How good is Sanga?

[Spark]

Test batting is as much about not getting into the fire as it is getting out of it though. Laxman's firefighting ability is second-to-none, but on the other hand his conversion rate is shocking.

[CWB304]

Originally Posted by Arachnodouche

I prefer my universe replete with Jaghuts, Tiste Andii and T'lan Imass, thank you very much. Laxman Down Under '99,'03,'07. Dravid in England last year. Tendulkar..yeah crap player.

Besides, I thought the Australians really, REALLY rated Laxman. The Australians that mattered anyway. The ones that kept whipping England...those ones

First off you can leave Dravid and Tendulkar out of this discussion and stop implying that I have suggested that either of these two great players is crap. I was talking about Laxman - and more specifically your ridiculous contention that a player averaging 46 and with 17 centuries in 133 tests is "far greater" than one averaging 57 and with 30 centuries in 111 tests.

Second no doubt Laxman has done well in Australia, but one doesn't evaluate batsmen simply by highlighting their best performances and ignoring all the mediocre or poor ones. You take an overall view of what they have done in all sorts of conditions and against all sorts of opposition. Once you do that for Laxman you discover that he is not so special after all. And even if performing in Australia were the only criteria for greatness then Sanga would not be found wanting as he has ticked that box handsomely. As I have said the Australian players he actually played against voted him the most feared or most dangerous opposition batsman after he toured there.

[Jager]

Sangakkara has a great record to 'nitpick'. Always a pleasure watching him though.

[Arachnodouche]

Originally Posted by CWB304

First off you can leave Dravid and Tendulkar out of this discussion and stop implying that I have suggested that either of these two great players is crap. I was talking about Laxman - and more specifically your ridiculous contention that a player averaging 46 and with 17 centuries in 133 tests is "far greater" than one averaging 57 and with 30 centuries in 111 tests.

Second no doubt Laxman has done well in Australia, but one doesn't evaluate batsmen simply by highlighting their best performances and ignoring all the mediocre or poor ones. You take an overall view of what they have done in all sorts of conditions and against all sorts of opposition. Once you do that for Laxman you discover that he is not so special after all. And even if performing in Australia were the only criteria for greatness then Sanga would not be found wanting as he has ticked that box handsomely. As I have said the Australian players he actually played against voted him the most feared or most dangerous opposition batsman after he toured there.

But you conveniently ignore Sangakkara's less than stellar stats in India, SA, and England. The guy has played 3 Tests in Australia, flopped miserably in the first, then did very well indeed in the other two. But if three tests is a good enough pool for you to proclaim his awesomeness in Australia, then surely 6,8 , and 9, in those three countries respectively with middling returns, is decent enough to knock him down a few pegs in the ATG pecking order. I don't see how that is fallacious, or dishonest reasoning.

[smalishah84]

that is a fair point from douche

[Arachnodouche]

Originally Posted by smalishah84

that is a fair point from douche

That's Arachnodouche to you, bitch.

[Migara]

Originally Posted by Arachnodouche

But you conveniently ignore Sangakkara's less than stellar stats in India, SA, and England. The guy has played 3 Tests in Australia, flopped miserably in the first, then did very well indeed in the other two. But if three tests is a good enough pool for you to proclaim his awesomeness in Australia, then surely 6,8 , and 9, in those three countries respectively with middling returns, is decent enough to knock him down a few pegs in the ATG pecking order. I don't see how that is fallacious, or dishonest reasoning.

Now what is the fair sample you are looking at? Can you educate us on that?

[Ruckus]

Originally Posted by Arachnodouche

That's Arachnodouche to you, bitch.

What is arachnodouche if you don't mind me asking?

[CWB304]

Originally Posted by Arachnodouche

But you conveniently ignore Sangakkara's less than stellar stats in India, SA, and England. The guy has played 3 Tests in Australia, flopped miserably in the first, then did very well indeed in the other two. But if three tests is a good enough pool for you to proclaim his awesomeness in Australia, then surely 6,8 , and 9, in those three countries respectively with middling returns, is decent enough to knock him down a few pegs in the ATG pecking order. I don't see how that is fallacious, or dishonest reasoning.

You brought up Australia, and Laxman. I simply defended Sanga against your more absurd charges - and comprehensively demolished your arguments while I was at it. Now you seem to have given up on that line of attack - perhaps you should have wasted my time for a few more posts, for form's sake? - and opened up a new front.

But what is the point of my even responding, if you genuinely believe - after all, you've yet to withdraw the remark - that a good but nowhere near great player like Laxman is "far greater" than Sanga?

[AndyZaltzHair]

I know this is leading us to an inevitable thread with horrendous title "How good is Laxman Srivaramakrishnan"

[Lurker100]

Laxman is not an ATG.

He has played some great innings but that doesn't automatically make him an ATG. Too many holes on his CV.

[G.I.Joe]

Originally Posted by AndyZaltzHair

I know this is leading us to an inevitable thread with horrendous title "How good is Laxman Srivaramakrishnan"

*Sivaramakrishnan

[AndyZaltzHair]

[Arachnodouche]

Originally Posted by CWB304

You brought up Australia, and Laxman. I simply defended Sanga against your more absurd charges - and comprehensively demolished your arguments while I was at it. Now you seem to have given up on that line of attack - perhaps you should have wasted my time for a few more posts, for form's sake? - and opened up a new front.

What are you, a kid playing Battleship? I believe I've made four posts in this thread, each one highlighting the guy's lack of runs in three countries that aren't exactly cricketing backwaters. Maybe I went off on a bit of a tangent, bringing the three Indians into the conversation, but that was an aside as to why a lot of sub continental batsmen aren't rated highly abroad.

The only person wasting your time is you. You strike me as the kind of guy who'd blame the world for his missus sneaking out on him when his incompetency in the sack obviously contributes a fair bit to the old woman's peccadilloes.

[CWB304]

Originally Posted by Arachnodouche

What are you, a kid playing Battleship? I believe I've made four posts in this thread, each one highlighting the guy's lack of runs in three countries that aren't exactly cricketing backwaters. Maybe I went off on a bit of a tangent, bringing the three Indians into the conversation, but that was an aside as to why a lot of sub continental batsmen aren't rated highly abroad.

The only person wasting your time is you. You strike me as the kind of guy who'd blame the world for his missus sneaking out on him when his incompetency in the sack obviously contributes a fair bit to the old woman's peccadilloes.

I'm amused by the analogy but you still haven't explained what it is that makes Laxman "far greater" than Sangakkara.