Joe Root vs Kumar Sangakkara

[Coronis]

But that's my point though, you can't separate them because they (especially Sobers) bowled a hell of a lot, which also would have impacted their batting. So why are we separating Sanga's?

Yes they had superior attacks, but at least half if not more of those matches were in SL where these attacks were blunted and he had Murali.

And yes dude, you aren't just a proponent of those who batted slowly, you're very much anti, and biased against quicker scorers.

There are more people on this forum that tank Viv top 3 all time than those who rate him 15th, and there's no justification for such a rating otherwise.

Because they are actually seperable because he didn’t keep for the majority of his career..

And so the other half were in pace friendly countries where the other teams had the advantage…

No, I just don’t give players extra points for a high strike rate nor take away points for a low one. I believe both are valuable to a team. It may seem as though I’m biased because there are some who inherently believe more aggressive bats are better and thus rate them accordingly.

Because of this, I don’t rate Viv as highly as others. I rate him based on his overall record, longevity and peak, his strike rate doesn’t come into it. I have no bias against him. He was before my time sadly and I never adjusted my ideas of rating players based on a single player.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Root is a very rounded bat I feel, with the exception of never succeeding in Australia. He has done fairly well in India and SL against spin, brilliant at home(2015 Ashes MOTS, great series against Bumrah and Co in 2021), brilliant record in SA, and has very good records in NZ and WI too. Sanga scored a lot of runs against the likes of Bangladesh in his peak. And he has serious blots in his record, weak in Ind(facing weaker attacks than Root), in SA, very passable in England, and weak in WI as well. I prefer the more rounded player over who has the better peak.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Because they are actually seperable because he didn’t keep for the majority of his career..

And so the other half were in pace friendly countries where the other teams had the advantage…

No, I just don’t give players extra points for a high strike rate nor take away points for a low one. I believe both are valuable to a team. It may seem as though I’m biased because there are some who inherently believe more aggressive bats are better and thus rate them accordingly.

Because of this, I don’t rate Viv as highly as others. I rate him based on his overall record, longevity and peak, his strike rate doesn’t come into it. I have no bias against him. He was before my time sadly and I never adjusted my ideas of rating players based on a single player.

I rate Viv higher than most, but respect your opinion here, does become a matter of perception quite some times here, and you’re entitled to yours.

 

[Migara]

"Casually sweeps Ponting averaging mid 20s in India under the rug"

And Kallis averaging 35 in SL, ENG and 31 in BAN, still rates over Sanga

 

[capt_Luffy]

And Kallis averaging 35 in SL, ENG and 31 in BAN, still rates over Sanga

If we are just talking about the period Sanga played as a batsman without keeping, it's really tough to poke holes at his record.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

I think Sanga’s average being so high without keeping is largely just down to him being in his prime tbh

 

[Migara]

If we are just talking about the period Sanga played as a batsman without keeping, it's really tough to poke holes at his record.

If has Sanga never kept, he would have ended up with an average of low 60s. That would have put him only second to Bradman.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I think Sanga’s average being so high without keeping is largely just down to him being in his prime tbh

Ditto. Though probably an effect of both, his prime coinciding with him parting with Gloves and the less pressure and strain making room for more focus on batting.

 

[capt_Luffy]

If has Sanga never kept, he would have ended up with an average of low 60s. That would have put him only second to Bradman.

Again, don't completely agree with that, but there's no way to know really.

 

[Migara]

I think Sanga’s average being so high without keeping is largely just down to him being in his prime tbh

The other side of the story is that if he kept in his prime, he would have still averaged more than Gilchrist and would have been the first choice keeper for an ATG side.

 

[Migara]

Again, don't completely agree with that, but there's no way to know really.

Depends on how you rate him as a keeper batsman. What ever the argument used for or against him as a keeper-bat can be used in reverse for him being a pure bat.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

The other side of the story is that if he kept in his prime, he would have still averaged more than Gilchrist and would have been the first choice keeper for an ATG side.

Yea I agree he would average more than Gilchrist if he kept but we don’t know for sure

 

[capt_Luffy]

Depends on how you rate him as a keeper batsman. What ever the argument used for or against him as a keeper-bat can be used in reverse for him being a pure bat.

Agree with that.

The other side of the story is that if he kept in his prime, he would have still averaged more than Gilchrist and would have been the first choice keeper for an ATG side.

I think Gilly making ATG teams over him also has to do with the fact that he, with the way he batted, is much more suited to bat at 7. If the keeper could bat at 3, would had gone with Sanga but with Don present, that's impossible.

 

[kyear2]

I rate Viv higher than most, but respect your opinion here, does become a matter of perception quite some times here, and you’re entitled to yours.

Everyone is entitled to theirs, well expect me and a certain person, but I digress.

At some point we have to look at who, when and where persons scored said runs against.
It's just the icing on the cake how he scored them.

 

[kyear2]

I think Sanga’s average being so high without keeping is largely just down to him being in his prime tbh

Exactly, same as with Walcott.

 

[kyear2]

If has Sanga never kept, he would have ended up with an average of low 60s. That would have put him only second to Bradman.

I assume you just meant average and not rating / ranking.

Walcott, Weekes, Barrington and even Smith now have absurdly high averages and none of whom (Smith aside) are seen even in the top two tiers after Bradman

 

[kyear2]

The other side of the story is that if he kept in his prime, he would have still averaged more than Gilchrist and would have been the first choice keeper for an ATG side.

Now this is a valid point.

 

[kyear2]

Agree with that.

I think Gilly making ATG teams over him also has to do with the fact that he, with the way he batted, is much more suited to bat at 7. If the keeper could bat at 3, would had gone with Sanga but with Don present, that's impossible.

If you can bat at 3, you can bat and construct an innings anywhere.

 

[Coronis]

Based on how his career evolved in ODIs at the time too, I tend to agree it was a combination of the two.

 

[capt_Luffy]

If you can bat at 3, you can bat and construct an innings anywhere.

You can, but Gilly is much more suited to bat at 7 the way he batted.