Blocky
Banned
Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting, Kallis - etc... none of them can claim to extended periods (70 tests) averaging more than 100 runs per test.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
How good is Sanga?
- Thread starter CWB304
- Start date
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Big call to call it clear cut.
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
Decent stat but doesn't convince me he's the greatest modern batsman. At all.
Blocky
Banned
Let's see, scored runs everywhere, been involved in more winning tests than losing tests despite not being one of the big three, is scoring runs at a rate per test that hasn't been since Pollock (and has been out performing even that for the last six years) - can score big, can score fast and continues to get better and better. If he plays three to four more years, he'll take over Sachin as most runs ever scored.
It's kind of like the Andy Flower situation, people struggled to give him his due because he wasn't in one of the glamour teams. Reality is, Sangakkara has played all comers and has succeeded against them all, he was about the only Sri Lankan capable of standing up to South Africa in this game, although two stupid dismissals will haunt him.
ohnoitsyou
International Regular
A selective blockyism at its finest.
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
I'm not saying he isn't a great, or quite possibly the greatest of his era. But that stat (100 runs per test) doesn't tell a whole story. Plenty of batsman who haven't done that may have simply played in stronger teams that didn't need to bat twice a test (thinking that the golden era Australians would have done that plenty of times- or at least won a test no1/2 wickets down in the 4th innings),
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
That's of course not at all related to the 20 unbeaten games (18 wins) against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh is it?
ohnoitsyou
International Regular
Sanga, good as he is just doesnt have a complete enough record to match sachin, or the sheer number of impossible innings as lara. Rates above Ponting for mine, as he's proven in all conditions and his purple patch has lasted longer, and is comfortably above kallis and dravid.
Seeing sangas so gun it just goes to show how lucky we were to have so many world class atg batsmen around
Seeing sangas so gun it just goes to show how lucky we were to have so many world class atg batsmen around
viriya
International Captain
Can't really see how Sachin had a complete Test record - I would agree that he did in ODIs though. He just played a lot of matches which is commendable, but I would suggest that Lara has a more complete Test record considering he actually had a multitude of big innings as well as a great record.
harsh.ag
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Yeah, I think all of us are realizing now that it wasn't just the pitches and lack of great bowlers.
ohnoitsyou
International Regular
I used to hold his lack of big big scores against him, but I've come to realise that was just me trying to find a way to objectively justify my preference for Lara. The man does have 6 double hundreds and there are very few instances where a 300 would win a game but a 200 wouldn't.
viriya
International Captain
Only 2 of his double hundreds resulted in wins, one being vs Ban. Six double hundreds is also not as much an achievement when you consider that he batted 329 times. Arguing whether he had a "complete" test record is pointless - his career is obviously incomparable.. That he didn't make as many significant Test knocks as a lot of his other contemporaries (even in his team) is a fair argument though.
Tendulkar takes the cake in ODIs very easily though - longest career, great innings, great record.
Last edited:
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
What does this even mean? He was instrumental in plenty of Indian wins.
viriya
International Captain
Not as much as Dravid or Sehwag was. Tendulkar contributed for an amazingly long career but he didn't have significant innings like those two did aside from a few instances. This was discussed earlier in this same thread so I'm not going to rehash anything:
http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/57293-how-good-sanga-22.html
watson
Banned
Bit harsh on Tendulkar I think as winning has just as much to do with the Indian bowling attack as it does the batting lineup. So the relative lack of success was just as much the bowlers fault as they have always had problems taking the necessary 20 wickets.
Last edited:
viriya
International Captain
India had great bowlers at home in Kumble and Harbhajan.
Flem274*
123/5
At the time more people were whinging they were all **** except for Tendulkar, Lara and Ponting because the bowlers suck and all the pitches are roads. Lots of "would only average just over 40 in the 80s" claims going around.
If we are about to go through a phase where bowlers dominate then we'll get dribble like Steyn being the only good bowler and all these other blokes are rubbish and would average 35 against the great batsmen of the 00s. Philander has 100 test wickets and people are still waiting for him to hit his real average, which is apparently high 20s at best and probably well over 30 because he's a fat medium pacer.
Just you watch.