How good is Sanga?

[indiaholic]

Every country has at least one flat deck.. SL used to win test matches in SSC consistently in the 2000s which means the opposition managed to get bowled out twice still. If SSC runs are automatically considered not worthy then we might as well ignore Lara's 375 and 400* among other knocks.. Flat deck in St Johns ending in bore draws..

Point is you still have to go out there and make runs. Just being a flat deck doesnt just give you free runs or everyone would be making double/triple hundreds..

I will give you this. Sanga and Mahela have the ability to absolutely pound bowlers to dust on flat tracks. The only way to win there is to go huge in the first innings and then hope the track deteriorates. These two were very very good at setting up the match for a potential win.

 

[simonlee48]

Every country has at least one flat deck.. SL used to win test matches in SSC consistently in the 2000s which means the opposition managed to get bowled out twice still. If SSC runs are automatically considered not worthy then we might as well ignore Lara's 375 and 400* among other knocks.. Flat deck in St Johns ending in bore draws..

Point is you still have to go out there and make runs. Just being a flat deck doesn't just give you free runs or everyone would be making double/triple hundreds..

Even with smiley after the line, that's the line you picked up to respond out of that whole post? That was to only tease you the way I tease some Sachin's fans.

On serious note - Yes, you do need to score runs even on flat grounds but tell me honestly, do all players get chance to play on one single flat ground all the time? Not every one gets the chance but if you get an opportunity to play 20+ tests like Jaya on grounds like SSC then even Jaya is going to score heavily. Jaya has 2500+ runs at 80+ avg at SSC. He is not a batsman who can have that kind of stats in any decent track for 25 tests. You are bound to score heavily if you are a good player and play 20-30 tests on the same flat ground. Every country having one such ground and players occasionally getting few tests on those grounds in their entire career is a totally different situation that frequently playing on the same flat ground.

About Lara. I don't remove those runs from his stats but I don't consider him great due to those innings. Anyway, my intention was not to talk about SSC here but it seems that's the only point you picked up from my post despite having a smiley after it.

 

[OverratedSanity]

While a lack of opportunities overseas for sangakkara is something I truly believe is unfortunate, I don't buy the excuse of him only getting to play short series with not many warmup matches. Sounds a bit of a cop-out out me. Kohli, Pujara and Rahane all were awesome in South Africa in a short series despite the warmup games being washed out.

 

[simonlee48]

While a lack of opportunities overseas for sangakkara is something I truly believe is unfortunate, I don't buy the excuse of him only getting to play short series with not many warmup matches. Sounds a bit of a cop-out out me. Kohli, Pujara and Rahane all were awesome in South Africa in a short series despite the warmup games being washed out.

Well, some players may have done well on short tours but you can't deny that playing more games in similar conditions is 'likely' to help a batsman. I said likely and there is no guarantee that you will be among runs just because you have longer tours. I wasn't using it as an excuse for Sanga but it's not an irrelevant point as well. I also said that I do judge him mainly based on what I have seen him doing against all oppositions in different conditions.

It's meaningless to start taking aggregate averages/runs/tons etc to judge players because everyone doesn't get to play the same proportion of tests in similar conditions. For some players it's not even close, they have played too much in conditions where you can score heavily.

 

[smash84]

Well, some players may have done well on short tours but you can't deny that playing more games in similar conditions is 'likely' to help a batsman. I said likely and there is no guarantee that you will be among runs just because you have longer tours. I wasn't using it as an excuse for Sanga but it's not an irrelevant point as well. I also said that I do judge him mainly based on what I have seen him doing against all oppositions in different conditions.

It's meaningless to start taking aggregate averages/runs/tons etc to judge players because everyone doesn't get to play the same proportion of tests in similar conditions. For some players it's not even close, they have played too much in conditions where you can score heavily.

So by that token the bowlers who perform well on those same pitches should be rated highly?

 

[simonlee48]

So by that token the bowlers who perform well on those same pitches should be rated highly?

They do get rated highly. Why do you think Waqar is rated highly? Waqar wasn't great in most venues outside Pakistan due to not able to use the new ball than well in initial part of his career.

Imagine if Waqar had a similar home and away records as he has right now but he was playing for SA. He would have been rated bit lower that right now. Clue Vern... If a current pacer from SC had Vern's record then I would have rated him higher than Vern. But that's only one aspect.

Now, If you want to compare Waqar with others then you will compare how well they do in various conditions. Same way I judge Sanga. Let's pick Donald to compare. Donald has great record in most venues and he had a great record even in SC. Clearly, he should be rated higher than Waqar. I am just thinking aloud here because I anyway saw both bowl and I rate Donald higher.

For the same reason, I rate Waqar much lower than Wasim/IK. Wasim/IK had great records in Pakistan but they did well even outside Pakistan. Not as great as in Pakistan but much better than Waqar. Now if some bowler does very well ( let's say sub 25 avg) in almost all conditions then you got to rate them even higher.

It comes down to the same thing. Aggregate stats are not going to tell me who is the best bowler or batsman. Waqar aggregate stats are not worse than IK/Wasim but I don't club Waqar with IK/Wasim. Sanga aggregate stats are not worse than Ponting/Lara but I won't club Sanga with Ponting/Lara. I will always look for performances against various oppositions in different conditions. Yah, for flat surface, I will give more props to a pacer's good performance than a batsman's good performance but that's one aspect while judging a player. Just thinking aloud here and these things are subjective

 

[marc71178]

I wouldn't be picking Johnson if I was just looking at stats obviously. And I didn't say he was as good as McGrath or Donald - just that he was near ATG/there already.

Which is complete and utter bollocks and if anything further proves my comment about the quality of bowling having fallen significantly in recent times. When you name 4 bowlers of this period, 2 who are long retired and one who is ****, it doesn't reflect well on your argument.

 

[smash84]

They do get rated highly. Why do you think Waqar is rated highly? Waqar wasn't great in most venues outside Pakistan due to not able to use the new ball than well in initial part of his career.

Imagine if Waqar had a similar home and away records as he has right now but he was playing for SA. He would have been rated bit lower that right now. Clue Vern... If a current pacer from SC had Vern's record then I would have rated him higher than Vern. But that's only one aspect.

Now, If you want to compare Waqar with others then you will compare how well they do in various conditions. Same way I judge Sanga. Let's pick Donald to compare. Donald has great record in most venues and he had a great record even in SC. Clearly, he should be rated higher than Waqar. I am just thinking aloud here because I anyway saw both bowl and I rate Donald higher.

For the same reason, I rate Waqar much lower than Wasim/IK. Wasim/IK had great records in Pakistan but they did well even outside Pakistan. Not as great as in Pakistan but much better than Waqar. Now if some bowler does very well ( let's say sub 25 avg) in almost all conditions then you got to rate them even higher.

It comes down to the same thing. Aggregate stats are not going to tell me who is the best bowler or batsman. Waqar aggregate stats are not worse than IK/Wasim but I don't club Waqar with IK/Wasim. Sanga aggregate stats are not worse than Ponting/Lara but I won't club Sanga with Ponting/Lara. I will always look for performances against various oppositions in different conditions. Yah, for flat surface, I will give more props to a pacer's good performance than a batsman's good performance but that's one aspect while judging a player. Just thinking aloud here and these things are subjective

But you see there is a problem here. How much weightage are you going to give to bowling on flat road surfaces? The amount you are willing to discount sanga for scoring on flat tracks should be added to Murali's count. Are you getting where this is leading?

 

[simonlee48]

But you see there is a problem here. How much weightage are you going to give to bowling on flat road surfaces? The amount you are willing to discount sanga for scoring on flat tracks should be added to Murali's count. Are you getting where this is leading?

Different people will give different weight and that's where subjectivity comes in play. Some posters are giving no credit for those runs and some are simply counting runs scores in Pakistan/BD and SSC having the same value as other venues. Both are wrong in my opinion.

For the reasons listed above( giving more props to bowlers than batsmen for performance on flat surface), most fans put Murali in different league than Sanga. Ask yourself one question. The best cricketer from SL and Murali has absolutely no competition.

If I have to look for only one factor then personally for me, the greatness is defined by how well you do in alien conditions. A very few actually do it and most of them are known suspects.

 

[viriya]

For the reasons listed above( giving more props to bowlers than batsmen for performance on flat surface), most fans put Murali in different league than Sanga. Ask yourself one question. The best cricketer from SL and Murali has absolutely no competition.

Obviously there is no debate on who the best cricketer from SL was. But no one compared Murali and Sanga. This is more about who the greatest ever bowler was (since Murali is the greatest matchwinner Test cricket has ever seen quite clearly).

Murali doing well in SSC should be considered a major positive considering how flat that track is but typically people discount his wickets at home as those from rank-turners unfairly. I think this is where smalishah is coming from if I'm not mistaken.

 

[smash84]

.

Murali doing well in SSC should be considered a major positive considering how flat that track is but typically people discount his wickets at home as those from rank-turners unfairly. I think this is where smalishah is coming from if I'm not mistaken.

Exactly. If Sanga's runs are discounted for being made on some of the flattest pancakes going around then surely Murali has got to be rewarded for being a monster on the wicket where batting is so easy.

 

[smash84]

Different people will give different weight and that's where subjectivity comes in play. Some posters are giving no credit for those runs and some are simply counting runs scores in Pakistan/BD and SSC having the same value as other venues. Both are wrong in my opinion.

For the reasons listed above( giving more props to bowlers than batsmen for performance on flat surface), most fans put Murali in different league than Sanga. Ask yourself one question. The best cricketer from SL and Murali has absolutely no competition.

If I have to look for only one factor then personally for me, the greatness is defined by how well you do in alien conditions. A very few actually do it and most of them are known suspects.

I don't think that Murali is put in a different league just because Sanga is not up to the mark. I do think that people put a higher premium on ATG bowlers than they do on ATG batsmen. The way test cricket is designed you need to score more runs than the opposition and get 20 wickets. In test cricket it is usually getting the 20 wickets in time that is the problem for getting a result. Also by design of the game everybody has to bat (bar declaration) but not everybody has to bowl so that makes bowlers inherently more valuable.

I also think that "greatness" probably has (in many cases) to do with which cricketing country you are coming from than your actual performances (Hadlee and Murali being cases in point).

 

[simonlee48]

I don't think that Murali is put in a different league just because Sanga is not up to the mark. I do think that people put a higher premium on ATG bowlers than they do on ATG batsmen. .

It's not due to not being up to the mark. Sanga has done well but Murali has done better. In my opinion, Murali is simply the best off spinner in history of cricket and I can't make that kind of statement for Sanga. All this recent talks about Sanga is mainly due to his aggregate stats. I didn't hear anyone talking about Sanga being among the best of the best 5 years back. And yah, in this 5 years, he hasn't really done anything great against top bowling sides but his aggregate stats have gone up and made him a focal point. Murali's name was always up there for most of his career and that's due to him being drastically better than others. I am not saying that Sanga is not great. I am making a different point here.

I don't think it has much to do with being a bowler or batsman. It's not easy to compare bowlers with batsmen but I will take plenty of ATG batsmen over some one like Waqar if we are talking about who is a better player. I don't think that all ATG players can be clubbed together. We have seen great batsmen, great bowlers, great keepers and so on but all ATGs are not at the same level. Sure, it gets subjective but then ATG concept is subjective to begin with.

Agree with the point about about tests and need to get 20 wickets to win. Tests are bowlers game and ODIs are batsmen game to some extent. But when judging players, we normally judge them in each category separately. If you pick an XI then you are going to pick certain number of batsmen and certain number of bowlers. Great batsmen and great bowlers, both need to contribute otherwise you can't really win against good oppositions. Despite having great ATG bowlers, Pakistan is yet to win a test series in WI, Aus or SA. Those bowlers allowed Pakistan to win many away tests but batsmen were not good enough to capitalize on that advantage and win test series.

I get the point about Murali/Hadlee greatness seeming bit higher due to where they come from but even without that factor, their performance has been as good as any other greats.

 

[simonlee48]

Murali doing well in SSC should be considered a major positive considering how flat that track is but typically people discount his wickets at home as those from rank-turners unfairly. I think this is where smalishah is coming from if I'm not mistaken.

Murali should get extra credit for performing on flat tracks. It's not an easy thing to do for a spinner. I have seen him doing very well on non turners. Anyone clubbing all SL wickets as rank-turners has not seen much of Murali otherwise there is no reason to make that statement. I think this perception may be coming due to SL making bit more flatter wickets after Murali retired but Murali has bowled and done well on enough flat wickets.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I'd like to see someone delve deeper into the claims that a top tier batsman suffers from playing short series. If that were indeed true, we should see the batting averages for batsmen follow a consistent 5th test > 4th test > 3rd test > 2nd test > 1st test pattern. And what about bowlers? Do they follow a reverse pattern? Are batsmen inherently more gifted than bowlers that they dominate a series the longer it goes on for?

 

[cnerd123]

I see two small flaws with arguments made on both sides of this debate:

1) Linking the quality of bowling faced during an innings/career to the career records of said bowlers - bowlers have good days and bad days. Bowlers rely heavily on the pitch provided to them. It's very possible to have scored a 100 against an attack of ATGs that was easier than one scored against a lesser attack, due to the ATGs having an off-rhythm day bowling on an unhelpful pitch, and the mediocre bowlers bowling at their peak in friendly conditions. This has to be taken into account when you talk about the quality of innings played by a player - an example that comes to mind is Binny's 80 odd in Trent Bridge. Down the line in statistical arguments it will look like an fifty scored in the 4th innings of a test in England against an attack of Anderson/Broad/Plunkett/Stokes and Ali. Not bad...except when you consider how dead the pitch was and how jaded Broad/Anderson were; bowling nowhere near to the quality their records suggest they can.

Similarly the quality of bowling the English batsmen faced from the Sri Lankan bowlers was significantly better than the career records of the bowlers would suggest.

2) Assuming overseas conditions = alien conditions - You have seaming pitches in India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, you have dry turners in England, and you have roads pretty much everywhere. Vijay's 100 in Trent Bridge will appear as a 100 scored in his first Test in England and down the line can be taken as a sign of his versatility and ability to score on foreign conditions out of home...but to all of us who saw that match we know the pitch was more Indian than anything in India even.

These are just recent examples off the top of my head; I'm sure if you go back and do enough research you'll find many more. So instead of talking of how many tons were scored overseas or against 'ATG' bowlers, maybe focus on how many really good innings had been played - in pressure situations, against good bowling (regardless of how the bowlers' eventually careers turned out to be), in tough conditions (regardless of the country the match was played in) I think you will then have a better idea of how good a batsman really is.

 

[Coronis]

It's not due to not being up to the mark. Sanga has done well but Murali has done better. In my opinion, Murali is simply the best off spinner in history of cricket and I can't make that kind of statement for Sanga. All this recent talks about Sanga is mainly due to his aggregate stats. I didn't hear anyone talking about Sanga being among the best of the best 5 years back. And yah, in this 5 years, he hasn't really done anything great against top bowling sides but his aggregate stats have gone up and made him a focal point. Murali's name was always up there for most of his career and that's due to him being drastically better than others. I am not saying that Sanga is not great. I am making a different point here.

Its more to do with the fact that for the past 5+ years he's been batting at an excellent standard. I would consider centuries against South Africa and England, and half centuries in 3/4 tests against Australia to be pretty damn good performances against quality bowling. But thats just me.

 

[Migara]

Even with smiley after the line, that's the line you picked up to respond out of that whole post? That was to only tease you the way I tease some Sachin's fans.

On serious note - Yes, you do need to score runs even on flat grounds but tell me honestly, do all players get chance to play on one single flat ground all the time? Not every one gets the chance but if you get an opportunity to play 20+ tests like Jaya on grounds like SSC then even Jaya is going to score heavily. Jaya has 2500+ runs at 80+ avg at SSC. He is not a batsman who can have that kind of stats in any decent track for 25 tests. You are bound to score heavily if you are a good player and play 20-30 tests on the same flat ground. Every country having one such ground and players occasionally getting few tests on those grounds in their entire career is a totally different situation that frequently playing on the same flat ground.

About Lara. I don't remove those runs from his stats but I don't consider him great due to those innings. Anyway, my intention was not to talk about SSC here but it seems that's the only point you picked up from my post despite having a smiley after it.

Murali's wickets on tat SSC track then must be valuable than any other wicket anywhere in the world.

 

[Migara]

Obviously there is no debate on who the best cricketer from SL was. But no one compared Murali and Sanga. This is more about who the greatest ever bowler was (since Murali is the greatest matchwinner Test cricket has ever seen quite clearly).

Murali doing well in SSC should be considered a major positive considering how flat that track is but typically people discount his wickets at home as those from rank-turners unfairly. I think this is where smalishah is coming from if I'm not mistaken.

It's simple. When Murali bowls on SSC - rank turner and a dust bowl made to suit spin bowling.
When Mahela scores on SSC - absolute flat wicket that give spinner nor pacers any chance.

The level of hypocrisy in unbelievable.

 

[Migara]

Murali should get extra credit for performing on flat tracks. It's not an easy thing to do for a spinner. I have seen him doing very well on non turners. Anyone clubbing all SL wickets as rank-turners has not seen much of Murali otherwise there is no reason to make that statement. I think this perception may be coming due to SL making bit more flatter wickets after Murali retired but Murali has bowled and done well on enough flat wickets.

Mention this at a Warne-Murali therad and you will see plenty of people crying out Sl wickets are dustbowls, not flat.