How good is Sanga?

[CWB304]

Originally Posted by Arachnodouche

What in blazes are you talking about, man? Nobody argues the failure of subcontinental batsmen to ante up abroad, but the reverse applies to a large extent also. You don't need to be a great spinner to do well on an Indian dustbowl; ask Michael Clarke. That doesn't, in any way, absolve a batsman's inability to come to terms with the conditions. I'm the last person to sing hosannas for the Indian team but I'm failing to see your argument here. The "litmus" bit was taken directly from that other pom's post I remembered from a few days ago but couldn't be arsed quoting. But hey, you want to argue semantics, eat your heart out.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood the point you were trying to make. The way I read your post, it seemed you were agreeing with the idea that India is the litmus test for batsmen. Now I know that you don't agree with that - or with the suggestion that it is possible to gauge a batsman or bowler's worth on the basis of his performances in a given country which has been selected arbitrarily as the gold standard - I realise we're on the same page so no problems.

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

Precisely. Anyone who's suggesting facing the might of Ishant Sharma and Sreesanth on an Ahmedabad road represents the litmus test of batsmanship is frankly deluded.

haha......didn't think I would see the day that GF and CWB would be seeing eye to eye and GF would be vigorously nodding at every statement of CWB

[vic_orthdox]

There is no need for personal insults, or for people to avoid the filter, thanks.

[smalishah84]

there is no need for a smiley at the end of that warning either

[Himannv]

Originally Posted by smalishah84

there is no need for a smiley at the end of that warning either

Rather ironic for you to be commenting on irrelevant smileys itbt.

[Ruckus]

And we've come full circle

[smalishah84]

[Cricketismylife]

Originally Posted by kyear2

But he stopped keeping. So he doesn't have that either. Additionally his batting dropped of when he kept.

Sangakkara isn't a like for like comparison with players like Ponting, Tendulkar and Viv because in addition to his batting he kept in 47 tests, which neither of those guys did, and so should be given extra credit over the guys.

Also I fail to understand how one can look at his statistics as a keeper batsman to judge him as a keeper batsman, but then not use his statistics as a pure batsman to judge him as a batsman. It's double standards. Either Sanga is better than Gilchrist as a keeper batsman, or he's the 2nd best batsman after Bradman.

[kyear2]

Or he played most of his career on roads in S/L and on occasion sub standard bowling. Don't you wonder why no one puts him in that class. Also Gilly never gave up the gloves to focus on his batting.

[Cricketismylife]

Originally Posted by kyear2

Or he played most of his career on roads in S/L and on occasion sub standard bowling. Don't you wonder why no one puts him in that class. Also Gilly never gave up the gloves to focus on his batting.

Same roads that magically become raging turners when Murali's legacy is discussed. The reason no one puts him in that class, is because hardly anyone watches Sri Lanka play test cricket.

You still don't get it. He averages 40 as a keeper batsman, 56 overall and 69 as a batsman. If you are saying that his keeping affected his batting and taking the 40 mark to compare him to Gilchrist, you need to take the 69 mark when comparing him to Viv, Sachin and Ponting etc.

As for sub standard bowling, he's averaging 88 against Pakistan who have always been one of the harder attacks in world cricket.

[CWB304]

Originally Posted by Cricketismylife

Same roads that magically become raging turners when Murali's legacy is discussed. The reason no one puts him in that class, is because hardly anyone watches Sri Lanka play test cricket.

You still don't get it. He averages 40 as a keeper batsman, 56 overall and 69 as a batsman. If you are saying that his keeping affected his batting and taking the 40 mark to compare him to Gilchrist, you need to take the 69 mark when comparing him to Viv, Sachin and Ponting etc.

As for sub standard bowling, he's averaging 88 against Pakistan who have always been one of the harder attacks in world cricket.

Some great points. I have a funny feeling he'll end up with an overall average of 60.

[kyear2]

So you arw both saying that s/l pitches are as difficult to bat on as say south africa, england and most of australia? lets be serious.

[Cricketismylife]

Originally Posted by kyear2

Barrington averaged over 58, he is not in my opinion an ATG, Weekes averaged over 58 as well, but would never make a W.I a.t XI before Lara and Richards. Even among the top left handers many wouls still consider Harvey better than Sangakkara and look at Harvey's record. Thanfully people just dont rank batsmen by record, Mahela would be ahead of Viv

Mahela is not ahead of Viv by record though, because the era in which Viv played very few players averaged 50, whereas Mahela's era there are far more 50 averaging batsman. Also Viv never got to play against minnows. When all these are factored in it's clear that Viv's 50 average is definitely better than Mahela's 50 average.

[Cricketismylife]

Originally Posted by kyear2

So you arw both saying that s/l pitches are as difficult to bat on as say south africa, england and most of australia? lets be serious.

I'm not saying that exactly, although it could well be true. Yes the SSC is as flat as a pancake, but other wickets tend to test the batsmen more. In Australia quite a few wickets have become flat and in England Lords and the Oval are flat, so I don't think it's completely clear cut that SL pitches are easier to bat on.

My point is even if they are a bit easier to bat on, it's still amazing that Sangakkara can average 69 when playing as a pure batsman, a figure that is comfortably above accepted all time greats like Viv, Sachin and Lara. I find it unjust that his hard work and amazing performances can be dismissed so easily by saying flat pitches and substandard opposition. Lara, who is one of my favourite batsman, scored 400 not out and 375 on one of the flattest pitches of all time and yet we all celebrate his record.

My other point is that as a Sri Lankan supporter it can become irritating when our high performing batsman are dismissed as flat track bullies (I'm not saying you definitely said this), and then at the same time Murali is supposed to have really benefited from playing on spin friendly wickets.

[kyear2]

So is Sangakkara better than Viv, Richards, Sobers, Lara, Chappell, Border, Ponting, Tendulkar, Dravid, Waugh, Hammond, Pollock and Kallis? He has a better record than nearly all of them. By what you are saying he is, and we all know he isn't. So tell me why this is, and don't say because no one watches Sri Lanka play.