• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Steve Waugh vs Kumar Sangakkara

Better Test bat, Steve Waugh or Sangakkara?

  • Total voters
    46
BazBall21

BazBall21

International Captain
Miandad averages more than Sanga outside Asia but he did properly plunder one opponent rather than produce a neat balance
 
OverratedSanity

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
subshakerz said:
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.
Click to expand...
Would Waugh have been as excellent in these conditions (particularly Sa/WI) if he was coming in at 5-1 every other game like Sangakkara was
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
OverratedSanity said:
Would Waugh have been as excellent in these conditions (particularly Sa/WI) if he was coming in at 5-1 every other game like Sangakkara was
Click to expand...
We don't know. All we do know if that Waugh succeeded against high quality attacks away from home to a level that Sanga simply didnt. The rest is conjecture. I can just as easily as speculate that Sanga wouldn't have averaged over 50 if he played for SA.

You are making the mistake of assuming he would fail which is why he played at no.5.

The reality is that Australia already had decent batters up the order and the captain's felt Waugh was most valuable at that position and there wasn't a need to promote him up the order.

If you really want to go down this rabbit hole, then just immediately upgrade openers compared to no.3s, no.3 compared to no.4s, etc. But you won't do that because its silly. Like I said, there are many more important criteria to rate them.
 
A

Anil

Hall of Fame Member
waugh for me...probably less talented than sanga but more than made up for it with his grit, he is a true successor to border...
 
ankitj

ankitj

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Sangakkara is considered better than Steve Waugh because he was more consistent, had a higher batting average, and scored more centuries and double centuries in Test cricket. He was also the fastest batsman to reach 10,000 runs in Test cricket, and had a much better record in One Day Internationals.

However, Steve Waugh had a better record in terms of captaincy, and led Australia to victory in numerous series. He was also a great leader and team player, and had a better record in terms of unbeaten innings and other match-winning performances.
 
Red_Ink_Squid

Red_Ink_Squid

Global Moderator
subshakerz said:
You are making the mistake of assuming he would fail which is why he played at no.5.
Click to expand...
It's not a case of assuming he would fail if he'd batted 3. It's a matter of not giving him credit for something he didn't actually do. He was a great batsman, he may have been great at #3. But we can only judge him on what actually happened, which was him batting down at 5 in a strong batting unit.

No disputing that he played in a much harder bowling era than Sanga. He gets credit for that for sure. That's why there is a comparison to be made despite Sanga's raw figures being a lot higher.
subshakerz said:
If you really want to go down this rabbit hole, then just immediately upgrade openers compared to no.3s, no.3 compared to no.4s, etc. But you won't do that because its silly.
Click to expand...
Why would it be silly to upgrade openers compared to middle order players? You absolutely should do that! How many 50+ averaging openers have there been vs MO bats?

3 vs 4 and 4 vs 5? Obviously less difference but it is still usually more difficult to bat higher. Do you not think it is harder to bat higher up? England for example has been battling with the pros and cons of batting Root at 3 or 4 for years and he's yo-yo'd between the positions. He averages a lot less at 3 because it's harder to bat there. But arguably it was worth it when England couldn't find any other top order players of even middling competence.

His average at 5 is better still actually, almost 70. Easy for a great batsman to score runs down there.
 
Coronis

Coronis

International Coach
Red_Ink_Squid said:
It's not a case of assuming he would fail if he'd batted 3. It's a matter of not giving him credit for something he didn't actually do. He was a great batsman, he may have been great at #3. But we can only judge him on what actually happened, which was him batting down at 5 in a strong batting unit.

No disputing that he played in a much harder bowling era than Sanga. He gets credit for that for sure. That's why there is a comparison to be made despite Sanga's raw figures being a lot higher.

Why would it be silly to upgrade openers compared to middle order players? You absolutely should do that! How many 50+ averaging openers have there been vs MO bats?

3 vs 4 and 4 vs 5? Obviously less difference but it is still usually more difficult to bat higher. Do you not think it is harder to bat higher up? England for example has been battling with the pros and cons of batting Root at 3 or 4 for years and he's yo-yo'd between the positions. He averages a lot less at 3 because it's harder to bat there. But arguably it was worth it when England couldn't find any other top order players of even middling competence.

His average at 5 is better still actually, almost 70. Easy for a great batsman to score runs down there.
Click to expand...
The Don averaged 142.3 at 5, still twice as good.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Red_Ink_Squid said:
It's not a case of assuming he would fail if he'd batted 3. It's a matter of not giving him credit for something he didn't actually do. He was a great batsman, he may have been great at #3. But we can only judge him on what actually happened, which was him batting down at 5 in a strong batting unit.

No disputing that he played in a much harder bowling era than Sanga. He gets credit for that for sure. That's why there is a comparison to be made despite Sanga's raw figures being a lot higher.
Click to expand...
CW posters may a lot more deference to raw figures than I do. In Sanga's case is pretty obvious that his average boost comes from an easy era, more home games and more minnow games. You might as well rate him ahead of Viv too.

Red_Ink_Squid said:
Why would it be silly to upgrade openers compared to middle order players? You absolutely should do that! How many 50+ averaging openers have there been vs MO bats?

3 vs 4 and 4 vs 5? Obviously less difference but it is still usually more difficult to bat higher. Do you not think it is harder to bat higher up? England for example has been battling with the pros and cons of batting Root at 3 or 4 for years and he's yo-yo'd between the positions. He averages a lot less at 3 because it's harder to bat there. But arguably it was worth it when England couldn't find any other top order players of even middling competence.

His average at 5 is better still actually, almost 70. Easy for a great batsman to score runs down there.
Click to expand...
I do think it is slightly easier to bat at no.5 but in the grand scheme, this is a minor point for me. If the conversation is Sehwag vs Tendulkar, Sehwag opening vs Tendulkar at no.4 won't be the big difference between them compared to their actual record.
 
Migara

Migara

International Coach
More home games for Kallis -> he had difficult conditions
More home games for Sanga -> he had easy conditions to bat
Home games for Murali -> he had dust bowls to bowl on

Shrodinger appearing in polynomials.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top