How good is Sanga?

[sledger]

Yet generally has the majority of his runs coming from the Pull or the Cut shot from the short ball... OK.

This is just simply not true.

 

[Blocky]

Go use the Cricinfo Wagon Wheel feature and have a look at how many runs came square of the wicket against pace bowlers by Sanga in his last three centuries.

 

[viriya]

Even your rating has Kumar second best (equal) since Bradman, all time.

Actually he's right after Lara (just), but my ratings is a work in progress - i'm always looking at ways to improve it.

Also, he is at a career peak right now, it's unlikely that he will bat like this into the future, so it's slightly unfair to rate him with batsmen that have already retired in a sense (since he is likely to have a period of decline before retirement). I would say he is safely top 10 all time though.

 

[sledger]

Go use the Cricinfo Wagon Wheel feature and have a look at how many runs came square of the wicket against pace bowlers by Sanga in his last three centuries.

Er, look, I'm not being funny or anything, but his last 3 centuries are hardly a decent sample size. I have watched him plenty, and certainly far more than you, I suspect, and am certain that Bevan played the short ball better.

 

[NUFAN]

Couldn't play the short ball as well as Bevan.

This is simply not true.

 

[Blocky]

Er, look, I'm not being funny or anything, but his last 3 centuries are hardly a decent sample size. I have watched him plenty, and certainly far more than you, I suspect, and am certain that Bevan played the short ball better.

Bollocks. You need to watch more of him then, including Broad spending most of his time trying to bounce him out (unsuccessfully)

 

[Viscount Tom]

Bit of a skill gap between playing Broad's short ball which is hardly something he often uses well to say Ambrose's short ball.

 

[Blocky]

Bit of a skill gap between playing Broad's short ball which is hardly something he often uses well to say Ambrose's short ball.

Ambrose hasn't bowled a ball in 10 years and never bowled one at Sanga... hardly something to be used against Sanga now is it?

 

[Riggins]

Go use the Cricinfo Wagon Wheel feature and have a look at how many runs came square of the wicket against pace bowlers by Sanga in his last three centuries.

Yeah because all shots square of the wicket are pulls and cuts.

 

[Blocky]

Yeah because all shots square of the wicket are pulls and cuts.

Again, if you either A: Watched the innings or B: Took the time to go and use the Wagon Wheel which tells you exactly what the shot was that resulted in the runs, you'd see that Sanga scores a high portion of runs off the back foot against pace bowlers. To say he has a weakness there makes me laugh, considering we're watching the Indian side be hustled out in the same conditions he just put 300 runs on the board in 2 tests

 

[Riggins]

I did go and look at the commentary for his hundred against England. He had 3 boundaries from the pull shot and none from the cut. Now I understand that there'll be some for ones and twos but still 3 boundaries out of 17 suggests it isn't a majority.

 

[Blocky]

I did go and look at the commentary for his hundred against England. He had 3 boundaries from the pull shot and none from the cut. Now I understand that there'll be some for ones and twos but still 3 boundaries out of 17 suggests it isn't a majority.

Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that generally you have a sweeper on the square leg boundary and point boundaries in test cricket quite frequently, meaning you accumulate rather than punish.

 

[Ikki]

Yes, when considering scorecards average runs is not a factor. Since away runs will get a bonus the hypothetical scenario where two batsmen average the same but one averages more away will e handled and that batsman would be rated higher.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. You're essentially suggesting that away records don't matter as long as the batsman scores more at home?

This kind of logic extended to every like instance shows how silly it is:

-It doesn't matter if you score poorly against great attacks, if you score enough against the minnows to balance it out.
-It doesn't matter if you can't score much towards the end of games, with a deteriorating pitch, as long as you score more on the first day.
-It doesn't matter if you can't buy a run if your team is behind chasing totals, as long as you score enough when your team is ahead.
-etc

The picture above is of a very limited batsman. And again, your scorecard example makes no sense. Context clearly doesn't matter much for you. You don't need to look at the scorecard to know about the conditions of that match. Basically, why look at anything bar the player's overall average? For it means that in the times he didn't score, there were other times he did.

 

[simonlee48]

Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that generally you have a sweeper on the square leg boundary and point boundaries in test cricket quite frequently, meaning you accumulate rather than punish.

I don't have any comment on Sanga and his so called weakness here but I don't find above argument very convincing. Out of curiosity, I looked for Rahane's 103 because I remember him handling short balls confidently. One of the best knock on green pitch in recent years.

1. FOUR, a fraction short again and a flashing pull
2. FOUR, shot! Only slightly short and Rahane is back in a flash to pull
3. FOUR, not as short because the bouncer allocation for the over was complete, Rahane onto it and pulls
4. FOUR, drops it short on leg stump, Rahane pulls
5. FOUR,short and wide once more from Plunkett, hammered by Rahane again,
6. FOUR, short ball outside off,
7. FOUR, Plunkett drops it short, Rahane pounces on that 137kph ball

Quite a lot of 4's on short balls here for only 103 runs. I think pretty much half 4s were on short balls. Ability to cut or pull is a major factor but number of 4s on short ball also depends on if you are getting many short balls.

 

[Riggins]

Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that generally you have a sweeper on the square leg boundary and point boundaries in test cricket quite frequently, meaning you accumulate rather than punish.

Then you can add another 3 twos and 4 singles to contribute a whopping 15%. #majority

 

[Riggins]

I don't have any comment on Sanga and his so called weakness here but I don't find above argument very convincing. Just for curiosity I looked for Rahane's 103 , like above poster did for Sanga.

1. FOUR, a fraction short again and a flashing pull
2. FOUR, shot! Only slightly short and Rahane is back in a flash to pull
3. FOUR, not as short because the bouncer allocation for the over was complete, Rahane onto it and pulls
4. FOUR, drops it short on leg stump, Rahane pulls
5. FOUR,short and wide once more from Plunkett, hammered by Rahane again,
6. FOUR, short ball outside off,
7. FOUR, Plunkett drops it short, Rahane pounces on that 137kph ball

Quite a lot of 4's on short balls here for only 103 runs.

Yes but you need to look at the wagon wheel. Then you can suggest shots square of the wicket off pace bowlers are evidence of pulling and cutting.

Like this: Jordan to Sangakkara, FOUR, over pitched and Sanga whips this off his pads through backward square for another boundary

 

[viriya]

No I'm not saying things cancel out nicely like you suggest. It's a matter of adjusting the factors appropriately to make getting runs vs good bowling a big factor. So a score of 50 vs a great attack would be considered better than a 100 vs an average one all things being equal for example.

Average is deceiving because a player might get runs on a flat deck where teams cashed in and it was a bore draw vs on a seaming track where the test ends in 3 days.. A ton in the latter scenario would be rated much higher all things being equal.

Another way context would be given to a performance would be the match situation.. For example dhonis 70 odd after coming into the crease at 8-4 is given a bonus considering the point of entry pressure situation compared to the same score when he comes in at 300-4..

 

[cnerd123]

Average is deceiving because a player might get runs on a flat deck where teams cashed in and it was a bore draw vs on a seaming track where the test ends in 3 days.. A ton in the latter scenario would be rated much higher all things being equal.

I dont get how you can say that and still insist Sanga deserves to be up there with Sachin and Lara.

 

[cnerd123]

Then you can add another 3 twos and 4 singles to contribute a whopping 15%. #majority

I predict Blocky's response will be "they didn't bowl short to him often because of his complete mastery of the cut and pull."

 

[simonlee48]

Yes but you need to look at the wagon wheel. Then you can suggest shots square of the wicket off pace bowlers are evidence of pulling and cutting.

Like this: Jordan to Sangakkara, FOUR, over pitched and Sanga whips this off his pads through backward square for another boundary

Agree. Wagon wheel is useless in finding out if a batsman frequently played pull or cut. I found your method more accurate and just for fun counted the same for Rahane's inning. Anyway, having seen that knock I already knew that he played plenty of those. It was not a surprise to me. Also, we don't really need to do all this counting. Most of us know which players are normally good against short balls.