How good is Sanga?

[Spark]

Could have sworn Tendulkar only retired a few months ago, and therefore has barely missed any cricket compared to Sanga in recent times...

 

[Blocky]

Could have sworn Tendulkar only retired a few months ago, and therefore has barely missed any cricket compared to Sanga in recent times...

Yeah, and take a look at the trajectory of his average in those recent times.... or Kallis', or Ponting, or Hussey, or any of the other guys who were racking up a flow of runs in the 00s.

 

[Spark]

Yeah, and take a look at the trajectory of his average in those recent times.... or Kallis', or Ponting, or Hussey, or any of the other guys who were racking up a flow of runs in the 00s.

And somehow Sanga is exempt from this consideration, despite him playing almost entirely in this period, as opposed to the bloke who had already racked up twelve years of Test cricket beforehand?

Righteo.

 

[Gowza]

thought he was averaging 70 without the gloves....

 

[harsh.ag]

Again, clutching at straws. You could argue that Chanderpaul is the same sort of player, who doesn't really inspire conflict or generate rivalries - that's because he just gets on and scores runs just about anyone, anytime, anywhere. Sangakarra has the same hallmarks, a no fuss game that he knows inside out, an appetite for scoring runs, an ability to back up and be consistent and the highest average cricket has seen sustained since the early days of Michael Hussey.

Mate, your opinion on Sanga is valid and something I share. However, my point was about something else and you know it. Rivalries mean something, just like averages and dominance and consistency means something. They have a massive meaning in sport. In fact, many would argue that rivalries are the best part about sports. If you don't like that, then too bad.

This idolising Tendulkar just simply has to stop - the idea that he's "best behind Bradman" has no merit when other batsman have either been more dominant (Lara and Ponting in their primes) or more consistent ( Sangakarra, Kallis ) - Tendulkar deserves the respect he gets and deserves to be in that conversation, but no more so than Lara, Ponting, Sanga and Kallis. Protip - Lara, Kallis and Sanga all score more runs per test than Tendulkar did.

Sangakarra - At a time where "great" has become those who can keep an average near fifty, he's excelled and lifted his average near sixty, averaging over eighty since giving away the gloves in test cricket. "Oh but he's not as good as Tendulkar against...." - Tendulkar played in an era where almost every side had multiple batsman averaging 50+ - look in recent times at how few sides carry batsmen who manage this mark to tell you something about the change in era. Sanga is easily ahead of Tendulkar in my view, he scores more runs per test, he doesn't have as strong of a batting line up around him that Tendulkar had for the bulk of his career and he's done it against allcomers.

An average of 58, which continues to rise - this whole "But he hasn't played 20 years..." - he has however played over 100 tests which is easily the benchmark of longevity. And at the rate he's currently scoring runs, if he can play another 2-4 years, he'll surpass Tendulkar's run record too.

Obviously, you saying the idea "has no merit" is mere hyperbole extended to counteract the hyperbole of die-hard Sachin fans. But the last time I checked, there aren't too many of those here. Do I believe Sachin is the best behind Bradman? Yes. But I am much more happy to put him in the same category as Sobers and Viv and Lara and Hammond. Plucking out various stats like more runs per test is just sad.

"Great" is not defined as an average near fifty. Perhaps by stat slaves, but not by people with a keen interest in watching the game. Cricket is not played in statsguru. Tendulkar played in multiple eras, and he was at his best in an era which was not at all batsman friendly.

According to me, whole host of batsmen had a better technique than Sanga, a whole host of batsmen were better to watch without sacrificing more than few runs, and a whole host of batsmen provided excellent rivalries with great bowlers than Sanga didn't. I don't understand why you prefer to look at players as team manager rather than as a fan first.

It's not just about the runs, or Herbert Sutcliffe would be ahead of Hobbs and Hutton.

And anyways, it's not a big deal. Different batsmen have different strengths. I prefer some strengths to others. Perhaps your taste is different. But from a fan's perspective, I find it pretty difficult not to prefer a batsman who sacrifices a "few" runs for greater watching value.

 

[Contra]

There is also the small matter of Sanga having scored 1800 odd runs against Bangladesh, and while I am not suggesting that all runs scored against Bangladesh should be dismissed as easy runs, they still do inflate the career average of Sanga a fair bit. So if you are someone who goes purely on career average Sanga will stand out comparatively.

 

[Maximas]

Since when was Sanga not stylish or good to watch? And how the **** is a Sri Lankan batsman meant to develop great rivalries when all they ever do is play 2 test series?

 

[Shri]

this whole "But he hasn't played 20 years..." - he has however played over 100 tests which is easily the benchmark of longevity.

Uh, the other guy has played 200.

 

[viriya]

Mate, your opinion on Sanga is valid and something I share. However, my point was about something else and you know it. Rivalries mean something, just like averages and dominance and consistency means something. They have a massive meaning in sport. In fact, many would argue that rivalries are the best part about sports. If you don't like that, then too bad.

Rivalries happen when the same opposition play each other consistently. Sanga does not have the opportunity to have that because SL never play other teams on a consistent basis. So the requirement of a rivalry means only the main test playing countries can have great players? I think not.

"Great" is not defined as an average near fifty. Perhaps by stat slaves, but not by people with a keen interest in watching the game. Cricket is not played in statsguru. Tendulkar played in multiple eras, and he was at his best in an era which was not at all batsman friendly.

The 2000s wasn't batsmen-friendly, there were plenty of great bowlers.. it just so happened there were a number of great batsmen during that time. It doesn't suddenly mean that the pitches were dead flat and bowlers like Murali, Warne, McGrath and Pollock didn't exist.

According to me, whole host of batsmen had a better technique than Sanga, a whole host of batsmen were better to watch without sacrificing more than few runs.

I doubt there are a host of batsmen with a better technique than Sanga - he has no clear weaknesses.. Just watch Dravid's take on it on cricinfo.. I always found him good to watch but I think that is down to being a fan of the player.. just because you don't doesn't discount the fact that he may be good to watch I would think?

It's not just about the runs, or Herbert Sutcliffe would be ahead of Hobbs and Hutton.

Both Hobbs and Hutton made more runs than Sutcliffe.. so his higher average isn't as impressive. Not sure what you're saying here.

But from a fan's perspective, I find it pretty difficult not to prefer a batsman who sacrifices a "few" runs for greater watching value.

I think Sanga is great to watch.. and Tendulkar is great to watch.. now what?

 

[viriya]

There is also the small matter of Sanga having scored 1800 odd runs against Bangladesh, and while I am not suggesting that all runs scored against Bangladesh should be dismissed as easy runs, they still do inflate the career average of Sanga a fair bit. So if you are someone who goes purely on career average Sanga will stand out comparatively.

Tendulkar has a higher average than Sanga vs Bangladesh.. he cashed in too..

 

[Teja.]

Both H and H made more runs than S.. so his higher average isn't as impressive.

and applying the same principle wrt to both runs scored and longevity to the post 90s period, quod erat demonstrandum.

 

[viriya]

and applying the same principle wrt to both runs scored and longevity to the post 90s period, quod erat demonstrandum.

Longevity is a bigger factor when you're comparing a lower number of tests.. When you're comparing 125 tests vs 200, it's less of a factor.

 

[viriya]

160 vs NZ - Came in at 142/2 and helped get the score to 520
155 vs AUS - Impressive
193 vs ENG - Came in at 185/2, two other batsmen got hundreds in the same innings.. total of 628
214 vs AUS - Impressive - good one
126 vs AUS - Came in at 211/2, total of 501 - not really an impact innings
194 vs PAK - Came in at 173/2, Sehwag made 309 in the same innings

I don't claim to know about Sachin's innings inside out, but the sample above from a pool of 200 tests isn't that impressive when it comes to match-winning innings imo. The argument that his bowlers didn't take advantage of his great innings is acceptable outside India, but in India Kumble/Harbhajan etc were dominant so that is not really a factor..

 

[smash84]

I cbf looking it up but somebody pointed out that bowlers were as good in the 00s as the ones Tendulkar faced in the 90s. Which is just plain wrong. Performing against top quality opposition is definitely a sign of greatness and Tendulkar in the 90s was up against some very fine opposition. Sanga's record definitely takes a hit when he has come up against great bowlers like McWarne for example. Which is not to say that Sanga is very much less of a batsman than SRT just that Tendy does have this point going in his favor.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I don't claim to know about Sachin's innings inside out, but the sample above from a pool of 200 tests isn't that impressive when it comes to match-winning innings imo. The argument that his bowlers didn't take advantage of his great innings is acceptable outside India, but in India Kumble/Harbhajan etc were dominant so that is not really a factor..

Saying that some of Tendulkar's innings had less impact because of other batsmen performing in the same innings, and St the same time praising his 287 against SA where Mahela scored close to 7 trillion is a bit inconsistent.

And again, Tendulkar has tons of other "impact" innings. Cbf listing them out, but there's literally dozens... Most of them just didn't end up being in victories, which is beyond the control of a batsman.

 

[Blocky]

There is also the small matter of Sanga having scored 1800 odd runs against Bangladesh, and while I am not suggesting that all runs scored against Bangladesh should be dismissed as easy runs, they still do inflate the career average of Sanga a fair bit. So if you are someone who goes purely on career average Sanga will stand out comparatively.

And Tendulkar didn't score runs against Zimbabwe or Bangladesh? He scored 8 centuries against those two oppositions.

 

[Blocky]

Uh, the other guy has played 200.

And what? Do we reward someone solely for the fact that they've played the most games? When they've scored less runs per test, less runs per innings and have an overall lower amount of wins per test despite being in a "stronger" side?

 

[Slifer]

I haven't really followed Sanga's career but from what I can tell, he does belong in the convo. It just sux that as a SL batsman, his achievements will be marginalized. For example, cashing in on Bang. All batsmen who have faced Bang cashed in, Steve Waugh did and so did SRT, this is not unique to Sanga.

 

[Top_Cat]

Steve Waugh only played a coupl eof times against Bangladesh didn't he?

Anyway, the issue for most people is more like whether you succeed against the best of your time and, on that score, Waugh has Sangakkara handily beat by all but averaging 50 against the two best teams of his time, the WI and South Africa with significant knocks at home and away. It's obviously not definitive in terms of judging an entire career but it's a decent nudge in the right direction.

 

[Contra]

And Tendulkar didn't score runs against Zimbabwe or Bangladesh? He scored 8 centuries against those two oppositions.

Notwithstanding the fact that you completely missed my point, Tendulkar's 8 centuries are out of 51 test centuries whereas Sanga has 9 centuries against those 2 teams out of 35 test centuries. 25% of Sanga's centuries have come against those teams compared to Tendulkar's 15%.

Now to clarify my point, which you completely missed, is that if you only look at a career average, it is bound to favor those who play considerably more matches against weaker teams, it's obviously not Sangakara's fault that he played Bangaldesh more often than most players, or even the fact that he cashed in, but at the end of the day, if you play weaker teams more often (regardless of whether it is in your control as a player or not) it will generally benefit you and your record. If the likes of Ponting, Kallis and even Tendulkar had played Bangaldesh as frequently as Sanga has done, their overall career averages would be a few runs higher as well, making the gap between Sanga's average and the other greats a lot less.

Excluding Bdesh and Zim, Sanga's career average isn't significantly higher than most other ATG batsmen.