Is Sangakara the best bat since Bradman?

[OverratedSanity]

This is hyperbole. If we're not rating Sanga because his record is inflated then G Pollock with his precisely 0 tests against notable pacers can't be ranked ahead either. Or Harvey who never did much of note against a good pace attack. Sobers and Lara were better, of course, but there's really no one else who can possibly be considered better than Sanga.

Border has a case. But that's about it.

 

[honestbharani]

Border has a Burgey. But that's about it.

FTFY

 

[slippy888]

Kholi

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Kholi

Messi

 

[Anil]

Border has a case. But that's about it.

Yes, was typing out almost exactly the same thing when I saw your post...

 

[Anil]

Jadeja

Thread closed.

 

[Jfry]

Hmm

Sobers
Lara
Who else?

Border
Pollock
Henry Nicholls

 

[the big bambino]

This is hyperbole. If we're not rating Sanga because his record is inflated then G Pollock with his precisely 0 tests against notable pacers can't be ranked ahead either. Or Harvey who never did much of note against a good pace attack. Sobers and Lara were better, of course, but there's really no one else who can possibly be considered better than Sanga.

Including noted numpties Snow, Statham, McKenzie and Hawke. Of course lets us use the political situation of the time to remove his games against Lillee and as a 40 yo drilling Alderman, Hogg and Rackemann.

 

[Migara]

If you take him as a pure batsman,. he is not far off. However his wicketkeeping days cannot be neglected as that when his batting is discussed (Similarly his stats as a pure batsman cannot be ignored when Sangakkara the keeper batsman is discussed). So probably in top 10 since Bradman, top 5 would be stretching. Best wicket keeping batsman, yes right up there with Gilchrist and Flower if not the best.

 

[trundler]

Including noted numpties Snow, Statham, McKenzie and Hawke. Of course lets us use the political situation of the time to remove his games against Lillee and as a 40 yo drilling Alderman, Hogg and Rackemann.

I will give you Statham but he wasn't especially penetrative at that stage in his career. The rest are nobodies by ATG standards. If we're being so hyper critical that we're giving Sangakkara no points for bashing Chuckmal harder than any batsman has bashed any bowler in the history of the game then G Pollock's record is almost entirely fluff too. And Sanga did that on turning tracks, both at home and away. Brian Statham and some also rans is no one's definition of a great bowling attack. World XI games don't mean anything to me since they've never meant anything to the players involved and invariably turn out to be glorified exhibition matches. There's really no solid, logical basis for having Pollock ahead of Sanga.

 

[Coronis]

As much as I love Sanga, no he isn’t the best since Bradman. I’d have him as top 10 since Bradman. Excluding Hobbs and Sutcliffe of course (before Bradman) , as well as Hammond and Headley (concurrent with Bradman). 3rd best lefty behind Sobers and Lara.

 

[Kenneth Viljoen]

Not for me , Sri Lanka never was considered in the top 3 teams when Sangakkara played and that is reflective how they were treated by the big teams ..
To be the best you have to also be given the opportunity on the biggest stages .Did Sangakkara ever play a 4 match or 5 match series ? When they toured the big teams often it would just be a 2 test series I think , even his record in Australia he did really well but he never played at the WACA , the Gabba , Adelaide, SCG ..The only big stadium he played in OZ was MCG the rest were places like Marara Cricket Oval or in Cairns so the poor bloke never had a chance to be at the best since Bradman level ..Yes on face value its a great test average and record but he didn't have the same opportunities like Lara and Tendulkar to play in big series . And big series define great players .

 

[a massive zebra]

I will give you Statham but he wasn't especially penetrative at that stage in his career. The rest are nobodies by ATG standards. If we're being so hyper critical that we're giving Sangakkara no points for bashing Chuckmal harder than any batsman has bashed any bowler in the history of the game then G Pollock's record is almost entirely fluff too. And Sanga did that on turning tracks, both at home and away. Brian Statham and some also rans is no one's definition of a great bowling attack. World XI games don't mean anything to me since they've never meant anything to the players involved and invariably turn out to be glorified exhibition matches. There's really no solid, logical basis for having Pollock ahead of Sanga.

Statham vs Snow is very debatable.

Snow was highly ranked by contemporaries and played a key role in one of England's rare Ashes victories in Australia, with 31 wickets in the 1970/71 series.

Statham was of course a world class bowler in his own right. He averaged under 30 in fourteen of his fifteen Test series between 1953/54 and 1962, which is evidence of uber consistency. But he largely played second fiddle to Frank Tyson and then Fred Trueman, only exceeding 20 wickets in one series.

 

[thierry henry]

Yes, obviously

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Not for me , Sri Lanka never was considered in the top 3 teams when Sangakkara played and that is reflective how they were treated by the big teams ..
To be the best you have to also be given the opportunity on the biggest stages .Did Sangakkara ever play a 4 match or 5 match series ? When they toured the big teams often it would just be a 2 test series I think , even his record in Australia he did really well but he never played at the WACA , the Gabba , Adelaide, SCG ..The only big stadium he played in OZ was MCG the rest were places like Marara Cricket Oval or in Cairns so the poor bloke never had a chance to be at the best since Bradman level ..Yes on face value its a great test average and record but he didn't have the same opportunities like Lara and Tendulkar to play in big series . And big series define great players .

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. Murali played in the same teams (and thus same test series) as Sanga and is widely regarded as the best or 2nd best spinner of all time (and a strong contender for the greatest bowler of all time).

 

[BazBall21]

Statham vs Snow is very debatable.

Snow was highly ranked by contemporaries and played a key role in one of England's rare Ashes victories in Australia, with 31 wickets in the 1970/71 series.

Statham was of course a world class bowler in his own right. He averaged under 30 in fourteen of his fifteen Test series between 1953/54 and 1962, which is evidence of uber consistency. But he largely played second fiddle to Frank Tyson and then Fred Trueman, only exceeding 20 wickets in one series.

As all-round bowlers it's debatable, in England though Statham definitely takes it.

 

[TheJediBrah]

This is hyperbole. If we're not rating Sanga because his record is inflated then G Pollock with his precisely 0 tests against notable pacers can't be ranked ahead either. Or Harvey who never did much of note against a good pace attack. Sobers and Lara were better, of course, but there's really no one else who can possibly be considered better than Sanga.

Matthew Elliott, Michael Bevan, Michael Di Venuto, Jimmy Maher. Basically anyone who averaged 40+ in GOAT era Sheffield Shield (stronger than Test cricket)

 

[the big bambino]

I will give you Statham but he wasn't especially penetrative at that stage in his career. The rest are nobodies by ATG standards. If we're being so hyper critical that we're giving Sangakkara no points for bashing Chuckmal harder than any batsman has bashed any bowler in the history of the game then G Pollock's record is almost entirely fluff too. And Sanga did that on turning tracks, both at home and away. Brian Statham and some also rans is no one's definition of a great bowling attack. World XI games don't mean anything to me since they've never meant anything to the players involved and invariably turn out to be glorified exhibition matches. There's really no solid, logical basis for having Pollock ahead of Sanga.

Statham took a cheap michelle against Pollock's Saffers. He was younger in that game than Anderson and Broad are now. Snow is still a cut above as the best English bowler I've seen even over a distance of 50 years. He was an incredible bowler. I remember watching the World XI matches and Pollock's innings against Australia. Those matches were the equivalent of tests and I remember how disappointed the press were that we lost that series. Pollock's 136 was genius. iirc he got a hundred on one day that was as good in quality as Sobers' famous Melbourne innings. I was feeling a little apprehensive the next day that he'd score 200 as well but his form wasn't as good and he was soon enough dismissed.

I don't really judge a player on whether he faced an atg bowler. They more than likely struggle against those players, keep them out long enough to score runs off the remainder of the attack. As an example I think Lara's runs off McDermott and Hughes are just as good as those he took off a team containing McGrath. The former two weren't atgs but they were good enough to be a serious challenge for any class of batsman.

Apart from a test or two Pollock only played against the best teams of his era (apart from the WI for all the sad and awful reasons we know about). Australia and England were formidable opponents and the fact Pollock averaged between 55 and 60 against them suggests real quality. To say nothing of World XI and then rebel cricket matches of the mid 80s.

 

[Starfighter]

Statham took a cheap michelle against Pollock's Saffers [stuff] To say nothing of World XI and then rebel cricket matches of the mid 80s.

Most bowlers, even great ones, do not play on as long as Broaderson. Statham was no longer an England regular and the '65 series was the last one he played. Snow had only just started his test career and was not as fast at that point either. McKenzie was a cut below in class, and in the 1979 series was already over the hill and quite ill.

 

[the big bambino]

Most bowlers, even great ones, do not play on as long as Broaderson. Statham was no longer an England regular and the '65 series was the last one he played. Snow had only just started his test career and was not as fast at that point either. McKenzie was a cut below in class, and in the 1979 series was already over the hill and quite ill.

Anderson, Broad, Walsh, Ambrose, Imran, Akram, Southee, Umesh, Wagner, Woakes, Hadlee ... Chatfield, Cairns, Clive Rice, Proctor, Donald, Dev, Hogg, Trim, Les Jackson even Freddy Brown all bowled seam up with success at ages older or just a few months younger than Statham when he took 5/40 v SA. They're just the ones I can think of so its more common than you'd think.

Neither is Broad a regular but he's still test class. Older players can be selected at crucial points in a series so not being a "squad option" is more a function of their their age. He was still a force.

The comments about Snow sound too much like stats selectivity some people try to use when downplaying a cricketer's resume. I mean I don't mind but let's make it a consistent principle and not just applying it to Pollock. I think we'd all get sick of it soon enough to discard it now. Disagree about McKenzie and Pollock dominated Australia in 2 series prior the 69/70 disaster.

He only played the best of his era. It stands speculation that if he played more often against lesser players his average would've been higher. Undoubtedly an atg and no argument about the quality of the opposition can be used against him.