How good is Sanga?

[simonlee48]

Its not 1000 vs 1m though. There are more test players now but the difference isn't remotely close to that.

I wasn't talking about players in international cricket. I was talking about players above certain standards even if they are not playing international games. Also, don't take my numbers literally. International players comes from that set only.

we're talking less than what, 3000 people have represented their country in Test cricket over a period of 200 years, they represent such a minuscule proportion of the overall global population that I personally don't see population growth as impacting upon the quality of that top fraction of a fraction of a percentage point at all.

Let's put 3K test cricketers in two extreme brackets. 1K earlier ones and 1K from current era. You can't deny that earlier 1K test cricketers came from a significantly smaller pool than the last 1K players. Doesn't it make sense to think that some freak will have a higher chance to stand out by a big margin among first set than the second set? Just talking probability here. It's quite possible that the same freak would have stood out by same margin in both era but I see probability getting drastically smaller.

I think, Eng would have produced at least one ATG batsmen in the last 25-30 years if we still had older situation of 2-3 countries playing cricket. I meant some of the same batsmen, who played for them, would have higher chance to rise to that level.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think Simon Lee's point is that a greater percentage of the world's cricketers were playing international cricket in the early days, diluting its standard. We've got five times as many Test teams as we did in 1877 but a lot more than five times the world's cricketers now that we did then. Test cricket may have represented the top 0.01% of cricketers in 1877, but the top 0.001% of cricketers today.

If you rubbed out 90% of the world's cricketers at random tomorrow, Test teams would look very different as a result, and the current Test players who didn't get randomly culled from the group would greatly improve their records against what would be worse opposition.

It's not a line of argument I really subscribe to as important, mainly because it's so hard to really measure its impact quantitatively at all, but it's interesting all the same.

 

[simonlee48]

I think Simon Lee's point is that a greater percentage of the world's cricketers were playing international cricket in the early days, diluting its standard. We've got five times as many Test teams as we did in 1877 but a lot more than five times the world's cricketers now that we did then. Test cricket may have represented the top 0.01% of cricketers in 1877, but the top 0.001% of cricketers today.

If you rubbed out 90% of the world's cricketers at random tomorrow, Test teams would look very different as a result, and the current Test players who didn't get randomly culled from the group would greatly improve their records against what would be worse opposition.

It's not a line of argument I really subscribe to as important, mainly because it's so hard to really measure its impact quantitatively at all, but it's interesting all the same.

Thanks. You did a better job than me here. We sure can't measure it quantitatively and I wasn't claiming any precise measure of how much Don would have stood out in current era. I was only saying that there is a pretty good chance that he would have stood out less in modern era and that was due to the above point you put it in different words. Again, simple probability here. For all we know he could have stood out by the same margin.

 

[viriya]

I wasn't talking about players in international cricket. I was talking about players above certain standards even if they are not playing international games. Also, don't take my numbers literally. International players comes from that set only.

The thing is a player like Bradman is an outlier - a six-sigma event if you will. The number of players that outlier comes from affects it but not by much. Say Bradman is that top 0.001% in the 40s (2.5B world population), the equivalent to him now would be the top 0.003% (7B world population). It might be three times as likely but it's still such an unlikely event that a player like Bradman showing up in the 40s instead of now doesn't mean much necessarily. It's like winning the lottery where one is a bigger one with more tickets - they're both highly unlikely that in a given week the more unlikely one coming up with a winner doesn't mean the less unlikely one has to as well. It's just probability.

 

[cnerd123]

I remember checking once that during the Don's career, the night highest batting averaged was Arthur Morris, who averaged in the 70s and was later to drop into the 40s.

Since no one has come remotely close to being so dominant during their career, I don't think that the fact that there are more cricketers out their would have been an issue.

Maybe Don's average would have fallen by ~10 runs or so if he was a modern player. Maybe it would have been higher. Maybe he would have quit cricket at 19 to become an IT whizz kid. Or would have retired in disgrace as an alcoholic. Who knows. As long as we all agree he's the best of all time and the world has never seen one like and him and maybe never will, it's all cool.

 

[Maximas]

Yeah, what makes the Don the greatest is how much better he was than his contemporaries (to a level we have not seen since or before him), not because of specific challenges he did or didn't face compared to modern batsmen, every player is simply a product of their own era, and the only real way to evaluate their achievements is to put them into the context of their own era.

 

[Migara]

I have some sympathy for the Ponting argument in this case -- that Ponting arguably was every bit as good as a teenager as Tendulkar was but merely didn't get selected for Test cricket because Australia's team was stronger and system was harder to crack into -- but in Sangakkara's case, I see no reason to suggest he wouldn't have been playing if he was good enough when he was a teenager.

Probably would have ben as good as Tendulkar or Ponting, but we never know because he never played serious cricket at that age.

 

[viriya]

Not sure why this discussion became "how good is the Don really".. it's really for another thread and mostly pointless.

 

[G.I.Joe]

One can't have it both ways. If one evaluates the Don solely against his contemporaries, then Bradman >> X (where X = Tendulkar/Lara/Ponting/Viv etc) cannot result from that approach. If one asserts that Bradman >> X is indeed true, then he is necessarily making an evaluation across eras. The fact that Bradman towered over his contemporaries cannot be the be all and end all of the argument in that case.

 

[cnerd123]

Probably would have ben as good as Tendulkar or Ponting, but we never know because he never played serious cricket at that age.

Wasn't he herald as a schoolboy talent? Did well at that level but wasn't as successful or considered as talented as other kids his age?

Sanga is more Michael Hussey than Tendulkar/Ponting/Lara. Made the most of his talent through hard work and determination rather than being insanely gifted like those three.

 

[cnerd123]

One can't have it both ways. If you're evaluating the Don solely against his contemporaries, then Bradman >> X (where X = Tendulkar/Lara/Ponting/Viv etc) cannot result from that approach. If you assert that Bradman >> X is indeed true, then you are necessarily making an evaluation across eras. The fact that Bradman towered over his contemporaries cannot be the be all and end all of your argument in that case.

Why can't stating that Dons Avg/Avg of his Era >> X Avg/Avg of his Era and thus Don >> X be considered valid?

 

[Maximas]

If one evaluates the Don solely against his contemporaries, then Bradman >> X (where X = Tendulkar/Lara/Ponting/Viv etc) cannot result from that approach. If one asserts that Bradman >> X is indeed true, then he is necessarily making an evaluation across eras.

You make that comparison based on how the Don rated against his contemporaries compared to whoever you are comparing him to, that was my point. I was simply trying to say don't pull out all this 'Don only played such and such countries' or 'Sachin never played on uncovered pitches' or whatever

 

[Maximas]

Wasn't he herald as a schoolboy talent? Did well at that level but wasn't as successful or considered as talented as other kids his age?

Sanga is more Michael Hussey than Tendulkar/Ponting/Lara. Made the most of his talent through hard work and determination rather than being insanely gifted like those three.

Mahela was the schoolboy talent, Sanga was a late bloomer and as you say got his rewards through hard work

 

[G.I.Joe]

Why can't stating that Dons Avg/Avg of his Era >> X Avg/Avg of his Era and thus Don >> X be considered valid?

Because that makes as much sense as conflating (a) Shakib >>>>>>>>>> Mohammad Rafique and (b) Warne > Grimmett, O'Reilley etc into (c) Shakib >>>> Warne.

 

[cnerd123]

Because that makes as much sense as conflating (a) Shakib >>>>>>>>>> Mohammad Rafique and (b) Warne > Grimmett, O'Reilley etc into (c) Shakib >>>> Warne.

No. It's completely different. The only way your comparison makes sense is if yo uare trying to say that Don's Era > X's Era, thus rendering any comparison irrelevant?

 

[Migara]

Wasn't he herald as a schoolboy talent? Did well at that level but wasn't as successful or considered as talented as other kids his age?

Sanga is more Michael Hussey than Tendulkar/Ponting/Lara. Made the most of his talent through hard work and determination rather than being insanely gifted like those three.

He barely played competitive cricket at 16 years of age. Methamorphasis he has undergone is mind boggling/

 

[cnerd123]

Mahela was the schoolboy talent, Sanga was a late bloomer and as you say got his rewards through hard work

But didn't Sanga play at schoolboy level and climb up the ranks the same any other cricketer in Sri Lanka has?

Miagara said Sanga wasn't playing 'serious cricket' at 16/17 and makes it sound like it was due to a lack of opportunity. Wasn't it just due to a lack of talent and him being a late bloomer?

 

[Prince EWS]

Because that makes as much sense as conflating (a) Shakib >>>>>>>>>> Mohammad Rafique and (b) Warne > Grimmett, O'Reilley etc into (c) Shakib >>>> Warne.

Not if you reject the notion that one era can be better than another as I do, unless of course you also reject the notion that one spinner can be better than another.

 

[Migara]

But didn't Sanga play at schoolboy level and climb up the ranks the same any other cricketer in Sri Lanka has?

Miagara said Sanga wasn't playing 'serious cricket' at 16/17 and makes it sound like it was due to a lack of opportunity. Wasn't it just due to a lack of talent and him being a late bloomer?

Sanga was a tennis player intitially and took to cricket later, his tatste must have changed. He's from a upper middle class family from a posh school, hence ample opportunities were there.

 

[Migara]

Not only Sanga, guys like Eranga, Nuwan Pradeep and Lasith Malinga were just plucked out of no where, with raw talent in tennis ball cricket, and from much challenging social backgrounds. So was Nuwan Zoysa, whom is from same town as me. 15-16 year old Nuwan Zoysa was known to produce some akward bounce off the length with the tennsi ball, and facing him, I gotv the first hand experience too. The he took to leather ball cricket, ebcause his friends persistently kept encouraging him, and just took school cricket by storm.