
Sanga
Kallis-Dravid-Younis Khan

but it seems like a cop out and I am not very sure on where to place Ponting and Younis relative to the others.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I rate Ponting ahead of these 3, below Lara/Tendulkar as I placed a greater value on his counter attacking batting style. Late career slump obviously dragged the average down like with the case with Viv but when he was at his peak he certainly had an aura of dominance I didn't see from these 3 but they are all very close so won't really argue with people who prefer it differently.

Sanga was capable of some amazing attacking strokeplay

He got a great unbeaten ton in the previous innings too but this one had some awesome counterattacking batting when the rest of the team couldnt bat for ****. I was a Sangakkara hater for ages because of his annoying fake accent, his cheating at the toss in the WC final and his refusal to admit he had a hand in cheating sehwag out of a hundred. But he was seriously ****ing good (as good as Ponting imo) even though I still think the huge proportion of his matches in the subcontinent give him a slightly flattering overall average.

 

[Uppercut]

27 runs on average is an improvement of 67.5% from 40. I would not describe the gap as standard tbh. I would be extremely surprised if a single cricketer (with a decent sample size of tests both as specialist batsman and designated keeper) had anywhere close to an improvement as a batsman when they were not the designated keeper. Someone who is often cited in this regard, Alec Stewart had a batting average of 34.9 as keeper and 46.7 as designated batsman. That difference is huge but not quite comparable to Sanga even if we account for the absolute run difference being lower due to the start off point being lower.

He basically went from what would be a barely test standard batsman for his batting friendly era to someone who averaged about 10 runs more than what you'd expect from an all-time great batsman for his time. To illustrate the point a different way, he had 10 double hundreds in 64% of his career while not keeping and 1 double hundred in the 36% of his career keeping. He became someone who consistently made 150+ scores as pure batsman which traditionally are extremely rare as the designated keeper, and would be much harder in Sanga's case because he was keeping along with batting No.3 a majority of the time.

You have a point about other batsmen also having red hot streaks during Sanga's career but IMO he was the best of the batsmen whose effective careers were (almost) exclusively in the 2000-2015 period. He was the one to do it most consistently and brutally in a variety of conditions over 15 years. This was even more true when he did not have to keep anymore and averaged over 65 for the year 9 year period from 2006-2014. He has the record for the most amount of double hundreds apart from Bradman and I think 8/11 double hundreds forced a result and 1 against Pakistan saved a match from what looked like a clear draw. He was excellent in spinning, bouncy and swinging conditions.

The only one to keep up with him over the entire 15 year period was Kallis but he was less likely to relentlessly shut down the game with a big century when he got going IMO, even in favourable batting conditions. I'd say Dravid and Ponting have significant cases against them over Sanga in terms of not being as good for quite as long and also failing a few major challenges each, like Ponting in India again and again or Dravid against quality seam bowling in places like SA/Australia. I'd say Kallis/Dravid/Ponting are quite close to Sanga overall though. Waugh is not far behind either.

Who, apart from Tendulkar and Lara, do you think was better than Sangakkara in the 1990-2015 period?

My point was more that a lot of the best batsmen have a big gap between peak era and not peak era. In Sanga's case it coincided with giving up the gloves, but it's common enough that I don't think giving up the gloves has much explanatory power. Ponting had an 87-match streak from 1999-2006 where he averaged 65.5, the rest of his career he would be averaging 35 or so.

I tend to think that if batsmen are scoring similar amounts of runs and are equally capable against the best bowling, they're about as good as each other and anything else you bring in will tend to be splitting hairs. You could make a case that Ponting was at a disadvantage because the captaincy was such a long-term burden, Sanga had to keep for some of his career, Younis barely got to play in his peak years, Kallis had the toughest home conditions (the one I used to find most convincing), and so on.

Sanga had more double hundreds, but if the averages are similar that means he was scoring less runs the rest of the time, so I find that argument a bit meh. If they're much the same they're much the same.

I guess my point is that in Sanga's era there were the aforementioned, and then there were a bunch of others averaging 50+ who didn't always feel a million miles off him. Maybe they scored about as many runs, but had technical flaws (Sehwag), didn't travel as well (Jayawardene), couldn't run (Inzamam), didn't keep it up for as long (Hussey), or were aesthetically hideous (Chanderpaul). Not that I'm arguing any of those were as good as Sanga, but there's kind of a smooth spectrum with Sanga close to, or even at, the top.

Whereas when I think of 90s batting, it's Sachin and Lara, Waugh, then crickets. I think that's where their unparallelled superstar status came from. It felt like they were playing a different game almost, whereas Sanga was playing the same game but just a little bit better than everyone else. I appreciate how unscientific I'm being and it might owe a lot to being the age that I am, but that's just how it feels to me. Steve Smith feels like he's playing a different game too, so I at least know it's not entirely a childhood nostalgia thing.

 

[Gob]

Sanga was capable of some amazing attacking strokeplay

He got a great unbeaten ton in the previous innings too but this one had some awesome counterattacking batting when the rest of the team couldnt bat for ****. I was a Sangakkara hater for ages because of his annoying fake accent, his cheating at the toss in the WC final and his refusal to admit he had a hand in cheating sehwag out of a hundred. But he was seriously ****ing good (as good as Ponting imo) even though I still think the huge proportion of his matches in the subcontinent give him a slightly flattering overall average.

Yes i watched this. Chamara Silva made an equally good hundred in the second innings. Sangakkara has to be the most off stump secure batsman i can think of

 

[Teja.]

My point was more that a lot of the best batsmen have a big gap between peak era and not peak era. In Sanga's case it coincided with giving up the gloves, but it's common enough that I don't think giving up the gloves has much explanatory power. Ponting had an 87-match streak from 1999-2006 where he averaged 65.5, the rest of his career he would be averaging 35 or so.

I tend to think that if batsmen are scoring similar amounts of runs and are equally capable against the best bowling, they're about as good as each other and anything else you bring in will tend to be splitting hairs. You could make a case that Ponting was at a disadvantage because the captaincy was such a long-term burden, Sanga had to keep for some of his career, Younis barely got to play in his peak years, Kallis had the toughest home conditions (the one I used to find most convincing), and so on.

Sanga had more double hundreds, but if the averages are similar that means he was scoring less runs the rest of the time, so I find that argument a bit meh. If they're much the same they're much the same.

I guess my point is that in Sanga's era there were the aforementioned, and then there were a bunch of others averaging 50+ who didn't always feel a million miles off him. Maybe they scored about as many runs, but had technical flaws (Sehwag), didn't travel as well (Jayawardene), couldn't run (Inzamam), didn't keep it up for as long (Hussey), or were aesthetically hideous (Chanderpaul). Not that I'm arguing any of those were as good as Sanga, but there's kind of a smooth spectrum with Sanga close to, or even at, the top.

Whereas when I think of 90s batting, it's Sachin and Lara, Waugh, then crickets. I think that's where their unparallelled superstar status came from. It felt like they were playing a different game almost, whereas Sanga was playing the same game but just a little bit better than everyone else. I appreciate how unscientific I'm being and it might owe a lot to being the age that I am, but that's just how it feels to me. Steve Smith feels like he's playing a different game too, so I at least know it's not entirely a childhood nostalgia thing.

I basically agree with you on the fact that Sanga, Dravid, Ponting and Kallis are at about the same level equally. If I had to choose one though, I'd pick Sangakkara.

 

[Gob]

My point was more that a lot of the best batsmen have a big gap between peak era and not peak era. In Sanga's case it coincided with giving up the gloves, but it's common enough that I don't think giving up the gloves has much explanatory power. Ponting had an 87-match streak from 1999-2006 where he averaged 65.5, the rest of his career he would be averaging 35 or so.

I tend to think that if batsmen are scoring similar amounts of runs and are equally capable against the best bowling, they're about as good as each other and anything else you bring in will tend to be splitting hairs. You could make a case that Ponting was at a disadvantage because the captaincy was such a long-term burden, Sanga had to keep for some of his career, Younis barely got to play in his peak years, Kallis had the toughest home conditions (the one I used to find most convincing), and so on.

Sanga had more double hundreds, but if the averages are similar that means he was scoring less runs the rest of the time, so I find that argument a bit meh. If they're much the same they're much the same.

I guess my point is that in Sanga's era there were the aforementioned, and then there were a bunch of others averaging 50+ who didn't always feel a million miles off him. Maybe they scored about as many runs, but had technical flaws (Sehwag), didn't travel as well (Jayawardene), couldn't run (Inzamam), didn't keep it up for as long (Hussey), or were aesthetically hideous (Chanderpaul). Not that I'm arguing any of those were as good as Sanga, but there's kind of a smooth spectrum with Sanga close to, or even at, the top.

Whereas when I think of 90s batting, it's Sachin and Lara, Waugh, then crickets. I think that's where their unparallelled superstar status came from. It felt like they were playing a different game almost, whereas Sanga was playing the same game but just a little bit better than everyone else. I appreciate how unscientific I'm being and it might owe a lot to being the age that I am, but that's just how it feels to me. Steve Smith feels like he's playing a different game too, so I at least know it's not entirely a childhood nostalgia thing.

This part is bogus. Like the rest of the post

 

[Himannv]

Nobody really took an anti-Sanga position the way they did with Kallis, but a lot of conversations about the world's best batsmen just wouldn't mention him.

I think Sangakkara is an overrated hack and actually a very limited batsman. Does this count?

 

[Uppercut]

I think Sangakkara is an overrated hack and actually a very limited batsman. Does this count?

Congratulations, you're the first!

Honestly just nobody really talked about him unless he was there. Sky would do lunchtime features on the world's best batsmen and he'd be lucky to get into the 15 second "others who we almost thought about considering" bit at the end.

When Sri Lanka toured England every one of them would be waxing lyrical about how beautiful his batting was. The idea of someone being like "but is he that good really...?" was unthinkable. But when he was out of sight he was out of mind. I don't remember CW being much different either, probably because we didn't have many Sri Lankans. Very "well of course Sangakkara is wonderful, now let's get back to arguing about Ponting".

 

[Bolo.]

Is it a fair point that 2 double tons in 166 matches is a negative for Kallis?

Lack of 200s is typically going to be an advantage when comparing players with the same RPI.

Most of them come in snooze draws or one sided games. I guess not much more than 10% of games will see a change in result from a double vs a regular hundred. A 100 vs a 0 is going to swing a big percentage of lower scoring games. Better to make the runs at more valuable times.

For Kallis though, his lack of 200s is, to a big degree, a result of his batting pace. I'm not sure if his slow and solid stuff was a pro or a con but the inability to accelerate once runs were on the board is the one major thing he is behind the comparable modern players on.

 

[Teja.]

I think Sangakkara is an overrated hack and actually a very limited batsman. Does this count?

Have always wanted to ask you to elaborate about your Sanga hate.

 

[Teja.]

Congratulations, you're the first!

Honestly just nobody really talked about him unless he was there. Sky would do lunchtime features on the world's best batsmen and he'd be lucky to get into the 15 second "others who we almost thought about considering" bit at the end.

When Sri Lanka toured England every one of them would be waxing lyrical about how beautiful his batting was. The idea of someone being like "but is he that good really...?" was unthinkable. But when he was out of sight he was out of mind. I don't remember CW being much different either, probably because we didn't have many Sri Lankans. Very "well of course Sangakkara is wonderful, now let's get back to arguing about Ponting".

On a related note, I watched a disproportionate amount of cricket in India and England (great timezone for India) growing up and it always felt to me Ponting was never really a great player while playing in either country even during his peak, outside of the rare innings. He horribly bombed in India several times and was so-so in England at a time when some other ATGs I watched bat frequently made a ton of runs in England, like Dravid and Tendular. He played quite a lot of cricket in both countries as well iirc and this was the time beating India in India was hyped as the final frontier for the Australian team. The two teams in their home conditions were also the major opponents who somewhat stood up to Australia during his peak.

I probably rate Ponting a bit lower than I should sub-consciously due to this.

 

[Gob]

On a related note, I watched a disproportionate amount of cricket in India and England (great timezone for India) growing up and it always felt to me Ponting was never really a great player while playing in either country even during his peak, outside of the rare innings. He horribly bombed in India several times and was so-so in England at a time when some other ATGs I watched bat frequently made a ton of runs in England, like Dravid and Tendular. He played quite a lot of cricket in both countries as well iirc and this was the time beating India in India was hyped as the final frontier for the Australian team. The two teams in their home conditions were also the major opponents who somewhat stood up to Australia during his peak.

I probably rate Ponting a bit lower than I should sub-consciously due to this.

If you consider performing in India and England as the yardstick, it doesn't really help Sanga's case though does it. I thought Ponting was very good in England against England. Overall record is bit skewed by neutral games against Pakistan when he was in shocking form towards the end of his career

Edit - checked the stats

Pretty good innit. Was dead set for a hundred at Trent Bridge ****ing Gary Prat

 

[Bijed]

If you consider performing in India and England as the yardstick, it doesn't really help Sanga's case though does it. I thought Ponting was very good in England against England. Overall record is bit skewed by neutral games against Pakistan when he was in shocking form towards the end of his career

Ponting averages 44 in Ashes tests in England which isn't bad, I guess his performances there seem a bit disappointing compared to his overall quality because he never really had a dominant series there, tended to be one big knock and couple of decent ones (purely in terms of numbers, his Headingley 09 knock for example was 'only' an 80-odd but was utterly imperious. and buried us after our shocking first dig had planted both feet in the grave).

Am I right in saying his 2005 Ashes series (averaged a fraction under 40, so hardly terrible) was basically the only sort-of blip in his golden run?

 

[Gob]

Ponting averages 44 in Ashes tests in England which isn't bad, I guess his performances there seem a bit disappointing compared to his overall quality because he never really had a dominant series there, tended to be one big knock and couple of decent ones (purely in terms of numbers, his Headingley 09 knock for example was 'only' an 80-odd but was utterly imperious. and buried us after our shocking first dig had planted both feet in the grave).

Am I right in saying his 2005 Ashes series (averaged a fraction under 40, so hardly terrible) was basically the only sort-of blip in his golden run?

He had a Kohli like century less run for a year after Melbourne double vs India but just like Kohli now, didn't look out of form

And that Headingley knock is one of my favourite Ponting knocks and performances like that is the reason why there are only 3 batsmen from my watching days that I place ahead of him.

 

[honestbharani]

I think Sangakkara is an overrated hack and actually a very limited batsman. Does this count?

 

[Himannv]

Have always wanted to ask you to elaborate about your Sanga hate.

It probably starts with ODI cricket. I felt he often killed the momentum built up by openers once he came in and didn't really maximize the powerplays. His typical 17*(35) usually took us a lot of work to recover from and we were so reliant on Mahela to hang in with him in the middle overs and build us back up again. Despite being the set batsman later on in the innings he rarely did enough to make it worth our while. He improved a bit towards the end of his career I feel.

I'm far happier with his keeping and his real nature (asshole) shines through a bit more there. He's an above average keeper certainly and having that mean streak is useful. He's clever and can effect run outs or make batsmen look silly. If he wasn't nasty and didn't ruin the careers of some promising bowlers we had, it might have been even better.

In Tests he worked on his game well enough and was a consistent source of runs for us in a team that was filled with inconsistent players. If he was Australian he'd be a lawyer. He has a nice cover drive.

Not saying he's a bad player or anything but definitely overrated. Love the fake accent though.

 

[OverratedSanity]

damn

 

[Teja.]

It probably starts with ODI cricket. I felt he often killed the momentum built up by openers once he came in and didn't really maximize the powerplays. His typical 17*(35) usually took us a lot of work to recover from and we were so reliant on Mahela to hang in with him in the middle overs and build us back up again. Despite being the set batsman later on in the innings he rarely did enough to make it worth our while. He improved a bit towards the end of his career I feel.

I'm far happier with his keeping and his real nature (asshole) shines through a bit more there. He's an above average keeper certainly and having that mean streak is useful. He's clever and can effect run outs or make batsmen look silly. If he wasn't nasty and didn't ruin the careers of some promising bowlers we had, it might have been even better.

In Tests he worked on his game well enough and was a consistent source of runs for us in a team that was filled with inconsistent players. If he was Australian he'd be a lawyer. He has a nice cover drive.

Not saying he's a bad player or anything but definitely overrated. Love the fake accent though.

I rate him higher than you but I agree with you on him obviously being an asshole. People not from the SC generally don't pick up on this and there's was this ridiculous idea that he is one of the nicest people in cricket. In the commentary for the WTC final, he was talking about how cricket is ultimately just an opportunity to become a better person, the importance of helping other people, the importance of balance in life etc and it was aggravating coming from Sangakkara.