Is Sangakara the best bat since Bradman?

[Prince EWS]

Neither Murali nor Hadlee were able to play in high profile series either. Yet many people would put one or both in their AT World XIs.

I think some of those who don't merely don't because they subconsciously subscribe to KV's thinking, even though they won't say that. It's wild to see it actually presented as a legit argument.

 

[Kenneth Viljoen]

Neither Murali nor Hadlee were able to play in high profile series either. Yet many people would put one or both in their AT World XIs.

All-time XI's , Best since Bradman these are all measure of status and where players stand in the game , so all parameters have to be considered in measuring the greatest batsmen of last 70-80 years including the quality of series that was played ..We can't pretend that cricket is an equal sport .
I can't put a guy who never played more than a 3 Test series as a second best bat of all time , other greats had to play in test series with much greater intensity and quality, 32 of the 56 Test series that Sangakkara played in were 2 test match series or smaller which tells a story that Sri Lanka took white ball cricket more seriously or the bigger test nations didn't take Sri Lanka seriously..That's the reality for teams outside the Big 3 and West Indies of 80's and 90's ilk.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

All-time XI's , Best since Bradman these are all measure of status and where players stand in the game , so all parameters have to be considered in measuring the greatest batsmen of last 70-80 years including the quality of series that was played ..We can't pretend that cricket is an equal sport .
I can't put a guy who never played more than a 3 Test series as a second best bat of all time , other greats had to play in test series with much greater intensity and quality, 32 of the 56 Test series that Sangakkara played in were 2 test match series or smaller which tells a story that Sri Lanka took white ball cricket more seriously or the bigger test nations didn't take Sri Lanka seriously..That's the reality for teams outside the Big 3 and West Indies of 80's and 90's ilk.

I guess you don't rate ABDV as an ODI batsman then since he never played in a World Cup final with its associated much greater intensity and quality. That's a shame as I personally think AB was the best since ODI bat since Viv.

 

[Socerer 01]

calling Sri Lanka not a top 3 test team at any point is dumb, they were in there for parts of the 2000s decade

 

[Kenneth Viljoen]

I guess you don't rate ABDV as an ODI batsman then since he never played in a World Cup final with its associated much greater intensity and quality. That's a shame as I personally think AB was the best since ODI bat since Viv.

You're having a conversation with your own statement and passing it off as mine ..

I do rate AB as a batsman but not as the best since Viv , a lack of trophy success does count against a player if you're going to talk about them being the greatest..

 

[Kenneth Viljoen]

calling Sri Lanka not a top 3 test team at any point is dumb, they were in there for parts of the 2000s decade

Name me one year in the 2000's that Sri Lanka won a bilateral series in India , South Africa , England , Pakistan, Australia , New Zealand or West Indies

 

[TheJediBrah]

I'm pointing out the fact that Sangakkara wasn't able to play in high profile series like Brian Lara and Tendulkar for example ..If Bradman was Zimbabwean or Bangladeshi he wouldn't have played test cricket ..Who you play for does matter

You've come to the right conclusion but for all the wrong reasons

 

[peterhrt]

Apart from a test or two Pollock only played against the best teams of his era (apart from the WI for all the sad and awful reasons we know about). Australia and England were formidable opponents and the fact Pollock averaged between 55 and 60 against them suggests real quality. To say nothing of World XI and then rebel cricket matches of the mid 80s.

31 of Pollock's 64 first-class hundreds came when there was a fast bowler in the opposition. Some were little known South African domestic bowlers but there was also Wes Hall, Lillee, Snow (3 hundreds), Procter (2 when still fast), le Roux (4), Rodney Hogg (2) and Sylvester Clarke (2). On both occasions Clarke was backed up by Franklyn Stephenson and once also by Ezra Moseley. Leading fast-medium bowlers such as van der Bijl and Alderman could not prevent him reaching three figures either.

Pollock scored eight hundreds against Graeme McKenzie. One of these was 209 out of 353 against Australia at Newlands in early 1967, played almost entirely off the back foot due to a leg injury. This started discussions about him being the world's best batsman. Michael Melford, reporting for The Cricketer and Daily Telegraph, was a leading advocate, and several of the Australians agreed. Bradman said he was the best left-hander he had seen.

Pollock later received criticism in England for opting not to join several of the world's leading players in county cricket. How much that affects his legacy is debatable.

 

[sledger]

He wasn't even better than Bevan

 

[Bolo.]

Bull****. Otherwise his first class average would have been higher than his test average. It wasn't.

Most of the bowlers you list were (or are) well past their best at that age. And your 'option' argument is silly, especially as in the cases of Statham and Trueman they were perceived as no longer being the force they had been. You can disagree about McKenzie but the facts are not on your side. He was no more than good in a weak era for Australian fast bowling.

You see this kind of argument made often, but a lot of the guys we consider top bats averaged more in tests than FC. It's part of why we consider them so good.

Hobbs-Bradman-Hutton-Sobers-Viv-Sachin-Smith is a reasonable representation of the best test careers baton. I think only Sachin averaged more in FC. He had a FC competition that was very friendly to runs, and an overly long test career. Pollock had a 27 year career in a FC competition that was extremely hard to make runs in.

 

[Coronis]

You see this kind of argument made often, but a lot of the guys we consider top bats averaged more in tests than FC. It's part of why we consider them so good.

Hobbs-Bradman-Hutton-Sobers-Viv-Sachin-Smith is a reasonable representation of the best test careers baton. I think only Sachin averaged more in FC. He had a FC competition that was very friendly to runs, and an overly long test career. Pollock had a 27 year career in a FC competition that was extremely hard to make runs in.

Plus it must be taken into consideration all great players generally play years of FC before and after their test careers, i.e before and after they were world class.

Of the 43 batsmen who average over 50 in tests (min 20 innings), only 14 average higher in first class cricket. 7 of these were big home track bullies (average of at least 10 higher at home). The other seven played in Indian FC (notoriously high averages in domestic). Which leaves us with Border, Waugh and Flower. (probs cause lower order batting is easier due to far less bowling depth)

 

[Bolo.]

Plus it must be taken into consideration all great players generally play years of FC before and after their test careers, i.e before and after they were world class.

Of the 43 batsmen who average over 50 in tests (min 20 innings), only 14 average higher in first class cricket. 7 of these were big home track bullies (average of at least 10 higher at home). The other seven played in Indian FC (notoriously high averages in domestic). Which leaves us with Border, Waugh and Flower. (probs cause lower order batting is easier due to far less bowling depth)

I'm not surprised that test averages are higher, but I am surprised the difference is this clear.

To add to the age thing, I suspect concentration/motivation would often be an issue for bats in FC. Do you have the numbers for bowlers, say sub 25 test average? I suspect it will give a very different picture.

 

[Coronis]

I'm not surprised that test averages are higher, but I am surprised the difference is this clear.

To add to the age thing, I suspect concentration/motivation would often be an issue for bats in FC. Do you have the numbers for bowlers, say sub 25 test average? I suspect it will give a very different picture.

So, 41 bowlers (post WWI) min 100 test wickets (rather than 2000 balls) - 30 had a lower average in FC than tests. Missing out were Davidson, Cummins, Bumrah, Donald, Rabada, Steyn, S.Pollock, Croft, Harris, Ashwin and Reid. Some obvious ones like Harris and Cummins, some surprises in there (Jadeja once again proving he is the goat by improving).

Ftr the other 11 batsmen who averaged more in FC were Headley, Kambli, Tendulkar, Miandad, Dravid, Ponting, Hussey, Chanderpaul, Gavaskar, Hayden and Compton.

 

[Bolo.]

So, 41 bowlers (post WWI) min 100 test wickets (rather than 2000 balls) - 30 had a lower average in FC than tests. Missing out were Davidson, Cummins, Bumrah, Donald, Rabada, Steyn, S.Pollock, Croft, Harris, Ashwin and Reid. Some obvious ones like Harris and Cummins, some surprises in there (Jadeja once again proving he is the goat by improving).

Ftr the other 11 batsmen who averaged more in FC were Headley, Kambli, Tendulkar, Miandad, Dravid, Ponting, Hussey, Chanderpaul, Gavaskar, Hayden and Compton.

Ya, pretty different picture for the bowlers.

Shorter FC careers (careers often ended suddenly through injuries rather than slow declines), offered a greater advantage by playing FC in conditions they are suited to, and their peaks being more impactful on career averages than bats are all likely factors.

Looking at the list of bats, it is dominated by Indians/Aussies who played in the 90s/2000s. 50+ and better test average if you aren't in this group is notably rare.

Edit:
And everyone else other than Compton, who was a massive HTB had weak bowlers/flat pitches in FC (or usually both)

 

[TheJediBrah]

Are we forgetting that there are many, many more batsmen that dominated in FC cricket but averaged way less in Tests?

 

[Bolo.]

Are we forgetting that there are many, many more batsmen that dominated in FC cricket but averaged way less in Tests?

Are you are strawmanning a different point? Nobody is saying that FC dominance guarantees a similar level of test dominance. The point I was making was that calling out a top bat for averaging more in tests is wrong because it is common.

If you are making a more nuanced point about survivor bias, then yes, it is certainly in play. I alluded to it in the first paragraph of my first post. But it's arguably not strictly relevant to those we consider top bats, because, with the exception of people who couldn't play tests, we pretty much ignore FC in assessing quality.

Basically, a big FC average is not a reliable way to predict a big test average. But a big test average is a pretty reliable indicator of a lower FC average. And if you are from a FC system that is not weak/bat dominated, it seems to be an extremely reliable one. Survivor bias can't explain this level of consistency.

 

[trundler]

If you are making a more nuanced point

Probably not

 

[TheJediBrah]

Are you are strawmanning a different point? Nobody is saying that FC dominance guarantees a similar level of test dominance. The point I was making was that calling out a top bat for averaging more in tests is wrong because it is common.

If you are making a more nuanced point about survivor bias, then yes, it is certainly in play. I alluded to it in the first paragraph of my first post. But it's arguably not strictly relevant to those we consider top bats, because, with the exception of people who couldn't play tests, we pretty much ignore FC in assessing quality.

Basically, a big FC average is not a reliable way to predict a big test average. But a big test average is a pretty reliable indicator of a lower FC average. And if you are from a FC system that is not weak/bat dominated, it seems to be an extremely reliable one. Survivor bias can't explain this level of consistency.

I really hadn't thought that much about it

Mostly trying to find a way to bring up how strong the Sheffield Shield was in the 90s into the conversation

 

[Prince EWS]

Probably not

Nuance is not TJB's biggest strength.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Nuance is not TJB's biggest strength.

It's pokemon btw