How good is Sanga?

[Jager]

Kallis doesn't bowl often too. and Sanga's keeping was early in his career. If he persisted with it would have averaged more than 40. On other hand if he never kept, would have averaged good 5-10 runs more than present.

That claim is ridiculous. Basically you're saying that Sangakkara is the second greatest pure batsman ever.

As long as you're lumping Bradman in with those others, both your lists are encompassing more than one class of batsman.

Awta

This thread isn't about Ponting.

[watson]

That claim is ridiculous. Basically you're saying that Sangakkara is the second greatest pure batsman ever.



Awta

Just checked Statsgura. Here are Sangakkara's numbers since he gave away his keepers gloves;

Matches = 63
Runs = 6681
HS = 287
100s = 23

AVERAGE = 68.87

Pretty impressive, and at first glance is appears that he 'is the second greatest pure batsman ever'!

Now we argue against those numbers saying things like:
"Yeah, but Viv Richards had to face better bowlers in his time, plus he had no Bangladesh to inflate his average." etc

[CWB304]

This thread isn't about Ponting.

Working out where the leading batsmen of this generation - a short list in which most would include Lara, SRT, Dravid, Kallis, Ponting and Sangakkara - stand in relation to one another is far more relevant to the thread than making some recondite point about how Bradman belongs in a class of his own. I don't object to someone implying that instead of regarding the likes of Hobbs, Hammond, Sobers, Pollock, Richards, Lara, and SRT as top tier one should instead consider them to be second tier to adjust for the Don's unique standing in the annals of batsmanship. I just happen to think that it's completely irrelevant to a discussion of Sanga's position. If you reckon he's in the running for second, third or fourth tier by the adjusted standard then so be it. But the discusssion belongs to another thread.

[Himannv]

Mangoes > Tendulkar
Apples > Sanga

[flibbertyjibber]

Just out of interest FJ - What criteria are you using?

My eyes. Nothing better than that. Maybe Sanga isn't helped due to his dodgy record in comparison against England, the times I have seen him most.

Not swayed by public opinion or press. I am a stubborn bugger. Maybe I should have been an Aussie.

[kyear2]

Nearly 10,000 runs at 56.31

8 double tons

30 tons made against all opponents

38 fifties

Strike Rate of 54.12

Gee wiz, what's a bloke goota do to be considered an ATG?

It seems to me that in 20 years time when we're all still doing ATG Drafts someone will post;

'And I choose the great Kumar Sangakkara as my No.3'

To which several people reply;

'Oh hell, I was going to pick him, you ALWAYS get him. It's not fair. Booo hooo.'

Barrington averaged over 58, he is not in my opinion an ATG, Weekes averaged over 58 as well, but would never make a W.I a.t XI before Lara and Richards. Even among the top left handers many wouls still consider Harvey better than Sangakkara and look at Harvey's record. Thanfully people just dont rank batsmen by record, Mahela would be ahead of Viv

[watson]

Barrington averaged over 58, he is not in my opinion an ATG, Weekes averaged over 58 as well, but would never make a W.I a.t XI before Lara and Richards. Even among the top left handers many wouls still consider Harvey better than Sangakkara and look at Harvey's record. Thanfully people just dont rank batsmen by record, Mahela would be ahead of Viv

I totally agree with you kyear.

However, let us not criticise Sangakkara too much. Sometimes negative opinion can be just as irrational as hyper-inflated opinion.

If Sangakkara is not an ATG then he is very close to it - I think.

[Jacknife]

Surely there's different levels of ATG, some better than others, even if some don't think he's as good as the Tendulkar & Lara should that stop him being a ATG, I wouldn't say so.

[kyear2]

I totally agree with you kyear.

However, let us not criticise Sangakkara too much. Sometimes negative opinion can be just as irrational as hyper-inflated opinion.

If Sangakkara is not an ATG then he is very close to it - I think.

I am not, said he is a great batsman.

[watson]

By 'us' I mean everyone. It was a generic comment kyear.

[Migara]

The statement about him averaging well over 40's is a mere speculation which will never be proven. Its not hard to see how his average just dramatically climbed up so much only after he stopped keeping. I haven't seen seen any massive change in his technique since then either. I also think Kallis would average lower if he had more chances to truly express his bowling. But it will never be proven.

Kallis is by far a better cricketer than Sangakkara. He is quite ahead as a batsman alone as well.

Same could have said on Sanga averaging 70 as a pure batsman. Sanga is a better test batsman than Kallis for me, not because of his average, just because Sanga makes things happen unlike Kallis. And when taken the keeping in to account (being one of the finest of the era), he's easily par with Kallis as a cricketer.

[Migara]

]Kallis is 'touching Ponting' in batting[/B]. He's a top, top batsman. He's got more shots than any of them - even if he is a bit too obdurate to use most of them a lot of the time. He gets some tough runs too, possibly some of the toughest.

Kallis is 'touching Agarkar' in bowling. He's a lazy, reluctant bloke in this regard - he's pretty lucky he's been able to cheap it up against the minnows (where he suddenly wants to bowl loads) and against the tail when the tired opening pair and first change have had their fill with the top order.

Dravid is the better candidate. And as I've said earlier, even if he was the "wall", Dravid also made things happen.

[Migara]

That claim is ridiculous. Basically you're saying that Sangakkara is the second greatest pure batsman ever.

So thinking Sanga would ONLY average 40 if he persisted keeping is not ridiculous?

[Jacknife]

If Sanga is up there, Ponitng is up there also, those 7 years or so between 99 and end of 2006, in 87 test matches he averaged 65 and scored 31 tons, that's an incredible run. The only place you can pull Ricky up on is India, similarly to how Sanga has been relatively poor in England same as Kallis and David as had problems in SA & SL.

[Psycho Macaque]

Complete bull****. I once saw a list made by someone who posted how valuable the scalps of the batsmen they dismissed were and Kallis made it in the top 5.
[How valuable is that wicket!

He is a genuine wicket taker that can get the best of batsmen out when on a roll. His bowling average has taken a hit a lot over the years due to being used as sort of a part times to give the front line bowlers a rest. And he bowls enough for an all rounder.

Oh don't get me wrong, the young Kallis was excellent. A real tearaway. So exciting to watch - I thought he was going to be great. But he lost it... got a couple of injuries and wasn't the same. Early on he was getting the goodies out and at times is still a golden arm. But let's not kid ourselves, he's massively a batting allrounder and has been for a sizeable proportion in his career. He's bullied Ban, Zim and, to an extent, WI. He has a very poor record against anyone decent and bowls about 12 overs an innings.