How good is Sanga?

[The Sean]

He had India and South Africa to do it during his day.

Yes, for one series each. Three-quarters of his Test cricket was played against the strongest possible opposition.

 

[simonlee48]

They played a lot less games. It's easier to average 60 over 50 tests than 150 tests. Played more in their prime/purple patch.

So pretty much all bastmen would have averages less if they had played lot more cricket. You agree to that.

Still doesn't explain Bradman's record. If Bradman wasn't so remarkable, why didn't McCabe, Ponsford or Hammond even average 70/80?

Because Bradman was a freak.

I was making a point that all those batsmen would have averaged less if they had to play the amount of cricket we play now, including Bradman. By how much? I can't tell for sure.

 

[cnerd123]

Wait getting back to Sanga

So if he makes 5 more 200+ knocks like this vs pak in a row its completely irrelevant? Oh he's always scored runs vs pak so it doesn't count.. I get it now.

Let's all ignore that then he would average 63 overall and have 15 double hundreds.. Since only runs in SA or Aus count in world cricket anymore. Might as well cancel all other tests. What's the point it doesn't test a batsman's skill so why waste time?

You misunderstand.

We have all agreed that Sanga is terriffic in the subcontinent against quality attacks.
Why we feel he shouldn't be bracketed up with Sachin Lara Dravid etc is because his record away from home is incomplete.

Him continuing to score runs against quality bowling attacks in the subcontinent will not complete his overseas record.

And thats why we say that these innings, while great, will not change our opinions on him. Because he does not need to prove himself further in the subcontinent to us.

If he racks up a couple of good series in Aus/Sa/NZ, then our opinions will change.

 

[Flametree]

I was making a point that all those batsmen would have averaged less if they had to play the amount of cricket we play now, including Bradman. By how much? I can't tell for sure.

Surely this logic also applies to bowlers? So both old time batsmen would average less, and old-time bowlers would average more. How would that work?

One of the great things about cricket through the ages has been the steady consistency in the value of runs . Throughout every decade since the end of WW1 the average run per wicket in test cricket has hovered between 31 and 34, with the exception of the 1950s when the average dropped below 30. For every advance in things which advantage the bowling side (lbw law, better fitness, reverse swing, doosras, reduced over rates etc) there has been an equal one in favour of batsmen (better protection, covered wickets, lighter pads enabling better running between the wickets, far better bats, faster outfields, shorter boundaries etc) , which has kept the balance pretty steady over time. There is nothing to suggest Bradman would be less of an outlier in this era than he was in his own.

 

[Migara]

Surely this logic also applies to bowlers? So both old time batsmen would average less, and old-time bowlers would average more. How would that work?

One of the great things about cricket through the ages has been the steady consistency in the value of runs . Throughout every decade since the end of WW1 the average run per wicket in test cricket has hovered between 31 and 34, with the exception of the 1950s when the average dropped below 30. For every advance in things which advantage the bowling side (lbw law, better fitness, reverse swing, doosras, reduced over rates etc) there has been an equal one in favour of batsmen (better protection, covered wickets, lighter pads enabling better running between the wickets, far better bats, faster outfields, shorter boundaries etc) , which has kept the balance pretty steady over time. There is nothing to suggest Bradman would be less of an outlier in this era than he was in his own.

That's why I said, the only things that may not potentially cancel out are better fielding and better tactics and possibly better preperation. I can be 100% sure that in 1930s fielding was not up to the standard of today.

 

[cnerd123]

So pretty much all bastmen would have averages less if they had played lot more cricket. You agree to that.

I was making a point that all those batsmen would have averaged less if they had to play the amount of cricket we play now, including Bradman. By how much? I can't tell for sure.

Wait, lets get some correct stats first. The 1,500 thing was bs.
Bradman batted in 80 innings in test cricket. He also scored 6996 runs. So lets use 70 innings and 6000 runs as cutoffs.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Bradman is incredibly far ahead on both counts. The players lower than him have all had some great peaks and some had great starts, non could sustain it for as long as he did.

This leads to your next argument - that if Bradman played more Tests he would have declined and thus averaged lower. This logic is flawed, because Bradman played for 20 years, and it was his final year that was his most productive!
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
Indeed the only reason we see a decline in average with more matches for modern day players is either A) They get figured out or B) They get old and their skills wane. Bradman played and performed spectacularly for 20 years, and if anything his final 5 years were better than the first 15. There is no (statistical) evidence to suggest that he would have averaged less had the volume of cricket increase.

Now, if you want to argue all the travelling and intense schedule would have broken him, well you could, but that's all speculation and doesn't deserve any merit.

All the other arguments are just pure BS. If you say "There are more countries to play against now!" I'll point you to BD and Zimbabwe (And some pretty mediocre attacks fielded by India, Sri Lanka, West Indies and New Zealand in the past). If you say "There are more conditions to play in and adapt to!" I'll just point out that back in Bradman's day, groundsmen weren't incentivised to produce flat wickets to make matches last 5 days to earn TV revenue/ticket sales, not to mention the uncovered wickets that made batting hard. If you want to argue tactics are better and fielding is better now, well then so are the bats and safety equipment, and video footage of your opponents helps both batsmen and bowlers. What else is left?

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

That's why I said, the only things that may not potentially cancel out are better fielding and better tactics and possibly better preperation. I can be 100% sure that in 1930s fielding was not up to the standard of today.

Why would tactics be worse? People weren't dumber back then, they even came up with bodyline.

 

[Flametree]

Writers and reporters from the time wax lyrical about the ability of some slip fielders or the speed across ground.or the throwing strength and accuracy of particular players. So good fielding was appreciated and valued. I quite strongly doubt that any test side fielded much worse than the India side that lost 4-0 last time they were in England for instance. And I'd bet good money that all test keepers in the 30s were better than most test keepers these days. I very much doubt you'd have got 4 runs for a nick between keeper and first slip, as seems to have happened an awful lot in the last few months of tests matches I've watched.

 

[Dan]

Why would tactics be worse? People weren't dumber back then, they even came up with bodyline.

Video analysis, basically.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Video analysis, basically.

Fat lot of good it does for captains like Dhoni. His tactics are just genius aren't they?

 

[Blocky]

Yes, for one series each. Three-quarters of his Test cricket was played against the strongest possible opposition.

Who he generally absolutely crushed except one series where they bowled to a tactic that exploited a weakness of his... he never had to face the types of variety in international attacks now. The idea that Bradman would still score 99.96 in todays climate with the video analysis, fielding and variation of grounds, the amount of cricket played today, the limited overs and T20 stuff that is modifying techniques, etc... it's a stretch. Calling him the greatest ever isn't a stretch due to how much higher his average was to the other greats of his day... and I covered off the fact that Bradman's average was more to do with the fact that he had a ridiculous conversion rate of 50s to 150s that boosted his average beyond anything we've seen except for Ponting for 4 years in his pomp.

Sangakkara averaged 50 in 2006, since then he's averaged 70 and brought his overall average to 59. In that last 8 year period, he's batted more consistently than any other player has for that amount of tests. He has the highest runs per innings, highest runs per match, highest centuries per innings of any player who has played 100 tests or more. He's done it in all conditions, he just bossed the world's current best spinner around without much problem and just came back from a tour in England where he scored over 300 runs in 4 innings. He has the most man of the match awards for any batsman, is level with Akram and Warne and the only two ahead of him are Kallis (another severely under-rated player) and Murali, both of whom he'll likely pass in the nexxt few seasons.

So let's review...

Most double centuries since Bradman.
Most MoM awards for a pure batsman and has played fewer tests than those ahead of ihm.
Highest centuries per innings ratio since Bradman.
Highest average of anyone who has played 100 or more tests.
More runs per game than anyone who has played 60 or more tests.

But yes, Tendulkar is in a much greater league than him despite being inferior statistically in almost every possible way.

ps... the MoM award he's about to receive will put him ahead of Warne and Akram.

 

[Spark]

Wow, didn't think this thread could get any more tedious, but you learn something new every day.

Enough about Bradman, please.

 

[Blocky]

Wow, didn't think this thread could get any more tedious, but you learn something new every day.

Enough about Bradman, please.

Oh I'm sorry for discussing Cricket in a cricket forum and making comparisons that are relevant due to the fact that only Bradman stands ahead of Sanga in many statistics now.

 

[Dan]

So if he makes 5 more 200+ knocks like this vs pak in a row its completely irrelevant? Oh he's always scored runs vs pak so it doesn't count.. I get it now.

Let's all ignore that then he would average 63 overall and have 15 double hundreds.. Since only runs in SA or Aus count in world cricket anymore. Might as well cancel all other tests. What's the point it doesn't test a batsman's skill so why waste time?

It isn't that at all.

Nobody's barrier to rating Sanga is related to his ability to score double tons, or his ability to belt Pakistan around in the Subcontinent, so innings in which he does that aren't going to knock down the barriers people do hold to rating Sanga. If you like Sanga, a 200 vs. a Test-class bowling attack at home is further proof that he's a gun. If you don't rate Sanga extremely highly, it's probably the one thing about Sanga you do already rate.

The biggest barriers Sanga faces, in terms of other people rating him, is related to scoring runs overseas. His England series went some way to checking that box, but some people believe the question marks are still there, given his record in South Africa and whatnot.

It is by no means that /anybody/ claims his most recent knock means nothing; it's just that he's already well-and-truly checked that box on his batting report card, and home 200s vs Pakistan don't spillover to help his overseas record, where the top box may not be checked.

 

[Dan]

Oh I'm sorry for discussing Cricket in a cricket forum and making comparisons that are relevant due to the fact that only Bradman stands ahead of Sanga in many statistics now.

More the "Would Bradman actually suck in the modern era?" discussion that has been held about a million times before, resulted in a multitude of locked threads, and everybody is sick and tired of.

It's right up there with "Was Murali a chucker?", "Is Martin Guptill a Test Class opening batsman?" and "Was 9/11 an inside job?" when it comes to issues that don't need to be discussed yet again.

 

[Blocky]

It isn't that at all.

Nobody's barrier to rating Sanga is related to his ability to score double tons, or his ability to belt Pakistan around in the Subcontinent, so innings in which he does that aren't going to knock down the barriers people do hold to rating Sanga. If you like Sanga, a 200 vs. a Test-class bowling attack at home is further proof that he's a gun. If you don't rate Sanga extremely highly, it's probably the one thing about Sanga you do already rate.

The biggest barriers Sanga faces, in terms of other people rating him, is related to scoring runs overseas. His England series went some way to checking that box, but some people believe the question marks are still there, given his record in South Africa and whatnot.

It is by no means that /anybody/ claims his most recent knock means nothing; it's just that he's already well-and-truly checked that box on his batting report card, and home 200s vs Pakistan don't spillover to help his overseas record, where the top box may not be checked.

By this logic though, you should remove any instance of a batsman playing extraordinarily well against a regular opposition - meaning Bradman, Hammond, Sutcliffe, Headley, Sobers, et all should have their records downgraded compared to those of say the 1980s onwards due to there being 6 nations, and now 8 (with Sri Lanka coming to the fore and RSA coming back into international cricket) who play cricket to a pretty decent standard.

You should also remove Tendulkar's record against Australia because he's played them in so many matches and did better than his career average against them, same with Sri Lanka.... you should remove Kallis' record against India and the West Indies because he played them more than other nations and did so well against them.

Pakistan have never had a weak bowling attack by world standards in the time Sanga has been playing them, just like Tendulkar's 55 against Australia representing his quality, Sanga's 85 against Pakistan does equally the same.

 

[Blocky]

More the "Would Bradman actually suck in the modern era?" discussion that has been held about a million times before, resulted in a multitude of locked threads, and everybody is sick and tired of.

It's right up there with "Was Murali a chucker?", "Is Martin Guptill a Test Class opening batsman?" and "Was 9/11 an inside job?" when it comes to issues that don't need to be discussed yet again.

Not once they changed the rules, absolutely not, possible but not probable.

Ok I get that, but in the context that some are discussing Bradman I don't see the issue - one really interesting stat for me is that Bradman had a ratio of 1.9 innings per score of 50+, Sanga is 2.5, Kallis is 2.71, Tendulkar is 2.75, Lara is 2.82... the ability the Don had to turn those 50's into 150+ means his average goes to the godly levels it does, he'd still be in the mid 70s if we apportioned that ratio of scores per innings to anyone else average once they scored 50+ which is impressive.

 

[Maximas]

When we say 'another double at home against Pak won't change anyone's mind' that doesn't mean we don't think it doesn't count, just doesn't make the points made earlier in the thread about overseas stuff redundant

 

[Maximas]

"Was 9/11 an inside job?" when it comes to issues that don't need to be discussed yet again.

That's what they want you to think

 

[cnerd123]

More the "Would Bradman actually suck in the modern era?" discussion that has been held about a million times before, resulted in a multitude of locked threads, and everybody is sick and tired of.

It's right up there with "Was Murali a chucker?", "Is Martin Guptill a Test Class opening batsman?" and "Was 9/11 an inside job?" when it comes to issues that don't need to be discussed yet again.

Pfft please, isn't it obvious that Guptill isn't a Test Class opener?