How good is Sanga?

[harsh.ag]

Your personal thoughts on the look of Sanga's technique probably have little to do with why he isn't typically in the discussion tbh

Okay, i get that. But can you honestly tell me he looks close to as good as Viv, Sachin, Lara and Sobers looked in their prime? Just aesthetically.

 

[Maximas]

Looks better than Sachin for mine, haven't seen much footage of Sobers and Lara/Viv are always going to be very difficult to top, too much of it depends on individual preference to really get an accurate picture though.

 

[kyear2]

You might be right, and I don't reckon it's set in stone, but it's a general principal I reckon. I certainly think that the batsman with the most rounded game can handle number 3 better than others.

4 is more for the pretty boys And 5 and 6 are just the guys who like to cash in on cheap runs when the bowlers get tired and the ball's old.

#alwaysbatshimselfat6whenheiscaptain

Have always believed this as well.

With regard to Sangakkara, let's forget the other top contenders, I have seen Lara bat and Sangakkara bat and for mine Lara is clearly better and Lara can't crack most persons first team, though he is one of the few in contention for the best after Bradman.
Sanga is great and a legitimate ATG and may very well end up top 10 before he is finished, but just outside of the greatest after the Don conversation.

 

[kyear2]

Okay, i get that. But can you honestly tell me he looks close to as good as Viv, Sachin, Lara and Sobers looked in their prime? Just aesthetically.

Agreed, additionally that capacity for destruction and domination is just missing for me.
I know I may be the only one, but I would still take Punter over him.

 

[Red]

I thought this wasn't about Tendulkar and that Tendulkar was in no way the clear #2 behind Bradman? Compare Sanga with someone else then

Does no one else find it funny how he makes a massive post saying how comparing everyone with Sachin is wrong because he isn't the clear number 2 behind Bradma, and immediately after does the same thing himself

TBH I was replying to your sig and that sort of thought more than anything. And Tendulkar is a decent comparison to Sanga (peers, same era etc)

 

[Red]

The reason he is not in the discussion (according to me) is that he just doesn't look the part when compared to some of the people he is being compared against. Records aren't everything. You have to look good enough to be called The-greatest-batsman-of-all-time-but-for-that-freak-Bradman.

Aesthetics are good but don't really matter. And beauty is in the eye of the….blah blah. Viv was hardly the most pleasing to the eye in my opinion, but he was thoroughly enjoyable to watch. There's nothing wrong with the way Sangakkara bats, I like watching him.

Have always believed this as well.

With regard to Sangakkara, let's forget the other top contenders, I have seen Lara bat and Sangakkara bat and for mine Lara is clearly better and Lara can't crack most persons first team, though he is one of the few in contention for the best after Bradman.
Sanga is great and a legitimate ATG and may very well end up top 10 before he is finished, but just outside of the greatest after the Don conversation.

I'm not disagreeing that Lara is better, but why do you consider Lara better (clearly) than Sangakkara?

 

[smash84]

I had brought up the comparison between sangakkara and Tendulkar as the best in Asia. I am not sure as to how the debate degenerated into why Tendulkar is not the best after Bradman.

 

[Spark]

#3 being the best batsman is such an old school cricket theory, not sure it applies today. South Africa moved Kallis to #4 the better he got!

Yeah, it seems to be #4 rather than #3 which is seen as the "lynchpin" batting position these days, demanding the most out of the occupant.

 

[harsh.ag]

Aesthetics are good but don't really matter. And beauty is in the eye of the….blah blah. Viv was hardly the most pleasing to the eye in my opinion, but he was thoroughly enjoyable to watch. There's nothing wrong with the way Sangakkara bats, I like watching him.

I am not saying that Sanga is not pleasant to watch. What I am saying is that to be a contender for the greatest batsman of all time (here I am considering Bradman as a freak occurrence), you HAVE TO look special (unless you average 80+). You can't look less special than Viv, Lara, Sobers, Sachin (Maximas I don't know how you think Sanga looks better than Sachin but that's your thing I guess), and claim that title.

I am awed by his career though, must say.

 

[Shri]

Just little fun stats.

Also meaningless, done to death, simple minded logic, misguided use of stats etc.

 

[Prince EWS]

What I am saying is that to be a contender for the greatest batsman of all time (here I am considering Bradman as a freak occurrence), you HAVE TO look special (unless you average 80+).

Hmm, I really couldn't disagree more with this.

 

[harsh.ag]

Hmm, I really couldn't disagree more with this.

Care to explain why?

 

[Prince EWS]

Care to explain why?

Someone's performance quality should be treated entirely separately from their aesthetic quality. I have strong aesthetic preferences in cricket too and I enjoy discussing them, but I try not to let those bias my ability to rate's one run-scoring ability.

This isn't to say you have to use a ~statistical~ argument when rating players, as many people base their opinions of quality on watching people bat and forming judgements on their technique, temperament and judgement. People have lots of different criteria for ranking players - be it based on their overall record, their peak ability, their longevity, their ability to dominate, their ability to perform against the best of their time, their ability to adapt to different conditions or the viewer's own perceptions upon watching them play, but what all these criteria have in common is that they're performance-based - either based on actual performance or perceived potential performance in theoretical circumstances. They're based upon how effective they see the players in advancing the cause of the game in the game situations they find most important.

You don't get bonus runs in cricket for playing pretty though, so to essentially say "I think these two players would perform to basically the same level over a wide variety of circumstances and challenges, but Player A is better than Player B because I enjoyed watching him more" just seems completely absurd to me, to the point where it'd make as much sense for someone else to point to Player B's dreamy steel-blue eyes as a retort.

And that's not to say you can't bring up aesthetics as a separate discussion -- they're interesting. They're just separate.

 

[Days of Grace]

Someone's performance quality should be treated entirely separately from their aesthetic quality. I have strong aesthetic preferences in cricket too and I enjoy discussing them, but I try not to let those bias my ability to rate's one run-scoring ability.

This isn't to say you have to use a ~statistical~ argument when rating players, as many people base their opinions of quality on watching people bat and forming judgements on their technique, temperament and judgement. People have lots of different criteria for ranking players - be it based on their overall record, their peak ability, their longevity, their ability to dominate, their ability to perform against the best of their time, their ability to adapt to different conditions or the viewer's own perceptions upon watching them play, but what all these criteria have in common is that they're performance-based - either based on actual performance or perceived potential performance in theoretical circumstances. They're based upon how effective they see the players in advancing the cause of the game in the game situations they find most important.

You don't get bonus runs in cricket for playing pretty though, so to essentially say "I think these two players would perform to basically the same level over a wide variety of circumstances and challenges, but Player A is better than Player B because I enjoyed watching him more" just seems completely absurd to me, to the point where it'd make as much sense for someone else to point to Player B's dreamy steel-blue eyes as a retort.

And that's not to say you can't bring up aesthetics as a separate discussion -- they're interesting. They're just separate.

But this is precisely when aesthetics comes into it.

 

[YorksLanka]

I honestly think it's impossible to rank players from different generations of cricket as so much changes I.e wickets, pace of bowling, equipment technology, frequency of matches etc.. All I would say is that for me, Sanga is in the top group of batsmen that I have seen in my time..

 

[Migara]

That is exactly when it gets totally subjective.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Someone's performance quality should be treated entirely separately from their aesthetic quality. I have strong aesthetic preferences in cricket too and I enjoy discussing them, but I try not to let those bias my ability to rate's one run-scoring ability.

This isn't to say you have to use a ~statistical~ argument when rating players, as many people base their opinions of quality on watching people bat and forming judgements on their technique, temperament and judgement. People have lots of different criteria for ranking players - be it based on their overall record, their peak ability, their longevity, their ability to dominate, their ability to perform against the best of their time, their ability to adapt to different conditions or the viewer's own perceptions upon watching them play, but what all these criteria have in common is that they're performance-based - either based on actual performance or perceived potential performance in theoretical circumstances. They're based upon how effective they see the players in advancing the cause of the game in the game situations they find most important.

You don't get bonus runs in cricket for playing pretty though, so to essentially say "I think these two players would perform to basically the same level over a wide variety of circumstances and challenges, but Player A is better than Player B because I enjoyed watching him more" just seems completely absurd to me, to the point where it'd make as much sense for someone else to point to Player B's dreamy steel-blue eyes as a retort.

And that's not to say you can't bring up aesthetics as a separate discussion -- they're interesting. They're just separate.

I disagree. Using aesthetics as a tie breaker in case you feel two batsmen are pretty much equally effective is a fair way to separate them imo. If I find batsman A has made just as good a contribution as batsman B over his career but also makes for a better viewing experience, I have no problem if someone picks him over the ugly one... He was just as good in terms of output but also looked good while doing it. Why is he not better (assuming there's no other way to separate them) . Of course, this really doesn't play a role most of the time because usually you can find ways to separate them without resorting to this "bias" as you call it.

Ftr, I also disagree with kyear and harsh, it's been obvious to me that Sanga's batting oozes class and is one of the most delightful batsmen to watch ever. Can't see anything about his batting that isn't visually orgasmic.

 

[Prince EWS]

I disagree. Using aesthetics as a tie breaker in case you feel two batsmen are pretty much equally effective is a fair way to separate them imo. If I find batsman A has made just as good a contribution as batsman B over his career but also makes for a better viewing experience, I have no problem if someone picks him over the ugly one... He was just as good in terms of output but also looked good while doing it. Why is he not better (assuming there's no other way to separate them) . Of course, this really doesn't play a role most of the time because usually you can find ways to separate them without resorting to this "bias" as you call it.

Ftr, I also disagree with kyear and harsh, it's been obvious to me that Sanga's batting oozes class and is one of the most delightful batsmen to watch ever. Can't see anything about his batting that isn't visually orgasmic.

It doesn't make him better any more than if he donated lots of money to charity or was a loving husband and father. Sure it's nice but it's just irrelevant to what you're actually evaluating. If you can't split two players in the context of what you're rating them on, then just don't.

 

[Maximas]

that swivel when he pulls, and that glorious bent front knee on the cover drive, could watch all day, much aesthetic, very style, wow

 

[OverratedSanity]

It doesn't make him better any more than if he donated lots of money to charity or was a loving husband and father. Sure it's nice but it's just irrelevant to what you're actually evaluating. If you can't split two players in the context of what you're rating them on, then just don't.

Except being a philanthropist has nothing to do with what you do in a cricket match. Aesthetics of batting, Bowling, fielding are still very much cricket.