-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
How good is Sanga?
- Thread starter CWB304
- Start date
The Battlers Prince
International Vice-Captain
Compared to the lesser amount of skill he had Border could be a lot more difficult to get out than other more talented batsmen.
viriya
International Captain
Is he more than a top 25 all-time batsman? If not, I don't think he's underrated. I guess it depends on whether being a hard-worker who accumulated (41.09 strike rate of innings with ball data) slower than Misbah is considered a positive or a negative. Of contemporaries with similar-ish records, who would you pick, Border or Miandad?
Last edited:
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
Harvey needs to jump up 3 or 4 spots here...
kyear2
Cricketer Of The Year
Yea Harvey and Lloyd should both be above Chanderpaul.
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
Pollock ain't a B. Richards.
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
On what basis? Being a world class batsman when he didn't keep?
viriya
International Captain
Based on how he kept improving as an ODI batsman even while keeping (the last few years have been his best), his batting in Tests is unlikely to have been affected significantly if he had not stopped keeping. The timing just coincided with him getting to a new level in batting.
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
Have enjoyed reading the last few pages. Interesting how everyone is compared to Tendulkar as though he is automatically the best after Bradman.
There's a few points to be made on that in my opinion
- I think Tendulkar was a sensational batsman. Great to watch, and such a remarkably consistent record against everyone, everywhere.
- That does not automatically lift him in the second spot though. I am a firm believer that the best batsmen are the ones who achieved in all conditions against all opponents. For that reason, I would include Len Hutton, Viv Richards, Sunil Gavaskar and Greg Chappell. Lara and S.Waugh's records are slightly patchier but arguments can be made for them. In this I am not going back beyond WW2 because I think there are some inherent difficulties in doing so, although clearly we might also include batsmen like Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Macartney, Trumper etc in the "who is the second best batsman ever" conversation. There will be others whom I have overlooked, but my point is there is no way Tendulkar is a clear #2 for me.
- Regarding Sangakkara, I cannot see why he is not a legitimate discussion point in the second best batsmen of all time discussion. He has succeeded at home and away against the majority of opponents (admittedly there are 3 places he has struggled at "away"- if you consider an avg of 35 to be a struggle). He bats in the clutch position (number 3), taking what I consider the most important spot in the batting line up). His average when "not designated keeper" is astounding…70 over a lot of tests. He often makes big hundreds.
- He is a great #3. As mentioned above, this is the spot for the best batsman the majority of the time (in my opinion). Sanga's record there is unbelievable. He has made more runs at # 3 than any other batsman in the history of cricket. His average at 3 (61.84) is higher than Lara's, Ponting's, Viv's, Dravid's and Kanhai's were in the same position. Of players who have played a minimum 30 innings at #3, the only players with a higher averages are the obvious one, plus Barrington, Headley, and Hammond (Pujara is tracking to get there). That's some esteemed company.
- Sangakkara, in my opinion, deserves to be talked about with the most elite of batsman in cricket history.
- Finally, if Sangakkara were Australian, Indian or English, there'd be no end to the praises heaped upon him. M'gawd, imagine if he was INDIAN!
There's a few points to be made on that in my opinion
- I think Tendulkar was a sensational batsman. Great to watch, and such a remarkably consistent record against everyone, everywhere.
- That does not automatically lift him in the second spot though. I am a firm believer that the best batsmen are the ones who achieved in all conditions against all opponents. For that reason, I would include Len Hutton, Viv Richards, Sunil Gavaskar and Greg Chappell. Lara and S.Waugh's records are slightly patchier but arguments can be made for them. In this I am not going back beyond WW2 because I think there are some inherent difficulties in doing so, although clearly we might also include batsmen like Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Macartney, Trumper etc in the "who is the second best batsman ever" conversation. There will be others whom I have overlooked, but my point is there is no way Tendulkar is a clear #2 for me.
- Regarding Sangakkara, I cannot see why he is not a legitimate discussion point in the second best batsmen of all time discussion. He has succeeded at home and away against the majority of opponents (admittedly there are 3 places he has struggled at "away"- if you consider an avg of 35 to be a struggle). He bats in the clutch position (number 3), taking what I consider the most important spot in the batting line up). His average when "not designated keeper" is astounding…70 over a lot of tests. He often makes big hundreds.
- He is a great #3. As mentioned above, this is the spot for the best batsman the majority of the time (in my opinion). Sanga's record there is unbelievable. He has made more runs at # 3 than any other batsman in the history of cricket. His average at 3 (61.84) is higher than Lara's, Ponting's, Viv's, Dravid's and Kanhai's were in the same position. Of players who have played a minimum 30 innings at #3, the only players with a higher averages are the obvious one, plus Barrington, Headley, and Hammond (Pujara is tracking to get there). That's some esteemed company.
- Sangakkara, in my opinion, deserves to be talked about with the most elite of batsman in cricket history.
- Finally, if Sangakkara were Australian, Indian or English, there'd be no end to the praises heaped upon him. M'gawd, imagine if he was INDIAN!
Last edited:
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
You might be right, and I don't reckon it's set in stone, but it's a general principal I reckon. I certainly think that the batsman with the most rounded game can handle number 3 better than others.
4 is more for the pretty boys
And 5 and 6 are just the guys who like to cash in on cheap runs when the bowlers get tired and the ball's old.#alwaysbatshimselfat6whenheiscaptain
Last edited:
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Well, for one thing, he wouldn't have played against Bangladesh every Wednesday.
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
Sagakkara vs all opponents (excluding Bangladesh)- average of 54.67
Tendulkar vs all opponents (excluding Bangladesh)- average of 52.07
Sangakkara's overall average excluding Bangladesh tests is still higher than Tendulkar's complete (including Bangladesh) average.
Just little fun stats.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I thought this wasn't about Tendulkar and that Tendulkar was in no way the clear #2 behind Bradman? Compare Sanga with someone else then 
Last edited:
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
Just a good example of how Sangakkara's disproportionate amount of tests v Bangladesh compared to other modern batsmen hasn't really helped him as much statistically as it might seem.I thought this wasn't about Tendulkar and that Tendulkar was in no way the clear #2 behind Bradman? Compare Sanga with someone else then
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Does no one else find it funny how he makes a massive post saying how comparing everyone with Sachin is wrong because he isn't the clear number 2 behind Bradma, and immediately after does the same thing himself
harsh.ag
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
The reason he is not in the discussion (according to me) is that he just doesn't look the part when compared to some of the people he is being compared against. Records aren't everything. You have to look good enough to be called The-greatest-batsman-of-all-time-but-for-that-freak-Bradman.
