How good is Sanga?

[watson]

To be overly pedantic and probably wrong.........

Bradman
Sobers - Tendulkar
Richards - Lara - Hutton
Chappell - Hobbs - Gavaskar
Sangakkara - Kallis - Ponting - Harvey - Kanhai - Hammond etc
Dravid - Laxman - Hayden - Gooch - Dexter etc

 

[kyear2]

For me,

Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar, Sobers, Lara, Hobbs

Headley, Chappell, Hutton, Ponting, Gavaskar, Sangakkara, Border, Kallis

Hammond, Pollock, Weekes, Worrell, Walcott, Harvey, Dravid, Kanhai, Barrington, Sutcliffe, Compton, Greenidge, Chanderpaul, Waugh, Miandad, ul Haq, Hayden, Sehwag

May have missed some names.

I acknowledge that no ones lists will be identical, so which of my ratings do you guys disagree with.

 

[Blocky]

Here comes another aggressive Sanga tonne to setup the win, and more debate.

 

[Dan]

Here comes another aggressive Sanga tonne to setup the win, and more debate.

He's on 38* FFS.

But let's assume he does ton up, because let's face it, it's pretty damn likely given Sanga is an utter beast and in fantastic form. It'll be the kind of innings that does little to change opinions.

If you already like Sanga, it's an aggressive, selfless ton against a high class fast bowling attack to set up a match that SL should go on to win, giving his bowlers the time to try and bowl RSA out again.
If you don't like Sanga, it's downhill skiing on a flat deck against a team who pose no real spin threat, in a match that will probably meander towards a draw anyway.

Hardly the kind of knock that's going to make opinions flip, or prove either the pro-Sanga or anti-Sanga lobby wrong.

 

[Gowza]

yeah opinions on sanga are likely not to change unless he plays a few more top shelf knocks on difficult decks in difficult conditions against quality bowling. a ton is a ton and pushing the team to a win is of course a noble feat but doing it in home conditions is not going to change peoples opinions on him even if it is a great knock.

 

[Dan]

Forgot to mention -- the reality of the knock probably lies somewhere in the middle. I'm guessing most people would have inferred that anyway, but it can't hurt to put it in writing and guard against pedantic responses

 

[Blocky]

61* - hitting one of the better bowling attacks around with disdain, picking gaps and making Philander look like a dibbly dobbly wibbly wobbly bowler.

You can all deny all you want, Sanga is the best since Bradman.

 

[Blocky]

Bummer - going too hard to set up the game. Good knock though.

 

[Maximas]

Tahir from one end for much of his innings, and Philander arguably is just a glorified dibbly-dobbler in these conidtions, good knock but hardly the stuff of greatness

 

[Dan]

61* - hitting one of the better bowling attacks around with disdain, picking gaps and making Philander look like a dibbly dobbly wibbly wobbly bowler.

You can all deny all you want, Sanga is the best since Bradman.

If you already like Sanga, it's an aggressive, selfless ton against a high class fast bowling attack to set up a match that SL should go on to win, giving his bowlers the time to try and bowl RSA out again.

Called it.

 

[OverratedSanity]

61* - hitting one of the better bowling attacks around with disdain, picking gaps and making Philander look like a dibbly dobbly wibbly wobbly bowler.

You can all deny all you want, Sanga is the best since Bradman.

Saying that this innings is proof of him being the best since Bradman is about as relevant as if someone pointed to Sanga's golden duck in the first innings as solid proof of him being worse than Imrul Keyes.

 

[Blocky]

Saying that this innings is proof of him being the best since Bradman is about as relevant as if someone pointed to Sanga's golden duck in the first innings as solid proof of him being worse than Imrul Keyes.

More so his perpetual average of 70 since giving away the gloves and being the only player other than Bradman to hit more than 100 runs per test for an extended period of his career. This innings was just another stone thrown amongst the mountains he's already made.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Blocky, go find some stats about runs per match in each country, maybe then we will be convinced

 

[Flem274*]

I've edited Dan's comment so Blocky might understand his point better

If you already like Guptill, it's an aggressive, selfless ton against a high class fast bowling attack to set up a match that NZ should go on to win.
If you don't like Guptill, it's selfish downhill skiing on a flat deck against a team who pose no real threat

 

[Dan]

Use a better example next time. Guptill scoring a ton against quality fast bowling is so far removed from reality that I almost burst out laughing mid-lecture.

 

[Flem274*]

Use a better example next time. Guptill scoring a ton against quality fast bowling is so far removed from reality that I almost burst out laughing mid-lecture.

You forgot to call him a headcase and make a slur about his missus' ***ual history.

4/10 poor blockying.

 

[Dan]

You forgot to call him a headcase and make a slur about his missus' ***ual history.

4/10 poor blockying.

Still better than your pissweak efforts about Suranga Lakmal, ****.

 

[Blocky]

Blocky, go find some stats about runs per match in each country, maybe then we will be convinced

He's one of the few to average 40+ against every country in every country - so next?

Use a better example next time. Guptill scoring a ton against quality fast bowling is so far removed from reality that I almost burst out laughing mid-lecture.

I like you again.

 

[simonlee48]

He's one of the few to average 40+ against every country in every country - so next?

.

Who are you talking about here?

 

[ohnoitsyou]

He's one of the few to average 40+ against every country in every country - so next?



I like you again.

As in 20 runs per innings?

Always assumed it was impossible to score more than 40 runs an innings when you didn't average 40+ in said country.