What would Sangakkara and Kallis average if they never had to keep/bowl?

[Victor Ian]

He got 1 big hundred in 10 innings in Australia, but he also got 5 scores over 50.

As for facing bowling attacks in transition that would apply to the 2012 tour where he averaged 50.66.

In his 3 other matches he faced McGrath, Gillespie, Kasp, Warne, Lee, Johnson, Clark and MacGill and averaged 65.

Talk about presenting facts as bullshit as you can manage. The other 3 matches where you list McGrath, Gillespie, Kasp, Warne is actually only 2 matches where he averages 35.5 (sample size lol). In the other game where he faced lee johnson clark and mcgill is the one where he made his 192 and bumped his average.

So in summary, this ****, fake ****, earned his 60 average in Australia on the back of pouncing when the bowling was in transition and he failed hard when it was what Kallis, Tendulkar and Lara all had to largely contend with. The way you just presented those facts is the way Sangakara bats. There is something sleazy about it.

 

[shortpitched713]

Yeah while it's fair to point out the pure quantity of many guys was assisted by the pitches and opposition of the era, most of them average 50+ regardless and a few runs difference in average isn't anything meaningful.

It can make a difference because all ATG bat comparisons (barring Bradman) are such slim margins. But Sanga, for example, starts from such a dizzying height ( not even considering his first third of career as a WK ), that the exercise leaves him still at a damn impressive level.

 

[shortpitched713]

@thread

It's hard to judge, because keeping had a discrete impact on Sanga's batting career for a defined period of time. And even that there's no consensus.

So with something like bowling, whose workload/impact on batting can be modulated more granularity based on team needs and player preference, I think there can never be a consensus on this. Generally speaking I don't think secondary responsibilities are ever really taken into consideration in ATG bat discussion, i.e. to put Sobers over Tendulkar, Hobbs, etc for BBB. Even Gilly, doesn't end up being upgraded, as most consider him simply an ATVG batsman, despite the fact that no batsman of that caliber has ever maintained a WK role throughout their entire career, as he did. It just ends up being an interesting aside.

My suspicion is that Kallis didn't bowl any more than felt comfortable with, and hence had minimal to no impact on his batting performance. However, that's something only he knows, as I'm not an elite class all-round cricketing athlete like he is, so can't really tell you definitively.

 

[reyrey]

Talk about presenting facts as bull**** as you can manage. The other 3 matches where you list McGrath, Gillespie, Kasp, Warne is actually only 2 matches where he averages 35.5 (sample size lol). In the other game where he faced lee johnson clark and mcgill is the one where he made his 192 and bumped his average.

So in summary, this ****, fake ****, earned his 60 average in Australia on the back of pouncing when the bowling was in transition and he failed hard when it was what Kallis, Tendulkar and Lara all had to largely contend with. The way you just presented those facts is the way Sangakara bats. There is something sleazy about it.

A young wicket keeper averaging 35.5 in his first 2 tests in Australia and getting 2 scores over 50 (75 and 66) is somehow meant to be a failing?

As for your so called "pouncing when the bowling was in transition" well he faced
Starc (5 Tests) Hilfenhaus (26 Tests) Lyon (16) Siddle (34) Watson (36) Johnson (48) Bird (0 Tests)

Absolutely hilarious that you try use a "bowling line up in transition" as an excuse when this was clearly not the case. These were bowlers with plenty of Test match exposure playing in home conditions. The only inexperienced Test bowling he faced were Starc in one game and Bird in the other. Also a series in which Bird averaged 16.8 and Starc averaged 28.7 so they were hardly weak links.

 

[Victor Ian]

A young wicket keeper averaging 35.5 in his first 2 tests in Australia and getting 2 scores over 50 (75 and 66) is somehow meant to be a failing?

As for your so called "pouncing when the bowling was in transition" well he faced
Starc (5 Tests) Hilfenhaus (26 Tests) Lyon (16) Siddle (34) Watson (36) Johnson (48) Bird (0 Tests)

Absolutely hilarious that you try use a "bowling line up in transition" as an excuse when this was clearly not the case. These were bowlers with plenty of Test match exposure playing in home conditions. The only inexperienced Test bowling he faced were Starc in one game and Bird in the other. Also a series in which Bird averaged 16.8 and Starc averaged 28.7 so they were hardly weak links.

Nah. Starc did not play. Transition...Johnson was just starting and McGill was toast by then.
Those first two games he played were more alien to the Aussies than him. Darwin and Cairns. Facts are that the last three when he stat padded were when Australia was flattest and our bowling was the worst of the last 40 years. He's a flog

 

[reyrey]

Nah. Starc did not play. Transition...Johnson was just starting and McGill was toast by then.
Those first two games he played were more alien to the Aussies than him. Darwin and Cairns. Facts are that the last three when he stat padded were when Australia was flattest and our bowling was the worst of the last 40 years. He's a flog

So unless Australia put out 4 all time greats bowling at their peak in favourable conditions, then runs against them don't count. Okay got it.

 

[Socerer 01]

So unless Australia put out 4 all time greats bowling at their peak in favourable conditions, then runs against them don't count. Okay got it.

Washington Sundar approves this

 

[Victor Ian]

So unless Australia put out 4 all time greats bowling at their peak in favourable conditions, then runs against them don't count. Okay got it.

I mean England won an Ashes here in that time frame. Australian bowling for a number of years then was minnowsish. His record counts, but so does context.

 

[reyrey]

I mean England won an Ashes here in that time frame. Australian bowling for a number of years then was minnowsish. His record counts, but so does context.

I applied context. I compared his runs/average against his team mates who would have faced the some of same bowling line ups and pitches in Australia.

Specifically I was referring to Marvin, Sanath, Mahela, Dilshan and Samaraweera.

Just gonna take this opportunity to mention that Sanga averaged 60 in Australia whilst most of his team mates averaged half that.

You took it out of context.

 

[Archer6K]

Probably marginally more

 

[Burgey]

Specifically I was referring to Marvin, Sanath, Mahela, Dilshan and Samaraweera.

Samaraweera a victim of black magic.

 

[Burgey]

Talk about presenting facts as bull**** as you can manage. The other 3 matches where you list McGrath, Gillespie, Kasp, Warne is actually only 2 matches where he averages 35.5 (sample size lol). In the other game where he faced lee johnson clark and mcgill is the one where he made his 192 and bumped his average.

So in summary, this ****, fake ****, earned his 60 average in Australia on the back of pouncing when the bowling was in transition and he failed hard when it was what Kallis, Tendulkar and Lara all had to largely contend with. The way you just presented those facts is the way Sangakara bats. There is something sleazy about it.

Some rare gold here from Vic. Himmers will love this post

 

[Ali TT]

@thread

It's hard to judge, because keeping had a discrete impact on Sanga's batting career for a defined period of time. And even that there's no consensus.

So with something like bowling, whose workload/impact on batting can be modulated more granularity based on team needs and player preference, I think there can never be a consensus on this. Generally speaking I don't think secondary responsibilities are ever really taken into consideration in ATG bat discussion, i.e. to put Sobers over Tendulkar, Hobbs, etc for BBB. Even Gilly, doesn't end up being upgraded, as most consider him simply an ATVG batsman, despite the fact that no batsman of that caliber has ever maintained a WK role throughout their entire career, as he did. It just ends up being an interesting aside.

My suspicion is that Kallis didn't bowl any more than felt comfortable with, and hence had minimal to no impact on his batting performance. However, that's something only he knows, as I'm not an elite class all-round cricketing athlete like he is, so can't really tell you definitively.

It's entertaining to have a hypothetical debate like this one about what a player might have done had circumstances been different. However, any assessment of their "greatness" can only be made on what they actually achieved. So Sanga and Kallis (or Gilly) can't be considered greater batters because they had a second role, however that they did that second role can have a bearing on how we assess their greatness as a player.