How good is Sanga?

[Ikki]

Ponting was superb and there was a reason from 2002-2006 that he was unquestioned as a modern great and probably ahead of even Lara and Tendulkar at the time - but no one has had the extended period of results that Sangakkara has delivered - the guy would literally have to suck like Ken Rutherford for the next 30 tests to get his average down to where Ponting and Tendulkar ended up.

That has a lot to do with the fact that both Tendulkar and Ponting also played in the 90s - with Ponting also barely getting to play the minnows of the time. Sangakkara has exclusively played in an era of high run-scoring and flat pitches with a huge amount of his scoring coming against 3 opponents. In 40 tests against Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and Pakistan; he has 19 100s and 18 50s at an average of 88.

It's an unfair comparison, expecting a wicket keeper who bats at #3 to perform at the peak of his batting potential, especially in conditions like the UK and South Africa where invariably you're out in the field for a while because the Sri Lankan pace bowling attack has never been what you would consider threatening ( with exception to Vaas, quality ) and then your openers, inexperienced at facing new ball in seaming environments get out early and you're in within the third over.

There is no surprise in my view that he caught fire the moment he left the gloves behind and concentrated on his batting - there is also no surprise in my view that even with the gloves, you're having to split hairs between his away average against the Top 8 and Tendulkar's away average against the Top 8... ps Sanga's average has been climbing away from home for the last ten years, by the time he ends his career even if he declines by 15% over the next few years, he'll end up with a better away average from home than Tendulkar did.

The guy honed his skills while he was a keeper for a significant portion of his career and when he finally put them down he'd become a fantastic Test batsman. There seems to be an insinuation that the 'true' Sangakkara has only come to fore since then which is nonsense IMO. He was never going to average 70+ for his career even if he never had picked up the gloves.

Again, Tendulkar's averages can't be compared run for run with Sangakkara's since he debuted in the 80s and had a full decade of much tougher conditions, reflected in those averages. Even if Sangakkara has slightly better averages; Tendulkar has by far the more complete record.

 

[Prince EWS]

In terms of the wicket keeping argument, I do think it's fair to assume Sangakkara would have a better record if he kept for none or even less of his career. They obviously took the gloves off him for a reason, and that reason was not sloppy glovework as he was excellent keeper. It was believed decreasing his workload would increase his output as a batsman, and given it did exactly that I don't think you can write it off purely as a coincidence.

I don't think it's fair to assume he'd average what he does as a non-keeper across his entire career if he'd never kept though. I think that really stretches the truth a little bit. There's obviously some element of him reaching his peak after giving up the gloves.

The truth lies somewhere in the middle here; I don't think you should entirely dismiss the keeping argument or entirely extrapolate his non-keeping average to his entire career. Where exactly between those two points does the truth lie? God knows.

 

[Top_Cat]

Honestly, weighting knocks against weaker teams as a whole is a pretty error-prone way of going about things. Adam Gilchrist's knock in Fatullah, considering the state of the match and that Bangladesh had played out of their skins to that point, is one of the best he ever played. It's just under-rated because of the oppo and that oz won the game. The whole good vs bad bowling thing totally smoothes out factors like that.

On Ponting, his contribution goes well beyond mere stats and is a large part of why the Aussies just kept on winning throughout his era. Aside from all the stuff he contributed behind the scenes, when and how he scored as much as how many hurt his opponents badly. At the beginning of a match, someone needs to take the lead and assert themselves. The first guy to do that usually wins his team the match, sets the tone for the series and Ponting's mentality was that it was pretty much his duty to do so. When you have someone in your side who's that assertive, and he's the skipper, it lifts the rest of the team like almost nothing else.

It's better to get your hits in early and the Aussie side had several who could do it. You don't have too look hard to find more talented quicks than McG, spinners who had more variations than Warne or bats with more shots than Ponting but what separated them was their ability to get hits in fast and early. Before a lot of opponents even woke up Ponting had 50 and was looking to turn it into much more. You either respond or you die because there was no let-up and that's the essence of Ponting's contribution for mine because it's so, so hard to fight back in the face of that.

 

[Blocky]

That has a lot to do with the fact that both Tendulkar and Ponting also played in the 90s - with Ponting also barely getting to play the minnows of the time. Sangakkara has exclusively played in an era of high run-scoring and flat pitches with a huge amount of his scoring coming against 3 opponents. In 40 tests against Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and Pakistan; he has 19 hundreds and 18 50s at an average of 88.

Ponting played different minnows of the day though - the NZ bowling attack pre Bond... The Indian bowling attack away from home, The West Indian bowling attack post 2000 (who he faced an awful lot). I also like how you're lumping Pakistan in with Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, considering Pakistan have always had a serviceable bowling attack through Sanga's time. Again, penalising someone like Sangakkara because he only gets two test series against Australia, South Africa and England versus Ponting who played in five test series and four test series against those nations just isn't fair.... especially when you consider their records against similar opposition.

Ponting never faced McGrath, Warne, Gillespie and (Lee, Bichel, Kasprowicz, Clark) - (arguably the best all round bowling attack ever) - he faced some pretty terrible Ashes bowling attacks pre 2005 (Angus Fraser? Chris Lewis? )

 

[Blocky]

Honestly, weighting knocks against weaker teams as a whole is a pretty error-prone way of going about things. Adam Gilchrist's knock in Fatullah, considering the state of the match and that Bangladesh had played out of their skins to that point, is one of the best he ever played. It's just under-rated because of the oppo and that oz won the game. The whole good vs bad bowling thing totally smoothes out factors like that.

On Ponting, his contribution goes well beyond mere stats and is a large part of why the Aussies just kept on winning throughout his era. Aside from all the stuff he contributed behind the scenes, when and how he scored as much as how many hurt his opponents badly. At the beginning of a match, someone needs to take the lead and assert themselves. The first guy to do that usually wins his team the match, sets the tone for the series and Ponting's mentality was that it was pretty much his duty to do so. When you have someone in your side who's that assertive, and he's the skipper, it lifts the rest of the team like almost nothing else.

It's better to get your hits in early and the Aussie side had several who could do it. You don't have too look hard to find more talented quicks than McG, spinners who had more variations than Warne or bats with more shots than Ponting but what separated them was their ability to get hits in fast and early. Before a lot of opponents even woke up Ponting had 50 and was looking to turn it into much more. You either respond or you die because there was no let-up and that's the essence of Ponting's contribution for mine because it's so, so hard to fight back in the face of that.

Agree.. I think it's been covered a few times - you feared Sehwag but you felt you could get him early... you feared Ponting and hoped he'd make a mistake (from about 2002-2006)

 

[OverratedSanity]

Angus Fraser was a quality bowler FFS

 

[Blocky]

Angus Fraser was a quality bowler FFS

Strike Rate of 61.4 as an opening bowler? He was Gavin Larsen for England. But in any case, he only played one match against Ponting with the world class average of 64.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Strike Rate of 61.4 as an opening bowler? He was Gavin Larsen for England. But in any case, he only played one match against Ponting with the world class average of 64.

What rubbish posting. I never said he is an ATG. A strike rate of 61 compares him with a dibbly dobbler now? He was a very very good bowler, carried England's attack for much of the 90s and I will not hear an argument against it because you're just wrong. *flies away*

 

[Blocky]

What rubbish posting. I never said he is an ATG. A strike rate of 61 compares him with a dibbly dobbler now? He was a very very good bowler, carried England's attack for much of the 90s and I will not here an argument against it because you're just wrong. *flies away*

"very very good bowler" - who happened to bowl at a time where England couldn't buy victories and ended up eighth in the test rankings.

I wonder which attack England would prefer - their current bowling attack who has pushed them as high as #1 - or their 1990s bowling attack who routinely got routed by tough opposition.

 

[Ikki]

Ponting played different minnows of the day though - the NZ bowling attack pre Bond... The Indian bowling attack away from home, The West Indian bowling attack post 2000 (who he faced an awful lot). I also like how you're lumping Pakistan in with Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, considering Pakistan have always had a serviceable bowling attack through Sanga's time. Again, penalising someone like Sangakkara because he only gets two test series against Australia, South Africa and England versus Ponting who played in five test series and four test series against those nations just isn't fair.... especially when you consider their records against similar opposition.

Ponting never faced McGrath, Warne, Gillespie and (Lee, Bichel, Kasprowicz, Clark) - (arguably the best all round bowling attack ever) - he faced some pretty terrible Ashes bowling attacks pre 2005 (Angus Fraser? Chris Lewis? )

The NZ attacks were never in the same hemisphere as bad as Zimbabwe's or Bangladesh's and the NZ pitches weren't conducive to gargantuan high run scoring either. Neither the Indian attack away from home nor the Ashes attacks are near as bad either. That's just looking at the averages of the bowling; not considering the fact if anything B/Z actually played each other quite a bit and if they were playing actual Test standard sides their bowling stats would be even worse.

Pakistan has had a decent attack for most of Sangakkara's time; but look at the run-fests they've been involved in. Lots of series on slow flat tracks of ridiculous run scoring. Sangakkara hasn't been the only one to make merry in those series.

Ponting has also played more great attacks than Sangakkara - because he also played in the 90s where his team weren't the only great attack - and he did very well averaging 50 against S.Africa, 40 against WIndies and 63 against Pakistan. Even on that account, Sangakkara faced that legendary Aussie lineup in 2 series (McGrath missing in one of those series) and was poor, averaged 25. Ponting's on another level in this respect. Also, IIRC the Sri Lankans themselves are amongst the best home bowling records for much of the last decade which Sangakkara never faced either.

In the end, you can't go around comparing averages willy nilly, whether you think it is penalising or not. Tendulkar's and Ponting's averages are a result of having played in a tougher era, against tougher opponents. If you don't consider that then you're being disingenuous.

 

[Blocky]

The NZ attacks were never in the same hemisphere as bad as Zimbabwe's or Bangladesh's and the NZ pitches weren't conducive to gargantuan high run scoring either.

Pakistan has had a decent attack for most of Sangakkara's time; but look at the run-fests they've been involved in. Lots of series on slow flat tracks of ridiculous run scoring. Sangakkara hasn't been the only one to make merry in those series.

Ponting has also played more great attacks than Sangakkara - because he also played in the 90s where his team weren't the only great attack - and he did very well averaging 50 against S.Africa, 40 against WIndies and 63 against Pakistan. Even on that account, Sangakkara faced that legendary Aussie lineup in 2 series (McGrath missing in one of those series) and was poor, averaged 25. Ponting's on another level in this respect. Also, IIRC the Sri Lankans themselves have amongst the best home bowling records for much of the last decade which Sangakkara never faced.

In the end, you can't go around comparing averages willy nilly, whether you think it is penalising or not. Tendulkar's and Ponting's averages are a result of having played in a tougher era, against tougher opponents. If you don't consider that then you're being disingenuous.

Only that doesn't quite wash... because the greatness of Ponting was exposed from 2002 until 2006... a period of time that Sanga was playing against the same attacks in the same era.... and also the supposed "friendly batting conditions" that Sanga has played and dominated in are somehow the same conditions that Tendulkar and Ponting had massive declines in their average from 59 right down to 50.

If we were comparing Lara and Sangakkara - considering Lara was effectively done by the time Sangakkara was in his pomp, different story.... but the bulk of Ponting's runs came in the same window that Sangakkara has been playing.... so?

Also, Zimbabwe's bowling attack wasn't that far off NZ's bowling attack when they had Streak and Price playing for them - NZ were pretty dire through most of the nineties and heavily reliant on often injured players like Cairns, Doull and Nash - not really up for a debate considering Sanga played 20 tests total against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh for 9 centuries, Tendulkar played 18 tests total against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh for 8 centuries.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Your double standards are hilarious. On the one hand you say Sanga has scored his runs against Pakistan who've generally had decent attacks (which I sort of agree with), but at the same time argue that Ponting bashed "rubbish" bowlers like Angus Fraser. Un-freaking-believeable. So you think Fraser was worse than some of Pakistan's "strike" bowlers of the last decade like Mohammad Sami, Abdul Razzaq, Umar Gul, Aizaz Cheema. Great.

 

[Ikki]

Angus Fraser was a quality bowler FFS

He'd probably be both Bangladesh's and Zimbabwe's greatest bowler ever

 

[Blocky]

Your double standards are hilarious. On the one hand you say Sanga has scored his runs against Pakistan who've generally had decent attacks (which I sort of agree with), but at the same time argue that Ponting bashed "rubbish" bowlers like Angus Fraser. Un-freaking-believeable. So you think Fraser was worse than some of Pakistan's "strike" bowlers of the last decade like Mohammad Sami, Abdul Razzaq, Umar Gul, Aizaz Cheema. Great.

Ponting's average against England isn't great in comparison to his overall average and pretty dire when you take into account the resurgence of England and their pace bowling attack that allowed them to become competitive from 2005 onwards.

Let's just forget that Pakistan had the likes of Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Mohammad Asif, Mohammad Amir and co as their main strike weapons with players like Sami, Gul and co rotating in and out of the side - ps in less friendly conditions, Umar Gul has a better strike rate than Angus Fraser... and if not for his dominance over the Windies, Angus Fraser's average would be similar to Gul's.

 

[Blocky]

He'd probably be both Bangladesh's and Zimbabwe's greatest bowler ever

Heath Streak ANYDAY over Angus Fraser.
Shakib Al-Hasan ANYDAY over Angus Fraser.

It's actually the mark against both Anderson and Broad that they haven't managed to keep their average under thirty despite playing in English conditions - you compare that to what Steyn, McGrath, Gillespie, Philander all manage to average in English conditions.

 

[Blocky]

In this thread...

People argue despite statistical brilliance that trumps pretty much any other modern player that Sangakkara couldn't possibly be considered an all time great...
People then argue that Angus Fraser was a great bowler.

 

[Top_Cat]

Not that it matters at all but 3 of the top-10 all-time Test wicket-takers ended their careers with worse strike rates than Gus.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Heath Streak ANYDAY over Angus Fraser.

The Heath Streak with a strike rate of 62.7. Nah he was obviously the Stuart Binny of Zimbabwe.

 

[Ikki]

Only that doesn't quite wash... because the greatness of Ponting was exposed from 2002 until 2006... a period of time that Sanga was playing against the same attacks in the same era.... and also the supposed "friendly batting conditions" that Sanga has played and dominated in are somehow the same conditions that Tendulkar and Ponting had massive declines in their average from 59 right down to 50.

Ponting had his best run then, but his 'greatness' was exposed earlier. The guy was averaging 45 IIRC in the 90s, which is like averaging 50 in this era. Sanga has played his whole career in an era of weaker attacks and flatter pitches. Tendulkar and Ponting only part of it. So, that kind of matters.

If we were comparing Lara and Sangakkara - considering Lara was effectively done by the time Sangakkara was in his pomp, different story.... but the bulk of Ponting's runs came in the same window that Sangakkara has been playing.... so?

Not really, Tendulkar decided to have an exaggeratedly long career. The guy not only started playing before Lara, he finished many years after. Even if the bulk of Ponting's career came post 2000, the fact remains that 5 of his career years came in the 90s and weigh his average down. Also that he barely played B/Z matter as they're by far the worst bowling attacks during his career. The 2010s are even worse than the 2000s in terms of higher batting averages...imagine if he had another 5 years peak right now...

Also, Zimbabwe's bowling attack wasn't that far off NZ's bowling attack when they had Streak and Price playing for them - NZ were pretty dire through most of the nineties and heavily reliant on often injured players like Cairns, Doull and Nash - not really up for a debate considering Sanga played 20 tests total against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh for 9 centuries, Tendulkar played 18 tests total against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh for 8 centuries.

Price was a good bowler? He's much worse than Angus Fraser .

From 95 (Ponting's debut year) until 2000 (Sangakkara's debut year), NZ averaged 35.44 runs and struck at 76 balls per wicket.

From 2000 until June 2004 (circa last time Sangkkara faced ZIM), Zim averaged 42.75 runs and struck at 83.5 balls per wicket.

How are they even in the same consideration?

 

[Blocky]

A piece of analysis...

Situations where both Tendulkar and Sangakkara have played the same bowler and been dismissed more than twice (for sample size, otherwise you had instances where Tendulkar had been dismissed for 1.5 and likewise for Sanga) - where they had played against the same bowler.



Flintoff - Sanga averages more.
Steyn - Both Suck against him.
Swann - Both suck against him
Anderson - Sanga averages more
Morkel - Tendulkar averages more
Ntini - Basically Even.
Johnson - Basically Even.
Asif - Tendulkar averages more
Harris - Sanga averages more
Broad - Sanga averages more
Akhtar - Sanga averages more
Warne - Sanga averages more
Pollock - Sanga averages more
Clark - Sanga averages more