Why Gilchrist ahead of Sangakarra?

[Migara]

But you reduce the argument to ridiculousness. Saying Sanga doesn't average enough as a keeper may be flawed when using his wk stats, but retorting with the stat that he averages in the 70s without it is another thing altogether. One may not show exactly how good his average could have been with the gloves; but the other is suggesting he'd essentially be the greatest player after Bradman. You can make an argument both are flawed but not near to the same degree.

Ha hA! once again getting intellectually dishonest.

This is Ikki's argument #1: " Sanga is a not a good wicket keeper-batsman (comparatively) based on his average as a wk-bat, his overall average should not come in deciding this"

Ikkis argument #2: "Sanga is not a great batsman (comparatively) because his overall average is not significantly higher than that of others, and his feats as apur batsman should not come in deciding this"

Now see the hypocrisy of the argument. If Sanga the wk-bat is only decided on his average of 40.5, Sanga the pure batsman should be decided on his average as a pure batsman. You cannot use filtered stats for one and overall stats for other.

It's not a guessing game. He averaged 40 as a wk, that's just what he did. It is a guessing game to say he would continue to average that however. But you are essentially making up figures by saying he'd be better than Gilchrist with the bat. Average 50+ as a keeper too? How do you know?

How do you say it in contrary that he'd average lower? And what is your evidence to say that Sanga wouldn't have averaged more if he had played as a pure batsman? If you bring in the argument that wicket keeping will reduce Sanga's effectiveness as a batsman in post 2003 era, I could bring the same argument that it would to the same degree improve his stats pre 2003 era where he played as a wk-bat. If you cut the pie, everybody righteous should have a piece of it!

FTR if he did average 50 and stayed as a wk I still wouldn't pick him over Gilchrist. They are in different classes as glovesman whilst the most you'd give up is a few runs; and yet then again Gilchrist would score much faster.

Let's keep Flower out of the argument for the time being

He may have, but would he average in the 60s after 97 tests? Would he average in the 70s? This is when you start taking stats into some absurd areas just to make a case for your countryman.

Why not? He averages 57 now after a large number of tests. If he averaged 45 instead of 40 in his first 48 games where he played as wk-bat, his average will swell up to about 59, and that is significantly better than any other batsman in the era. You are evading the plain truth to make a case for your countryman as it seems. I'll pick Gilly over Sanga but that is only due to personal preference. But most people bring out Gilly's so-called statistical superiority not knowing that they are borderline hypocrites about the issue.

The reality is that his non-wk period is the period where he was mature and had a big purple patch. If Sanga plays another 50 tests and keeps that 70+ average as a non-wk, I'd start being inclined to believe he was that good as pure batsman.

Ha ha! once again twisting the arguments. No one claims that Sanga is good enough for a average of 70+. But he's good enough for a 60 if he played as a pure batsman. Taking your own argument, if Sanga played as a wk-bat in his "purple" patch, Would still average more than 40 (not 70 BTW), and his average as a wk-bat can only improve. Conversely, before the purple patch if he played as a pur batsman, he would have averaged more than 40 with the bat, pushing his career average ever closer to 60.

Even you bolded sentence shows that you are a hypocrite and you'd never accept Sanga is good as his average. He's 33 and only has three seasons and four if he gets greedy (Won't do a Greedysuriya BTW). In that four seasons would never play 50 tests. According to FTP it's about 25 test matches that are left for Sanga.

 

[Sanz]

Why does everybody always vote for Gilchrist ahead of Sangakarra as their preferred test wicketkeeper/batsman of all times? It doesn't make sense to me. For instance, Kumar batted at number 3 for most of his career, while Gilchrist batted at 7. Kumar has way better batting stats than Gilchrist, and 99% of all batsmen in the history of the game. If it's about wicketkeeping skills, then there's no suggestion that Gilchrist was better than Kumar. If it's about wicketkeeping alone, then why is Mark Boucher not even considered? It's about winning games with the bat, then it's clear that Kumar won more test matches with the bat than Gilchrist did. If it's about the fastest test hundreds or overall strike rates, then it doesn't make sense to compare a person who batted at 3 with the one who batted at 7.

I can understand why people would choose Gilchrist ahead of Kumar in ODIs, especially when taking strike rates into account, and the hundred that Gilchrist scored in a WC final. But in tests? Please!

Because Sanga does not bat @ no. 7. Gilly was a top wicketkeeper and a top batsman and plus he batted @ no. 7, that allowed Aussie team to include an extra bowler (or batsman).

 

[Ikki]

Ha hA! once again getting intellectually dishonest.

This is Ikki's argument #1: " Sanga is a not a good wicket keeper-batsman (comparatively) based on his average as a wk-bat, his overall average should not come in deciding this"

Ikkis argument #2: "Sanga is not a great batsman (comparatively) because his overall average is not significantly higher than that of others, and his feats as apur batsman should not come in deciding this"

Where did I say that in this thread? Stop making things up.

Now see the hypocrisy of the argument. If Sanga the wk-bat is only decided on his average of 40.5, Sanga the pure batsman should be decided on his average as a pure batsman. You cannot use filtered stats for one and overall stats for other.

See my other reply to you. One can argue both are flawed, but pretending they are to the same extent is just blind bias.

Go argue that Sanga is the best batsman of the modern era because he averages 70s as a pure bat.

Or go argue that Sanga averaged 40 with the bat when he kept, and thus while high on the list of wk-bats, he doesn't compare to gilchrist.

I think most would say the latter has more sanity than the former.

How do you say it in contrary that he'd average lower? And what is your evidence to say that Sanga wouldn't have averaged more if he had played as a pure batsman? If you bring in the argument that wicket keeping will reduce Sanga's effectiveness as a batsman in post 2003 era, I could bring the same argument that it would to the same degree improve his stats pre 2003 era where he played as a wk-bat. If you cut the pie, everybody righteous should have a piece of it!

In which regard? You need to be clearer, as you seem to be arguing against strawmen half the time.

I say Sanga wouldn't average in the 60s had he started as a batsman and continued until now. Because I am pretty sure no one in history has done that after 97 Tests, and Sanga is barely the best bat in his country, let alone the world, let alone 2nd best ever.

The bolded is where you have it laughably wrong. Why would Sanga improve to the same degree as he improves as a pure batsman to what he does as a wk? Sanga was regularly wk even until 06. What did he average then? In the 7 matches he kept he averaged 49, in those he didn't he averaged 122. Now you can try to argue that the keeping hinders him so much that he almost triples his average when he doesn't keep; or you can just acknowledge that he hit a bit of form once he put them down - some of those moments when he'd put the gloves down for a test or two; the majority after he put them down for good.. But I don't think anyone is going to take you seriously if you argue the former.

Why not? He averages 57 now after a large number of tests. If he averaged 45 instead of 40 in his first 48 games where he played as wk-bat, his average will swell up to about 59, and that is significantly better than any other batsman in the era. You are evading the plain truth to make a case for your countryman as it seems. I'll pick Gilly over Sanga but that is only due to personal preference. But most people bring out Gilly's so-called statistical superiority not knowing that they are borderline hypocrites about the issue.

The bolded part:

Averaging 59 is different to averaging a possible 65, that you were touting, after 97 tests. It's a huge difference. It's also not like he played as keeper in the first half then none in the second. He started putting the gloves down even since 03.

So why don't you argue that Sanga is a top 5 greatest bats ever? With those kinds of stats you seem to be pulling, you should genuinely think so.

Except, I don't think even you believe this non sense.

Ha ha! once again twisting the arguments. No one claims that Sanga is good enough for a average of 70+. But he's good enough for a 60 if he played as a pure batsman. Taking your own argument, if Sanga played as a wk-bat in his "purple" patch, Would still average more than 40 (not 70 BTW), and his average as a wk-bat can only improve. Conversely, before the purple patch if he played as a pur batsman, he would have averaged more than 40 with the bat, pushing his career average ever closer to 60.

Even you bolded sentence shows that you are a hypocrite and you'd never accept Sanga is good as his average. He's 33 and only has three seasons and four if he gets greedy (Won't do a Greedysuriya BTW). In that four seasons would never play 50 tests. According to FTP it's about 25 test matches that are left for Sanga.

Come on, stop embarrassing yourself mate. It's perfectly logical to say that Sanga could improve his 40 average when wk if he had never kept; but how do you know it would be 42 instead of 45? How do you know it'd not be even less? You are pulling figures from your rear. Only Sanga knows how much his keeping affects his batting; that's why I exemplified Flower. He actually improves on his average when keeping.

 

[Flem274*]

Manners please guys.

 

[Migara]

Where did I say that in this thread? Stop making things up.
See my other reply to you. One can argue both are flawed, but pretending they are to the same extent is just blind bias.

Thinking you argument is more strong is also blind bias. You might have not uttered the same word, but that is the argument you are arguing for.

Go argue that Sanga is the best batsman of the modern era because he averages 70s as a pure bat.

Don't be daft. I never argued that he's the best batsman of the era. I said he was statistically the best. Stop bashing dead horses to prove you points.

Or go argue that Sanga averaged 40 with the bat when he kept, and thus while high on the list of wk-bats, he doesn't compare to gilchrist.

Ha, Ha, you just said it. Argument #1.

I think most would say the latter has more sanity than the former.

People with sanity will agree that you are using double standards .

In which regard? You need to be clearer, as you seem to be arguing against strawmen half the time.

The same regard you use the argument that his Avg would be lower he continued to kept wickets. Now take that strawman out.

I say Sanga wouldn't average in the 60s had he started as a batsman and continued until now. Because I am pretty sure no one in history has done that after 97 Tests, and Sanga is barely the best bat in his country, let alone the world, let alone 2nd best ever.

That is your assumption. And there will be always a first for a thing, and that first looks to be a non-Australian. I'd say that if Sanga continued to keep wickets that he will average more than Gilly and Flower because he is a better batsman than both. We both assume, your word is not greater than mine here.

The bolded is where you have it laughably wrong. Why would Sanga improve to the same degree as he improves as a pure batsman to what he does as a wk?

Why don't you read what is written properly? You have selective dyslexia? read and LEARN.

if Sanga played as a wk-bat in his "purple" patch, Would still average more than 40 (not 70 BTW),

. Here I reject your claim fat on the face. I never claimed that he'd improve to the same degree. And he doen't need to improve to the same degree to beat Gilchrist as a batsman as well.

Sanga was regularly wk even until 06. What did he average then? In the 7 matches he kept he averaged 49,

Fine. That proves my point. If he kept it doing would average 50+ as a wk-bat as well. And 49 is the amount that Gilly averaged as well.

in those he didn't he averaged 122. Now you can try to argue that the keeping hinders him so much that he almost triples his average when he doesn't keep; or you can just acknowledge that he hit a bit of form once he put them down - some of those moments when he'd put the gloves down for a test or two; the majority after he put them down for good.. But I don't think anyone is going to take you seriously if you argue the former.

What is important is how much he has improved the average while he keeps. On other hand if you claim that he triples his average without the gloves, that should apply to his wk-bat era as well, and that wk-bat at average will be extrapolated to 100 odd value taking his career average to 60+. Remember, what ever argument you use to say Sanga's batting has gained by not keeping in his latter years could be used as a counter argument in his early years.

The bolded part:

Averaging 59 is different to averaging a possible 65, that you were touting, after 97 tests. It's a huge difference. It's also not like he played as keeper in the first half then none in the second. He started putting the gloves down even since 03.

I said 60-65, and you have grabbed the upper limit of the range that I've used to help your weak arguments. Niow what is different from averaging 59.x and 60? or 60.x for that matter? Ypu are bordering on the line of ridiculousness.

So why don't you argue that Sanga is a top 5 greatest bats ever? With those kinds of stats you seem to be pulling, you should genuinely think so.

Statistically he is in top 10. But there are personal preferences too. I would prefer SRT over him as well as Dravid, but not Kallis. And as I always say, I'd wait till his career is finished.

Come on, stop embarrassing yourself mate. It's perfectly logical to say that Sanga could improve his 40 average when wk if he had never kept; but how do you know it would be 42 instead of 45? How do you know it'd not be even less? You are pulling figures from your rear. Only Sanga knows how much his keeping affects his batting; that's why I exemplified Flower. He actually improves on his average when keeping.

ha ha! you just pulled out stats from your "rear" to show that Sanga averaged 122 to 49 when he does not keep. I am using a more rational amount of that argument to say it is 45. How do you know it wouldn't be 55? Once again your word against mine, neither superior to other. Using your own argument Sanga would have scored a lot more in his formative years as a pure bat, hence an average nearing 65 if you do your arithmetic.

You have been embarrassing yourself for a long time with double standards and by shifting goal posts. Here it's no exception.

 

[Ikki]

Thinking you argument is more strong is also blind bias. You might have not uttered the same word, but that is the argument you are arguing for.

You have to do much better, go and show it.

Don't be daft. I never argued that he's the best batsman of the era. I said he was statistically the best. Stop bashing dead horses to prove you points.

You mean "stop showing me up for being logically dishonest".

Ha, Ha, you just said it. Argument #1.

That's not my argument. You need to read a bit closer: I said both are flawed, I agreed with you; but one is far more flawed than the other and it doesn't take a genius to see which one that is. So whilst pointing out that both are inaccurate representations of Sanga; one is ludicrously so whilst the other may only be only a few points off.

That is your assumption. And there will be always a first for a thing, and that first looks to be a non-Australian. I'd say that if Sanga continued to keep wickets that he will average more than Gilly and Flower because he is a better batsman than both. We both assume, your word is not greater than mine here.

This is what is hilarious. In one stage, you don't want to admit this is what you're thinking. Then at another stage, you're like "oh, so what, maybe he is the greatest".

Ok, if you are going to argue that Sanga is a first, then say he is a first and let people know your position clearly.

Why don't you read what is written properly? You have selective dyslexia? read and LEARN.

from you of all people.

. Here I reject your claim fat on the face. I never claimed that he'd improve to the same degree. And he doen't need to improve to the same degree to beat Gilchrist as a batsman as well.

One problem; you said this: If you bring in the argument that wicket keeping will reduce Sanga's effectiveness as a batsman in post 2003 era, I could bring the same argument that it would to the same degree improve his stats pre 2003 era where he played as a wk-bat.

Fine. That proves my point. If he kept it doing would average 50+ as a wk-bat as well. And 49 is the amount that Gilly averaged as well.

You keep pulling figures from your rear; but even still: you are saying a 1-2 run difference covers the difference between them as glovesmen?

What is important is how much he has improved the average while he keeps. On other hand if you claim that he triples his average without the gloves, that should apply to his wk-bat era as well, and that wk-bat at average will be extrapolated to 100 odd value taking his career average to 60+. Remember, what ever argument you use to say Sanga's batting has gained by not keeping in his latter years could be used as a counter argument in his early years.

See, so you are trying to change figures "to the same degree". The reality is one can argue that Sanga was as good as he'd ever been as a bat in 06-07 - yet when he kept his figures were far worse despite being at his peak as a batsman. They were still sub-50. So who knows how he would have done if he kept being a keeper in these last few years. On those figures sub-50 is likely.

I said 60-65, and you have grabbed the upper limit of the range that I've used to help your weak arguments. Niow what is different from averaging 59.x and 60? or 60.x for that matter? Ypu are bordering on the line of ridiculousness.

And yet, when I first brought 65 up pages back you had no problem defending it. Now, it looks a little silly to you too, no?

Statistically he is in top 10. But there are personal preferences too. I would prefer SRT over him as well as Dravid, but not Kallis. And as I always say, I'd wait till his career is finished.

If you only care about pure averages, maybe. On that account Mohammad Yusuf is better than Viv Richards. But Sanga isn't in the top 10. Top 20 at best.

ha ha! you just pulled out stats from your "rear" to show that Sanga averaged 122 to 49 when he does not keep. I am using a more rational amount of that argument to say it is 45. How do you know it wouldn't be 55? Once again your word against mine, neither superior to other. Using your own argument Sanga would have scored a lot more in his formative years as a pure bat, hence an average nearing 65 if you do your arithmetic.

You have been embarrassing yourself for a long time with double standards and by shifting goal posts. Here it's no exception.

But you have it wrong. I am not making them up. That is what happened. Your 45 is making them up. I agree, it is more rational than saying he'd actually average that high as a pure bat - which is my whole point - but 42 and 45, for instance...how could you know? You can't. Ironically, I agree, you can't know if it'd be 55.

And there in a nutshell is the problem; he wasn't a keeper for long, when he was it was at the early part of his career and whilst it is still a respectable 40; it isn't enough to compare to Gilchrist because in that sample he is not only inferior as a bat, he is inferior as a glovesman.

I tend to agree with you in the sense that if he took up the gloves he'd average more than his old 40. But even if I said he'd average 47-48 (essentially Gilchrist's average) he still has a way to go to equate to Gilchrist as a wk-bat.

Anyway, you can knock yourself out building strawmen.

 

[Flem274*]

Manners please guys.

If this gets ignored again there will be repercussions lads. No more derisive laughter, condescending language or any other rubbish. If you cannot debate like adults, we will treat you accordingly. I have no desire to discuss this topic after reading the style of debate in this thread and the reply I recieved from one of you. I suspect other posters might feel the same. Migara, you are especially fortunate stronger action hasn't been taken.

 

[weldone]

After going through the multi-quote battle between Migara and Ikki, I could not understand what Migara thinks about Sangakkara. My questions to Migara will be:

1. Do you think Sangakkara is the best wicketkeeper-batsman of all-time?
2. Do you think he's statistically a better batsman than the likes of Tendulkar?

Once I get yes/no answers to these 2 questions from Migara, it'll be easier to understand his POV.

 

[marc71178]

Yes to both I suspect.

 

[GotSpin]

If this gets ignored again there will be repercussions lads. No more derisive laughter, condescending language or any other rubbish. If you cannot debate like adults, we will treat you accordingly. I have no desire to discuss this topic after reading the style of debate in this thread and the reply I recieved from one of you. I suspect other posters might feel the same. Migara, you are especially fortunate stronger action hasn't been taken.

Don't be like that. I wanna see where this goes and I'm curious as to why Murali and Warne haven't been brought into the debate

 

[DriveClub]

Andy Flower in subcontinent, Gilly outside Asia

Thread/

 

[Cricketismylife]

I can see what Migara is saying. Let me try and explain.
Sangakkara has 3 measures
He averages around 40 as a keeper bat.
He has a career average of 56.
He averages about 72 as a pure batsman.

If we are saying Gilchrist was the better keeper bat as Sanga only averaged 40 then that is fair enough.

However it is then inconsistent to compare Sanga to say Ponting as a pure batsman by taking the 56 mark. That cannot be a direct comparison because Sanga kept in half of those matches and so as an overall player added more to the team. Yet you wouldnt get many people on here saying Sanga is a more valuable player than Ponting/Sachin/Dravid. You can't have it both ways.

I think the point is Sangakkara is getting penalised for not keeping in all his tests when being compared to Gilchrist, which is fair enough, but those same people must remember to give him credit for having kept in half the tests when comparing his stats to other pure batsman who havent kept at all.

 

[kyear2]

He just didnt keep in enough games to be see as a pure keeper/batsman. Should he decide in the future to retake the gloves for "team balance", then that would do wonders for his legacy, especially if he manages to maintain his current average.
Otherwise, no.

 

[Migara]

After going through the multi-quote battle between Migara and Ikki, I could not understand what Migara thinks about Sangakkara. My questions to Migara will be:

1. Do you think Sangakkara is the best wicketkeeper-batsman of all-time?
2. Do you think he's statistically a better batsman than the likes of Tendulkar?

Once I get yes/no answers to these 2 questions from Migara, it'll be easier to understand his POV.

1. Who knows? Judging him ONLY with his early years batting as a wk-bat will not give even an idea what he would have done if he kept keeping wickets for the rest of his career. My point is not to prove that Sanga is the best, but to show the hypocrisy in bringing stats to show that Gilchrist is the best. If Sanga is judged as a wk-bat with the stats of the games he kept, he should be judged as batsman with stats od the games he played as apure batsman. Many do not even understand that there's double standards when it comes to judge Sanga.

2. Yes he is. Stats do tell their own story, but there are more to stats. Same here, Sanga may be the best statistically, but there are other reasons for me to pick SRT over him, AND I acknowledge that fact unlike some who just harp on adulterated statistics to prove weak points.

 

[Migara]

I can see what Migara is saying. Let me try and explain.
Sangakkara has 3 measures
He averages around 40 as a keeper bat.
He has a career average of 56.
He averages about 72 as a pure batsman.

If we are saying Gilchrist was the better keeper bat as Sanga only averaged 40 then that is fair enough.

However it is then inconsistent to compare Sanga to say Ponting as a pure batsman by taking the 56 mark. That cannot be a direct comparison because Sanga kept in half of those matches and so as an overall player added more to the team. Yet you wouldnt get many people on here saying Sanga is a more valuable player than Ponting/Sachin/Dravid. You can't have it both ways.

I think the point is Sangakkara is getting penalised for not keeping in all his tests when being compared to Gilchrist, which is fair enough, but those same people must remember to give him credit for having kept in half the tests when comparing his stats to other pure batsman who havent kept at all.

Exactly.

 

[Migara]

He just didnt keep in enough games to be see as a pure keeper/batsman. Should he decide in the future to retake the gloves for "team balance", then that would do wonders for his legacy, especially if he manages to maintain his current average.
Otherwise, no.

48 is not "enough"? duh, many batsmen of yester year did not play more than that in their whole careers

 

[Ikki]

Would you rather people write him off for both and say he doesn't have an accurate sample that represents him as a wk and a pure bat?

 

[Migara]

If this gets ignored again there will be repercussions lads. No more derisive laughter, condescending language or any other rubbish. If you cannot debate like adults, we will treat you accordingly. I have no desire to discuss this topic after reading the style of debate in this thread and the reply I recieved from one of you. I suspect other posters might feel the same. Migara, you are especially fortunate stronger action hasn't been taken.

Take what ever action you want, but the truth will be difficult to cover up. English is not my first language, I use my limited vocabulary to post what I know, and if you find it offensive, I can't help. And I am not the first to accuse the said poster about double standards and shifting goal posts and won't be the last either.

Anyway I am not going to waste my time debating with Ikki, and this will be my last debate and here onwards will be in the ignore list.

 

[Jono]

Don't be like that. I wanna see where this goes and I'm curious as to why Murali and Warne haven't been brought into the debate

Haha, genuinely laughed.