How good is Sanga?

[Riggins]

Maybe he makes batting look so easy that the rest of his team mates switch off a bit, and so the team performs worse? Or maybe he looks so good the bowler feels more helpless and gives up quicker, making everything easier?

Who gives a ****, really.

 

[Prince EWS]

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.

Yeah but you're not analysing cricket in general any more than you're analysing philanthropy. When you're analysing someone's relative ability to bat, bowl or field, it just has zero relevance IMO. Aesthetics is very much a part of cricket -- I actually find it much more interesting than analysing quality these days -- but it's a separate part. I find the idea completely absurd, but I think we've hit an ideological impasse to the point where we're going around in circles, so I'll leave it there content that I answered harsh.ag's question on why I held the opinion I did.

 

[Jono]

Out of all the players to deny is aesthetically awesome, why is Sanga being talked about as such? His pull shot and cover drive are to die for, and he plays exceptionally straight. Moves his feet. Is pure *** tbh

 

[harsh.ag]

Yeah but you're not analysing cricket in general any more than you're analysing philanthropy. When you're analysing someone's relative ability to bat, bowl or field, it just has zero relevance IMO. Aesthetics is very much a part of cricket -- I actually find it much more interesting than analysing quality these days -- but it's a separate part. I find the idea completely absurd, but I think we've hit an ideological impasse to the point where we're going around in circles, so I'll leave it there content that I answered harsh.ag's question on why I held the opinion I did.

Valid points all, and I get your line above now. And it really is interesting, trying to figure out the aesthetics of cricket, especially bowling, I feel. There is a certain way it all comes together for some bowlers that makes it look "the way it should be" to each eye as its taste.

Warne's action was so stylistic, I always thought, but it's not just the action simply but the follow through for fast bowlers, how their shoulders behave.

 

[harsh.ag]

Out of all the players to deny is aesthetically awesome, why is Sanga being talked about as such? His pull shot and cover drive are to die for, and he plays exceptionally straight. Moves his feet. Is pure *** tbh

It's mostly because of me tbh I am one of the very few who don't rate him that high aesthetically. But I have come to the understanding he is very popular on that scale.

 

[G.I.Joe]

that swivel when he pulls

that glorious bent front knee on the cover drive​

​

could watch all day


​

much aesthetic


​

very style
​

​

wow​

FTFY
z

 

[OverratedSanity]

FTFY
z

Incomplete without Junaid Khan's face.

 

[watson]

If a Test match is seen purely as a mathmatical exercise where the simple object of the game is to take 20 wickets and score more runs than the opposition then of course it doesn't matter how aesthetically pleasing the batsman is.

However, this is to downplay the impact of the necessary mind-games that go into forging an innings. By rights, there is no way that Graham Dilley should have scored 50 runs during his second innings at Headingley, 1981. The pitch was awful, the bowlers were Lillee, Lawson, and Alderman, and Dilley had limited skill.

However, Botham's cavalier attitude and insistence that he and Dilley "have a bit of a laugh" meant that Dilley could relax and therefore focus on the ball rather his nerves. Not to mention swing the bat better. The plain fact is that some simple positive psychology produced tangible results with respect to improving batting technique.

Therefore, the main point being that dour negative batsman who make batting look awkward can have a negative impact on the batting technique of some of his fellow batsman. Personally, if the bloke at the other end looked like he was struggling then I made the automatic assumption that the pitch was worse than it really was, and that the bowling was better than it really was. The end result being that I would eventually get bogged down in my own innings and then get out. On the other hand, batting with a cavilier batsman who consistently crashed the ball through the covers with an air of contempt changed the way I played my game. It seemed all a lot easier.

So yes, aesthetics do play a part in winning a cricket match, but their net effect tends to begin inside the head of the batsman at the non-strikers end.

 

[OverratedSanity]

That's not what aesthetics are tbh.

And anyway what about guys like Dravid and Kallis who are hardly aggressive but when they start building their innings and give off an air of immovability and calm, it rubs off on the entire team. This thing that only aggressive batsmen make the teammates jobs easier is rubbish. Great defensive bats do that too.

 

[watson]

That's not what aesthetics are tbh.

And anyway what about guys like Dravid and Kallis who are hardly aggressive but when they start building their innings and give off an air of immovability and calm, it rubs off on the entire team. This thing that only aggressive batsmen make the teammates jobs easier is rubbish. Great defensive bats do that too.

I don't doubt that. Part of aesthetics is making the difficult look easy and unfussed.

 

[Red]

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

Sorry mastermind. Enlighten me with your superior wisdom.

 

[Migara]

If a Test match is seen purely as a mathmatical exercise where the simple object of the game is to take 20 wickets and score more runs than the opposition then of course it doesn't matter how aesthetically pleasing the batsman is.

However, this is to downplay the impact of the necessary mind-games that go into forging an innings. By rights, there is no way that Graham Dilley should have scored 50 runs during his second innings at Headingley, 1981. The pitch was awful, the bowlers were Lillee, Lawson, and Alderman, and Dilley had limited skill.

However, Botham's cavalier attitude and insistence that he and Dilley "have a bit of a laugh" meant that Dilley could relax and therefore focus on the ball rather his nerves. Not to mention swing the bat better. The plain fact is that some simple positive psychology produced tangible results with respect to improving batting technique.

Therefore, the main point being that dour negative batsman who make batting look awkward can have a negative impact on the batting technique of some of his fellow batsman. Personally, if the bloke at the other end looked like he was struggling then I made the automatic assumption that the pitch was worse than it really was, and that the bowling was better than it really was. The end result being that I would eventually get bogged down in my own innings and then get out. On the other hand, batting with a cavilier batsman who consistently crashed the ball through the covers with an air of contempt changed the way I played my game. It seemed all a lot easier.

So yes, aesthetics do play a part in winning a cricket match, but their net effect tends to begin inside the head of the batsman at the non-strikers end.

Nah, this doesn't cut in the real meaning of aethetics. For example Jayasuriya and Aravinda both average around 40 in test matches. Aravinda was stylish, easy on the eye, but was as aggressive as anything during his time. Jayasuriya bludgeoned them, hit them hard, and instilled god fear in to bowlers. If Aravinda was a surgeon, Jayasuriya was a butcher. It's purely subjective whether you like to watch a surgeon or butcher on eviscerating a body (or a bowling attack).

 

[Shri]

Sorry mastermind. Enlighten me with your superior wisdom.

Would be a waste of my time.

 

[viriya]

Would be a waste of my time.

He pointed out that Sanga depending on Ban was a myth when someone brought it up - looks to me you're the waste of time.

 

[Red]

Would be a waste of my time.

And mine no doubt

 

[Shri]

Look at you (probably)fat ****s spewing filth from your arm chairs. Statistical arguments when comparing players of a similar stature is boring as **** and it never changes people's opinions ever. You all have your preferences and would probably sit on a broken piece of glass botlte in your strained attempts to prove yourselves right and the cycle will go on. It wasn't interesting in 2005 and it isn't going to be interesting in 2015. Go **** yourselves.

 

[watson]

Sagakkara vs all opponents (excluding Bangladesh)- average of 54.67

Tendulkar vs all opponents (excluding Bangladesh)- average of 52.07


Sangakkara's overall average excluding Bangladesh tests is still higher than Tendulkar's complete (including Bangladesh) average.

Just little fun stats.

I think that the operative word in that post is 'fun', as in lighthearted.

 

[watson]

Nah, this doesn't cut in the real meaning of aethetics. For example Jayasuriya and Aravinda both average around 40 in test matches. Aravinda was stylish, easy on the eye, but was as aggressive as anything during his time. Jayasuriya bludgeoned them, hit them hard, and instilled god fear in to bowlers. If Aravinda was a surgeon, Jayasuriya was a butcher. It's purely subjective whether you like to watch a surgeon or butcher on eviscerating a body (or a bowling attack).

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

From: 'Through the Looking Glass' by Lewis Carroll

 

[harsh.ag]

Jabberwocky

 

[watson]

Jabberwocky