Who is Sri Lanka's best ever cricketer?

[OverratedSanity]

Ponting was terrible in India but it's not like he didn't succeed in the SC at all. He always played Murali well in SL. That's why he gets away with it a tad.

 

[Pratters]

Ponting's record in India is taken against him actually. Had he performed well in India, people would rate him higher, I am pretty sure.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah it's mentioned so much. It's basically the only thing in his record which is subpar and it's repeated plenty.

 

[AldoRaine18]

I'm not saying that's not a black mark on Mahela - and that's why I rate him lower than his peers in general - just not lower than Aravinda.

There's a double standard here - for some reason subcontinent batsmen are evaluated solely on their performances outside, but Ponting's poor India record is just "one of those things".

Subcontinent players might as well ignore home tests - it doesn't matter as long as you do well in England boys.

The equivalent here is when Rahane makes one ton in England, any number of failures in the subcontinent is fine and he is 100x better than that flat-track bully Rohit. Why isn't Rahane dominating flat tracks if it were that easy? Just doesn't make sense.

Mahela is one of the ATG home bullies - in some grounds in SL he was basically Bradman personified. That in itself should be a good thing, not a bad thing.

You've for some reason turned this into a debate between performing at home and away when that was no one's argument. Both Aravinda and Mahela have performed well at home, one has clearly displayed he's better at performing out of his comfort zone than the other. I'm not sure what is so difficult in understanding that.

 

[viriya]

Ponting's record in India is taken against him actually. Had he performed well in India, people would rate him higher, I am pretty sure.

It is known, but he is nowhere near dumpstered like Mahela is. Granted Mahela was average in seaming conditions everywhere, but it astounds me how he is rated so low just because of that - as if that is the only thing that matters.

Batting well in seaming conditions is great, but batting well in the subcontinent is great too, and Mahela did that better than anyone.

 

[viriya]

You've for some reason turned this into a debate between performing at home and away when that was no one's argument. Both Aravinda and Mahela have performed well at home, one has clearly displayed he's better at performing out of his comfort zone than the other. I'm not sure what is so difficult in understanding that.

I'm saying Mahela is better at performing at home. It's not the same when one player averages higher (even adjusted) over double the Tests.

And the "Aravinda performs better away" argument is only valid when you pick and choose what countries you want. If India/Pakistan were in Aravinda's comfort zone, why didn't he perform there? It's just a garbage argument.

If you're comparing away performances, then accept that Mahela did better than Aravinda away before picking and choosing countries. 42 vs 36. Somehow, failing in "easy" conditions is ok? I think not.

 

[AldoRaine18]

I'm saying Mahela is better at performing at home. It's not the same when one player averages higher (even adjusted) over double the Tests.

And the "Aravinda performs better away" argument is only valid when you pick and choose what countries you want. If India/Pakistan were in Aravinda's comfort zone, why didn't he perform there? It's just a garbage argument.

If you're comparing away performances, then accept that Mahela did better than Aravinda away before picking and choosing counties. 42 vs 36. Somehow, failing in "easy" conditions is ok? I think not.

So say that instead of coming up with irrelevant rants about what is more important between performing in seaming or subcontinent conditions and what not.

 

[Pratters]

It is known, but he is nowhere near dumpstered like Mahela is. Granted Mahela was average in seaming conditions everywhere, but it astounds me how he is rated so low just because of that - as if that is the only thing that matters.

Batting well in seaming conditions is great, but batting well in the subcontinent is great too, and Mahela did that better than anyone.

This is a good argument. Mahela was great in spinning conditions. See, for me the test of player is spin, pace, swing (England). Mahela wasn't very good in pacy conditions. I do think Sangakarra being that much better further highlighted Mahela's weakness in this regard for no fault of his.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Aravinda didn't perform in Pakistan? The ****? I'm sure he made some amazing hundreds vs Wasim/Waqar. Don't know what his average there is.

 

[Red]

The alternate list is interesting too.

Sobers, Amla, Lloyd, AB, Kanhai and then Fleming. Most Australian greats are absent at the top of the list for one reason or the other actually. I love how well Border does. Same for Kirsten.

So a non-subcontinental top 6 to play in sub-continental conditions.

Hasim Amla
Gary Kirsten
Stephen Fleming
Gary Sobers
AB DeVilliers
Clive Lloyd

Just at a quick glance it seems that non SC left handers have done better in the SC than non SC right handers.

Left handers in the top 20
Sobers
Lloyd
Fleming
Lara
Gower
Border
Kirsten
Hayden
Flower
Cook
Harvey
Taylor

That's 12 out of 20 LHs who surely there is less of overall?

 

[viriya]

This is a good argument. Mahela was great in spinning conditions. See, for me the test of player is spin, pace, swing (England). Mahela wasn't very good in pacy conditions. I do think Sangakarra being that much better further highlighted Mahela's weakness in this regard for no fault of his.

Sanga was only better away. They were at the same level at home.

 

[Pratters]

Aravinda didn't perform in Pakistan? The ****? I'm sure he made some amazing hundreds vs Wasim/Waqar. Don't know what his average there is.

Aravinda and Mahela have similar records in Pakistan. It's in India where Mahela's record is much better. However, Mahela didn't face Anil Kumble or India at home in the 90s. Kumble took 150 plus wickets at 21 or so in the 90s in India and was a monster at home. So you can't compare Mahela performing in India in the 2000s with Aravinda not performing there in the 90s as far as I am concerned.

 

[viriya]

Aravinda and Mahela have similar records in Pakistan. It's in India where Mahela's record is much better. However, Mahela didn't face Anil Kumble or India at home in the 90s. Kumble took 150 plus wickets at 21 or so in the 90s in India and was a monster at home. So you can't compare Mahela performing in India in the 2000s with Aravinda not performing there in the 90s as far as I am concerned.

Mahela faced Kumble + Harbhajan for half his Tests in India and he averaged 51 in those.

 

[Pratters]

Virender Sehwag and Jayawardene had two of the most skewed records when you compare their runs in Asia v their runs outside Asia barring Zimbabwe. Will I discount them because of this? Of course I will.

 

[Pratters]

Mahela faced Kumble + Harbhajan for half his Tests in India and he averaged 51 in those.

I know. As I said, this is the argument you should have been making. I would still put De Silva ahead as he played well in more countries abroad compared to Jayawardene but at least you would have had some thing to argue with you put the point re India rather than number of tests played etc.

 

[Pratters]

Jayawardene has made the most runs in Asia with 8808 runs. Not even Tendulkar has made more. Didn't know Sidhu averaged 52.80 in Asia. Mohinder Amarnath averages just 38 in Asia.

 

[smash84]

oh crap, thought this was a thread for SL batsmen. Ended up voting sangers, didn't think of Murali. Otherwise Murali beats sangers.

 

[viriya]

I know. As I said, this is the argument you should have been making. I would still put De Silva ahead as he played well in more countries abroad compared to Jayawardene but at least you would have had some thing to argue with you put the point re India rather than number of tests played etc.

Number of Tests played is a valid argument. Your Greg Chappell vs Allan Border counter didn't make sense because Greg did better in those Tests like I said. There is no way 60 for 80 tests is equally dominant as 52 for 40 tests. No. way.

 

[viriya]

Jayawardene has made the most runs in Asia with 8808 runs. Not even Tendulkar has made more. Didn't know Sidhu averaged 52.80 in Asia. Mohinder Amarnath averages just 38 in Asia.

So is Amarnath good or bad for being **** in Asia? It's easy runs right? How bad does he have to be to underperform there?



Also, Tendulkar has made 8854.

 

[Pratters]

Viriya as I said one looks at runs in bouncy conditions, swing and spin. If some one played less because his team did and it's a substantial number, obviously we will look at other factors.

Amarnath isn't regarded as great as Gavaskar or Tendulkar because of his home record. He is still regarded highly compared to so many other Indian batsmen because he was one of the best performers against pace.