Steve Waugh vs Kumar Sangakkara

[subshakerz]

Yeah there’s that too. Don’t think he needs to be rated down for batting mostly at 5 when his record in the top 4 is so good. There are relative doubts over Waugh maintaining the same productivity in the top 4. Can argue that he was fulfilling a specialist role, but batting at no5 is a net positive.

Again, how big a factor is that in a comparison with Sanga who played the majority of his career on home pitches and against pacers of far less quality?

 

[BazBall21]

Again, how big a factor is that in a comparison with Sanga who played the majority of his career on home pitches and against pacers of far less quality?

Sanga vs Waugh is very close. Sanga was very good against fast bowling too tbh. Didn’t have to play deep attacks as much.

 

[Burgey]

I am the only person in the world who considers Graham Thorpe to be probably England’s best batsman between Boycott and Root and he batted no5 a lot haha. Him, Border and Shiv have the argument of doing it in weaker lineups, Sobers probably doesn’t tbf. Neither does Lloyd, though Lloyd also had a knack of producing successful counter-attacks. Having said that, I think Thorpe actually batted at 4 quite a lot when England were ****.

TOTAB batted four more than anywhere else iirc. Certainly did it through the dire years of the 80s. I think it was only when M Waugh came along that he moved down to five.

 

[BazBall21]

TOTAB batted four more than anywhere else iirc. Certainly did it through the dire years of the 80s. I think it was only when M Waugh came along that he moved down to five.

Yeah true, but batted below 4 more than he batted at 4 and 3.

 

[_00_deathscar]

TOTAB batted four more than anywhere else iirc. Certainly did it through the dire years of the 80s. I think it was only when M Waugh came along that he moved down to five.

What kind of fake alpha gives up his #4 spot to Mark ****ing Waugh?

 

[Burgey]

If you're a real Alpha you put in place your succession plan, knowing your fertile seed will reap rewards.

That's why Tendulkar never moved - too insecure to do so in that effete, Beta way of his.

 

[trundler]

I dont see how the bowling is relevant when talking about batting skill.

Point is nobody brings Sobers batting at no.5/6 as a reason to downgrade him compared to VIv who batted no.3 into the conversation at all because its not that critical a point.

Especially when you are comparing batsmen like Waugh and Sanga who batted in eras with a huge gulf in bowling quality.

Of course I consider it a relevant factor when comparing him to batsmen who batted top 4. But it's abundantly clear that he batted #5 because he had to and would've done well up the order (because he did) and he maintained an elite level of output (he's in the mix for several fastest to x thousand runs milestones, n number of centuries as well a high ratio of centuries to tests) despite batting lower down the order. He doesn't just have a pretty average. And his bowling workload, not ability, is obviously relevant when considering why he batted where he did. The main difference between Sobers and Waugh is that Sobers wasn't a coward.

 

[ZK$]

Of course I consider it a relevant factor when comparing him to batsmen who batted top 4. But it's abundantly clear that he batted #5 because he had to and would've done well up the order (because he did) and he maintained an elite level of output (he's in the mix for several fastest to x thousand runs milestones, n number of centuries as well a high ratio of centuries to tests) despite batting lower down the order. He doesn't just have a pretty average. And his bowling workload, not ability, is obviously relevant when considering why he batted where he did. The main difference between Sobers and Waugh is that Sobers wasn't a coward.

Waugh’s output isn’t actually any worse than Border’s though (Both have similar RPIs and a similar number of not outs and hundreds), so I don’t think you can only downgrade one of them unless your only problem with Waugh is not his output but that he didn’t prove that he could bat at #4.

 

[subshakerz]

Of course I consider it a relevant factor when comparing him to batsmen who batted top 4. But it's abundantly clear that he batted #5 because he had to and would've done well up the order (because he did) and he maintained an elite level of output (he's in the mix for several fastest to x thousand runs milestones, n number of centuries as well a high ratio of centuries to tests) despite batting lower down the order. He doesn't just have a pretty average. And his bowling workload, not ability, is obviously relevant when considering why he batted where he did. The main difference between Sobers and Waugh is that Sobers wasn't a coward.

So you choose to believe Waugh batted at no.5 because he was a coward rather than that the captains Border and Taylor thought that was the best position for him, and that was before Australia had a super strong batting order. Him going down the order coincided with a massive increase in runmaking beginning with the Ashes 89. At the same time, the quality in the top order improved so Waugh didn't have to be brought up the order. By the time Waugh peaked in 93, you already had a strong batting lineup established so if it aint broke, why fix it?

You have ATGs like Border and Sobers who batted in the late order too. Viv batted more at no.5 than any other batting position. So just penalizing Waugh is silly.

Seriously, it is ok to slightly rate a batter less if you like but the batting position isnt the end all be all to downgrade someone just because he batted at no.5 versus no.4/3. It's a couple of places in a batting lineup. It is not that big of a deal frankly.

 

[subshakerz]

Sanga vs Waugh is very close. Sanga was very good against fast bowling too tbh. Didn’t have to play deep attacks as much.

My main point is Sanga's poor record in India and SA is far more serious than Waugh batting two places lower.

 

[BazBall21]

My main point is Sanga's poor record in India and SA is far more serious than Waugh batting two places lower.

Averaged 21, 38 and 31 in the first three of his four England tours too

 

[OverratedSanity]

I'm conflicted. Waugh batted down the order and protected his average with not outs, while sanga benefited more from minnow bashing and the most friendly split of familiar vs unfamiliar conditions split of games of any atg player. Still go sanga because he did it up the order in a weaker lineup and because I'm a filthy RPI believer.

 

[subshakerz]

I'm conflicted. Waugh batted down the order and protected his average with not outs, while sanga benefited more from minnow bashing and the most friendly split of familiar vs unfamiliar conditions split of games of any atg player. Still go sanga because he did it up the order in a weaker lineup and because I'm a filthy RPI believer.

This is much more important than batting position IMO. Waugh was more tested and accomplished more than Sanga away from home.

Waugh also had a higher ceiling than Sanga.

 

[BazBall21]

Higher ceiling is an interesting point, I know he had some hype as a youngster but Waugh is generally reckoned to have modest talent relative to most ATG bats.

Re Sanga, yeah just 25% of his Tests came outside Asia (excluding Zim ofc) and he “only” averaged 44.6 there. During a comparison, I found that Dravid averages 52.3 under the same filter and played 39% of his Tests outside Asia. It’s also worth noting though that Sanga was under a type of dependence pressure in SENA as their batting was almost him or bust in those conditions and he did also keep wicket in first half of his career. Dravid/Waugh did have better batting support.

 

[BazBall21]

There is a plethora of evidence that Sanga was very strong against high pace but clearly had some issues against lateral movement, Dravid the opposite. Sanga was good at making you pay if you allowed him to get set, Dravid better starter but his style can occasionally lead to getting stuck against deep attacks.

 

[subshakerz]

Higher ceiling is an interesting point, I know he had some hype as a youngster but Waugh is generally reckoned to have modest talent relative to most ATG bats.

Re Sanga, yeah just 25% of his Tests came outside Asia (excluding Zim ofc) and he “only” averaged 44.6 there. During a comparison, I found that Dravid averages 52.3 under the same filter and played 39% of his Tests outside Asia. It’s also worth noting though that Sanga was under a type of dependence pressure in SENA as their batting was almost him or bust in those conditions and he did also keep wicket in first half of his career. Dravid/Waugh did have better batting support.

Batting support/bowling support is an interesting argument which I think is overplayed a bit. Ponting had more batting support than any other ATG in cricket history and that doesnt stop ppl from rating him highly.

Sanga was awesome in NZ against Bond but couldnt replicate that same form against Steyn in SA. England his record is barely acceptable. India he couldnt suceed too. So that is three important countries where he underperformed.

Waugh was excellent in SA, WI, India and Pakistan (against the 2Ws) which are basically the most difficult places to tour and best attacks in his time. Also was an ace in Ashes contests.

So that to me is the real difference between the two, how good were they away against the best teams of their times.

 

[BazBall21]

Batting support/bowling support is an interesting argument which I think is overplayed a bit. Ponting had more batting support than any other ATG in cricket history and that doesnt stop ppl from rating him highly.

Sanga was awesome in NZ against Bond but couldnt replicate that same form against Steyn in SA. England his record is barely acceptable. India he couldnt suceed too. So that is three important countries where he underperformed.

Waugh was excellent in SA, WI, India and Pakistan (against the 2Ws) which are basically the most difficult places to tour and best attacks in his time. Also was an ace in Ashes contests.

So that to me is the real difference between the two, how good were they away against the best teams of their times.

Agree that batting support is generally a bit overstated but I felt quite compelled to use that for context when I was comparing Dravid to Sanga. The low samples and lack of batting support in SENA did add some pressure. Waugh was awesome away (SL aside), a bit dodgy at home. Bowling support is more significant than batting support btw.

 

[BazBall21]

Definitely excellent in SA/WI, average in India is slightly flattering relative to 50+ scores there, but still better than Sanga’s record in India.

 

[subshakerz]

Agree that batting support is generally a bit overstated but I felt quite compelled to use that for context when I was comparing Dravid to Sanga. The low samples and lack of batting support in SENA did add some pressure. Waugh was awesome away (SL aside), a bit dodgy at home. Bowling support is more significant than batting support btw.

Yet Marshall and McGrath are the best rated pacers on this forum.

 

[BazBall21]

Yet Marshall and McGrath are the best rated pacers on this forum.

Don’t think a lot of support should eliminate someone from the top