How good is Sanga?

[smash84]

Average doesn't tell the whole story, but it tells a telling story than glorified accounts of sports journalists. Even taken on that account, cannot see how Miandad is in Sangakkara's league as some pointed out, and why Kallis and Sangakkara are not in same league with batting.

awta

 

[Ruckus]

Yes, and then his average as a keeper should not have any bearing on his average as a batsman. If he's considered only as a pure batsman, he's only behind Bradman. You cannot have the argument both ways. If you don't agree that he will not improve his average if he didn't give up his gloves, then you should agree that if he played as a pure batsman, would have been averaging much more than 56.

Of course you can say things like he probably would have been up there in the WK/batsman record book had he stayed on as one, but all that is, when it comes down to it, is mere speculation. The same goes with saying had he always been a pure batsman, he would be averaging 69 or whatever. You can only properly judge him by what has happened, and perhaps unfortunately for him, that means not ignoring the part of his career when he was a WK. You can't just say his true value as a pure batsman is what it is post-wicket-keeping. That's crazy. How can you possibly know that his wicket-keeping was solely responsible for him averaging x amount less? Don't you think it could also be quite likely a lot of it was down to him simply gaining experience and developing as a batsman? Perhaps the loss of wicket-keeping was the impetus he needed to flourish as a batsman, but it doesn't necessarily mean it was the only cause. Let's be honest here; do you really think Sanga, as a pure batsman, looks like someone who'd be averaging 70 in the long term. Is he really that much better than other greats like Tendulkar? No chance in hell.

 

[Migara]

Of course you can say things like he probably would have been up there in the WK/batsman record book had he stayed on as one, but all that is, when it comes down to it, is mere speculation. The same goes with saying had he always been a pure batsman, he would be averaging 69 or whatever. You can only properly judge him by what has happened, and perhaps unfortunately for him, that means not ignoring the part of his career when he was a WK. You can't just say his true value as a pure batsman is what it is post-wicket-keeping. That's crazy. How can you possibly know that his wicket-keeping was solely responsible for him averaging x amount less? Don't you think it could also be quite likely a lot of it was down to him simply gaining experience and developing as a batsman? Perhaps the loss of wicket-keeping was the impetus he needed to flourish as a batsman, but it doesn't necessarily mean it was the only cause. Let's be honest here; do you really think Sanga, as a pure batsman, looks like someone who'd be averaging 70 in the long term. Is he really that much better than other greats like Tendulkar? No chance in hell.

The problem is that the argument that used against him as a pure batsman is not used for him as a wk-bat, which is hypocrisy at best. If Sanga kept for the whole career, people argue that he would average 40, which is utter bull****, which is not recgnized in their biased minds. No one argues that Sanga would average 70 if he never kept, and if some one did that it would be as biased as the first lot that I've pointed out.

Truth lies somewhere in between. If Sanga didn't give away his gloves still he would be averaging in high forties, if not around fifty, and will be better or as good as a certain ATG wk-bat. And if he never kept would be averaging in low sixties, which is better than any one from the current era, and would be an ATG batsman. Which ever you look, sAnga is ATG material. People who point out his average as a keeper to belittle him as wk-bat ignores the stats as a pur batsman. And people who want to be little him as a batsman, ignore the fact half of his career he has kept.

 

[Ruckus]

yeah fair enough, agree with your general sentiment there, but I don't think you can definitively say he would be an ATG at this stage either way. He hasn't finished his career yet.

 

[smash84]

yeah fair enough, agree with your general sentiment there, but I don't think you can definitively say he would be an ATG at this stage either way. He hasn't finished his career yet.

Even if Sanga bombs the next 2-3 years of his career he would still be ATG material. Just like ATG material.

 

[Ruckus]

He is borderline for me atm, so he wouldn't make my list if he bombed.

 

[kyear2]

Average doesn't tell the whole story, but it tells a telling story than glorified accounts of sports journalists. Even taken on that account, cannot see how Miandad is in Sangakkara's league as some pointed out, and why Kallis and Sangakkara are not in same league with batting.

Miandad was seen as a fighter in the vein of Border, a gritty batsman who never gave up, in the case of Kallis, though I am not a fan of his strike rate and selfish play, despite what you think, it is a hell of a lot more difficult to play your home matches in South Africa than Sri Lanka.

Players and journalists still speak of Trndulkar, Lara and Ponting as the best of the era and place Kallis and Sangakkara in that next tier despite their better records. I happen to agree with that sentiment for the previously mentioned reasons and would even place Dravid ahead of both, though similarily not a fan of his strike rate either.

 

[smash84]

He is borderline for me atm, so he wouldn't make my list if he bombed.

sorry. I wanted to say just like Ponting

 

[Migara]

Miandad was seen as a fighter in the vein of Border, a gritty batsman who never gave up, in the case of Kallis, though I am not a fan of his strike rate and selfish play, despite what you think, it is a hell of a lot more difficult to play your home matches in South Africa than Sri Lanka.

So that means SL pitches are flat. And it will make Murali's stats even more significant isn't it? And Sanga on Kallis' home pitches and vice versa average very similarly. So Miandad played on helpful tracks than Sangakkara? Your reasons and arguments are ad hoc and not consistent.

Players and journalists still speak of Trndulkar, Lara and Ponting as the best of the era and place Kallis and Sangakkara in that next tier despite their better records. I happen to agree with that sentiment for the previously mentioned reasons and would even place Dravid ahead of both, though similarily not a fan of his strike rate either.

At the moment no one would place Sanga with SRT / Lara / Ponting / Dravid. But he is there definietly in next tier. If he averages 55+ after another four years, I cannot find a way to keep him away from top four as well.

 

[CWB304]

So that means SL pitches are flat. And it will make Murali's stats even more significant isn't it? And Sanga on Kallis' home pitches and vice versa average very similarly. So Miandad played on helpful tracks than Sangakkara? Your reasons and arguments are ad hoc and not consistent.

At the moment no one would place Sanga with SRT / Lara / Ponting / Dravid. But he is there definietly in next tier. If he averages 55+ after another four years, I cannot find a way to keep him away from top four as well.

Why not? You've just exposed as arbitrary and inconsistent the criteria being used by some posters who've obviously pre-determined that he's not up there with them, and have then found themselves having to move all sorts of goalposts as they work backwards to find statistical justification for their opinion.

The fact that some of these assessments simultaneously downgrade Sanga for having kept wicket and then for later giving up the gloves indicates that there is very little rational basis for denying Sanga his place at the top table with these guys. Or perhaps I should say almost at the top: Lara is Lara but for me Sangakkara has done enough to be regarded as up there with the others.

 

[kyear2]

It was never statisrical and he is not being penalised keeping, he is just not that highly regarded. If he had kept the gloves on, he may have been to 3-5 all time in that regard, but he didn't. For me personally he needs more big performances in England, South Africa, Australia ect, eapecially not in a runfest, but have no idea what their schedule looks like and he has played an inordinate amount of cricket at home and in the s.c in general.

No one says the guy isn't great, he just isn't in that upper echelon, at least not yet.

 

[akilana]

So that means SL pitches are flat. And it will make Murali's stats even more significant isn't it? And Sanga on Kallis' home pitches and vice versa average very similarly. So Miandad played on helpful tracks than Sangakkara? Your reasons and arguments are ad hoc and not consistent.

At the moment no one would place Sanga with SRT / Lara / Ponting / Dravid. But he is there definietly in next tier. If he averages 55+ after another four years, I cannot find a way to keep him away from top four as well.

Kallis is in there with Dravid and Ponting but Sanga is in the next tier with KP, Smith, Sehwag, Younis Khan etc. and the best of that league

 

[Migara]

Kallis is in there with Dravid and Ponting but Sanga is in the next tier with KP, Smith, Sehwag, Younis Khan etc. and the best of that league

BS, TBH. Sanga and Kallis are easily the ATG players of this era even above SRT, Lara and Viv.

 

[kyear2]

ok........................

 

[smash84]

I find it funny that SC batsman are penalized for having high averages due to playing on flat wickets and the bowlers are not given any bonus points for bowling well on those pancake wickets

 

[Arachnodouche]

No, smalishah. SC batsmen are penalized for having high averages at home and then sucking abroad. That is the reason the odd gems like Tendulkar and Dravid and even Laxman will always be far greater than your Sangas and Jayawardenes. Because the former three, at one time or another during their career, have dominated the top Test team in the world in their backyard.

 

[Migara]

No, smalishah. SC batsmen are penalized for having high averages at home and then sucking abroad. That is the reason the odd gems like Tendulkar and Dravid and even Laxman will always be far greater than your Sangas and Jayawardenes. Because the former three, at one time or another during their career, have dominated the top Test team in the world in their backyard.

No mate. What he describes is that The "Flat" wickets for SC batsmen suddenly becomes "dustbowls" for SC spinners. If it's flat, SC bowlers should be given the extra credit bowling on them. If they are dusbowls, SC batsmen should be given extra credit playing on them. You cannot have it both ways.

 

[CWB304]

No, smalishah. SC batsmen are penalized for having high averages at home and then sucking abroad. That is the reason the odd gems like Tendulkar and Dravid and even Laxman will always be far greater than your Sangas and Jayawardenes. Because the former three, at one time or another during their career, have dominated the top Test team in the world in their backyard.

You have taken delusional Indian posting to new lows with these latest comments. To suggest that the limited Laxman is a better player than Sangakkara or even belongs to the same ballpark in terms of batting achievements - let alone "far greater" - indicates to me that you live in a parallel universe occupied by elves, orcs and goblins.

Sanga has nearly twice as many hundreds in something like twenty less tests and an eleven runs per innings superior batting average. In addition, he - contrary to your ignorant or spiteful comments - has put in some fantastic performances against Australia in Australia when they were the number one side and for which he was voted by the Oz players the most feared opposition batsman - ahead of your holy trinity. Your trolling is a complete joke and I can only hope that it is because of congenital imbecility rather than malice.

In fact responding to you reminds me of watching an England vs Australia test match at the Oval many years ago and having the misfortune of sitting next to a boozed up cretin who was seriously trying to persuade me that a decent player (Graham Thorpe; I feel embarrassed for him to even recount the tale) was better than Brian Lara - on the basis of some random performance parameters that I can't recall now which he'd obviously pulled out of his backside in an alcoholic stupor.

 

[smash84]

No, smalishah. SC batsmen are penalized for having high averages at home and then sucking abroad. That is the reason the odd gems like Tendulkar and Dravid and even Laxman will always be far greater than your Sangas and Jayawardenes. Because the former three, at one time or another during their career, have dominated the top Test team in the world in their backyard.

you missed my point. Read Migara below. That is what I meant.

No mate. What he describes is that The "Flat" wickets for SC batsmen suddenly becomes "dustbowls" for SC spinners. If it's flat, SC bowlers should be given the extra credit bowling on them. If they are dusbowls, SC batsmen should be given extra credit playing on them. You cannot have it both ways.

You have taken delusional Indian posting to new lows with these latest comments. To suggest that the limited Laxman is a better player than Sangakkara or even belongs to the same ballpark in terms of batting achievements - let alone "far greater" - indicates to me that you live in a parallel universe occupied by elves, orcs and goblins.

Sanga has nearly twice as many hundreds in something like twenty less tests and an eleven runs per innings superior batting average. In addition, he - contrary to your ignorant or spiteful comments - has put in some fantastic performances against Australia in Australia when they were the number one side and for which he was voted by the Oz players the most feared opposition batsman - ahead of your holy trinity. Your trolling is a complete joke and I can only hope that it is because of congenital imbecility rather than malice.

In fact responding to you reminds me of watching an England vs Australia test match at the Oval many years ago and having the misfortune of sitting next to a boozed up cretin who was seriously trying to persuade me that a decent player (Graham Thorpe; I feel embarrassed for him to even recount the tale) was better than Brian Lara - on the basis of some random performance parameters that I can't recall now which he'd obviously pulled out of his backside in an alcoholic stupor.

haha...dude, you should be participating in CW short story competition. Your writing style is pretty good.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Just when I saw the name Laxman, stopped reading right there. How does Laxman comes up in Sanga thread