How good is Sanga?

[Migara]

And he becomes #1 rated batsman once again. Haters can suck it.

 

[viriya]

The thing is unless you play 180 tests, 10 home and away against every country; you won't ever meet that requirement if you want to look at their career record in detail.

If you play just 4 tests, home and away, against everyone; that is a 72 Test career - and by your standard, that means we can't judge them at all (4<8<10).

Judging overall numbers that way is to look at the batsman's record from too much of a distance IMO. A batsman can have a 50+ average against all opposition, 70 at home and 30 away; but that's not a complete batsman by most people's recognition. Such a batsman has a glaring weakness away from home. Yet with your analysis, said batsman could be the best after Bradman. IMO, that's simply not a good way to look at it.

There's an irony that you think looking at scorecards in greater detail will tell you more about a batsman than simple home and away averages (I agree, BTW) but you'd rather look at the overall record against an opposition than their home and away breakdown, which seems to contradict the rationale for wanting greater understanding through a more defined context. Even in terms of sample size the argument isn't consistent: a scorecard will show you 1 or 2 innings worth of information.

Say a batsman averages 100 at home and 35 away. In my view, his weakness away is more than offset by his absolute dominance at home. His overall would be 67.5 and even with that weakness away I would rate him higher than another who averages 45 both home and away.

The defining feature of bradman was that he used to get huge scores at a much higher frequency than any batsmen before or since. It's not that he maintained some minimum average home/away vs different opponents. He may have, but that's not what made Bradman who he is. He wasn't tested in dustbowls in India vs quality spin with variations. He didn't face reverse swinging toe crushing yorkers. But we still look at his numbers and realize that he is way ahead of the pack.

That's why I value gleaning all available information from a scorecard (with higher value given to runs vs better bowling attacks and away from home among other factors) over breaking up his career tests into pieces. And yes, the whole point of 10 tests+ is to show that its not practical to rate career stats broken down like that in statistical sample size terms (as well as due to th reasons above).

 

[Singh Is King]

Yeah, exactly.

More stattage since viriya and Blocky have repeatedly said Tendulkar is "inferior statistically":

1) Tendulkar's average touched 59.16 in February 2001 after 90 tests over 12 years. Almost as long as Sanga's career and considering how this entire period was during a time which everyone likes to say was tough to bat in, and although I'm not saying he smashed the 90s great bowlers for fun, it's an extraordinary statistical achievement.

2) After this Tendulkar went through a slight decline, but still somehow managed to rack up big runs through sheer grit. Even though he wasnt in form, his average was 58.4 when he played Pakistan in 2004. After 15 years of test cricket and 113 tests, his average was still stratospheric. But there's more: At this point in his career, he had 33 hundreds. Only 3 of them came against Bangladesh/Zimbabwe. And he played 54 tests, almost half his tests, away from the SC. While I will never slag Sanga off for bashing Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, getting to almost 60 average without getting anywhere near as many opportunities to pump up his average against weaker teams or playing every week in familiar home conditions is just phenomenal. This is why when people judge Tendulkar without having really appreciated what he achieved in those years, it just shows a great deal of ignorance.

3) If this isn't enough, after going through a big decline in the mid 2000s, Tendulkar roared back in the end of the 2000s and once again became the best in the world. After his last ton in test cricket, that classic at Capetown against Steyn, Tendulkar's average stood at 56.95. After 176 tests. More than anyone had ever played. So at that point, Tendulkar had played more test cricket than anyone and still managed to keep his average at ungodly heights. Almost freaking 57 after 22 years. . Compare that with 59 over 14 years for Sanga and tell me whats more impressive statistically.

And yet, after having done all this, bceause Tendulkar was mediocre for his last 15-20 tests, he's suddenly "statistically inferior". I don't get the logic whatsoever. That's why the final average is misleading. Tendulkar isn't better because of the statistics, there are other reasons I could give, but saying that his numbers are worse is just a complete fallacy.

Game set match. Debate settled.

 

[cnerd123]

Say a batsman averages 100 at home and 35 away. In my view, his weakness away is more than offset by his absolute dominance at home. His overall would be 67.5 and even with that weakness away I would rate him higher than another who averages 45 both home and away

I hope you then understand that while you feel this way, most would disagree with you..

The defining feature of bradman was that he used to get huge scores at a much higher frequency than any batsmen before or since. It's not that he maintained some minimum average home/away vs different opponents. He may have, but that's not what made Bradman who he is. He wasn't tested in dustbowls in India vs quality spin with variations. He didn't face reverse swinging toe crushing yorkers. But we still look at his numbers and realize that he is way ahead of the pack.

Lol. He faced some very fine spinners and some very fine fast bowlers on some very difficult pitches to bat on. He scored in a variety of conditions, and Bodyline was literally invented to stop him from scoring. What defined Bradman wasn't just getting huge scores at higher frequency, it was that he did that regardless of the conditions and bowlers.

 

[viriya]

You simply can't breakdown a player's career like this to rate them. It's as questionable as looking at Sanga the pure batsman who averages 70+.

 

[viriya]

I hope you then understand that while you feel this way, most would disagree with you..


Lol. He faced some very fine spinners and some very fine fast bowlers on some very difficult pitches to bat on. He scored in a variety of conditions, and Bodyline was literally invented to stop him from scoring. What defined Bradman wasn't just getting huge scores at higher frequency, it was that he did that regardless of the conditions and bowlers.

I'm not sure that most would disagree with me in that hypothetical scenario actually. You would pick a batsman who averages 45 over one who averages 67.5 because he averages 10 more runs away from home? I think not.

Yes, but he didn't face the conditions I pointed out.

 

[cnerd123]

I'm not sure that most would disagree with me in that hypothetical scenario actually. You would pick a batsman who averages 45 over one who averages 67.5 because he averages 10 more runs away from home? I think not.

Yes, but he didn't face the conditions I pointed out.

No he didn't face India in India, he just faced Hedley Verity on dry spinning pitches several times.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yes, but he didn't face the conditions I pointed out.

That's not the point viriya. Bradman succeeded against virtually all conditions and bowlers in that era. Apart from stickies, he completely dominated everything put before him. If say, he didn't succeed in England, or struggled against Bedser, I wouldn't rate him that high

 

[viriya]

No he didn't face India in India, he just faced Hedley Verity on dry spinning pitches several times.

Verity was a very good left arm spinner. Not someone who bowled doosras or googlies.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Verity was a very good left arm spinner. Not someone who bowled doosras or googlies.

This is about as relevant as saying Tendulkar doesn't have a complete record because he wouldn't have scored even a fifty against Alec Bedser.

 

[cnerd123]

Verity was a very good left arm spinner. Not someone who bowled doosras or googlies.

Yea you are right Googlies didn't exist back then. Eric Hollies who?

 

[viriya]

That's not the point viriya. Bradman succeeded against virtually all conditions and bowlers in that era. Apart from stickies, he completely dominated everything put before him. If say, he didn't succeed in England, or struggled against Bedser, I wouldn't rate him that high

The reason I brought up Bradman is to point out that the reason we rate him so highly is mainly due to that insane average. I realize he had no issues in different conditions, the point is what made him who he is was the ability to make huge scores.

Take my hypothetical best-since-Bradman candidate who averages 100 home and 35 away vs another who averages 45 both home and away. That's more my point.

 

[viriya]

Eric Hollies was not a great bowler though.

 

[cnerd123]

The reason I brought up Bradman is to point out that the reason we rate him so highly is mainly due to that insane average. I realize he had no issues in different conditions, the point is what made him who he is was the ability to make huge scores IN EVERY CONDITION AGAINST EVERY BOWLING ATTACK

 

[viriya]

Chill *****. When I point out he didn't face reverse swinging yorkers and quality spinners with great variations you act like I'm trying to bring your hero down. After all, he didn't really get to face Grimmett or O'Reilly in a test afaik.

 

[cnerd123]

CBF anymore.

 

[Singh Is King]

Sort your away record out Sanga then lets talk

 

[marc71178]

Take my hypothetical best-since-Bradman candidate who averages 100 home and 35 away vs another who averages 45 both home and away. That's more my point.

That hypothetical example is a total bollocks scenario though and you are also assuming things of people that just aren't true.

 

[simonlee48]

The reason I brought up Bradman is to point out that the reason we rate him so highly is mainly due to that insane average. I realize he had no issues in different conditions, the point is what made him who he is was the ability to make huge scores.

Take my hypothetical best-since-Bradman candidate who averages 100 home and 35 away vs another who averages 45 both home and away. That's more my point.

Two batsmen will be not even close if 100 at home is due to beating only 2-3 teams heavily at home. I will gladly take some one with 45 average if person does that against almost all teams/conditions. We always need to see how an aggregate average is achieved even if only looking at home conditions. If your case has batsman averaging heavily against almost all oppositions at home and then averaging 100 then you have some point.

 

[viriya]

Yes its 100 vs all opposition at home in that hypothetical case.