***Official*** Sri Lanka in Australia 2012/2013

[stephen]

I'm pretty sure that the folks who don't rate Sanga don't actually watch cricket. It's a bit like the people who didn't rate MoYo.

Samaraweera on the other hand seems to be utterly gash when the ball bounces above waist height.

[Plumbinfront]

Originally Posted by greg

Sangakarra averages 47 away from home. When not designated keeper he averages 55 (from 27 matches). His overall figures only suffer in comparison to his home record, not against any other players. He's rubbish in England, of course, but that's to be expected...

and what is it without the flat tracks of Pakistan and the minnows (Bang)? Genuine question, I suck with statsguru. I'd wager it'd be in the low 40s. He sucks in Eng, sucks in SA, was mediocre in India too I think and bombed in the West Indies. Steyn made him look like a school boy last time Sri Lanka were here. He got a century thanks to Mark Boucher dropping the simplest of chances when he was in single digits snd still ended up averaging in the 30s for the series. And to the one or two other posters, we can do without the derrogatory remarks. On a forum people will have different opinions. Comment on it in a decent way befitting your background or don't comment at all. The point is, Sangakkara is as much of a home bully as Hussey, Hayden and Sehwag (home bully meaning kinda sucks away from home, especially outside the subcontinet) but he gets a pass whereas the other 3 continually get looked down at.

[hendrix]

Sangakkara averages in:

NZ: 66
Australia: 57
South Africa: 35
England: 30
Bangladesh: 40

[greg]

Originally Posted by Plumbinfront

and what is it without the flat tracks of Pakistan and the minnows (Bang)? Genuine question, I suck with statsguru. I'd wager it'd be in the low 40s. He sucks in Eng, sucks in SA, was mediocre in India too I think and bombed in the West Indies.

Bear in mind that when you start breaking it down too much you are in to the realms of tiny samples, where one decent score either way makes a significant difference. Even more if you restrict it to games where he didn't keep. Statistically he has a very good record in Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan and Zimbabwe, so so or poor in the rest.

Of course small sample sizes are the fundamental problem with cricket statistics - very rarely are the sample sizes large enough to dismiss natural statistical variation as an explanation. Let alone trying to factor in types of pitches, performing when it matters, quality of the oppositions etc etc. So they can only ever be a rough guide as a supplement to subjective opinion.

[BeeGee]

Originally Posted by greg

Bear in mind that when you start breaking it down too much you are in to the realms of tiny samples, where one decent score either way makes a significant difference. Even more if you restrict it to games where he didn't keep. Statistically he has a very good record in Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan and Zimbabwe, so so or poor in the rest.

Of course small sample sizes are the fundamental problem with cricket statistics - very rarely are the sample sizes large enough to dismiss natural statistical variation as an explanation. Let alone trying to factor in types of pitches, performing when it matters, quality of the oppositions etc etc. So they can only ever be a rough guide as a supplement to subjective opinion.

The voice of reason shines out like a beacon in the night.

Agree completely. And this is why people who try to prove a point based solely on statistics or number crunching completely miss critical factors which aren't seen in those numbers.

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by howardj

What's cutting edge is managing guys so they're available to play every Test (like SA with Steyn, like England with Anderson)

You're aware that Anderson missed a Test against the West Indies in the summer because of England's rotation policy, aren't you?

In fact, have a guess how England manage to keep Anderson so fit? The answer is rotation. Anderson hasn't played a T20I for England in 3 years; whilst people might scoff and say "well it's only 4 overs, big whoop", Anderson's missed 32 games for England in that format - potentially 128 overs of bowling. He's also missed plenty of ODIs for England in the last 3 years as well - didn't tour Bangladesh in 2010, missed the tour of India last year, will miss this year's series, missed the first 3 games of the Australia series in 2011. That's 16 ODIs he's missed without even counting the random one-off ODIs he's missed here and there.

Stuart Broad missed the same Test against the West Indies that Anderson missed, and missed a series against Bangladesh in 2010 to do strength and conditioning work.

One other thing to note; Anderson is 30. All of England's younger quicks have suffered their share of injury problems in the past couple of years.

[greg]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

You're aware that Anderson missed a Test against the West Indies in the summer because of England's rotation policy, aren't you?

In fact, have a guess how England manage to keep Anderson so fit? The answer is rotation. Anderson hasn't played a T20I for England in 3 years; whilst people might scoff and say "well it's only 4 overs, big whoop", Anderson's missed 32 games for England in that format - potentially 128 overs of bowling. He's also missed plenty of ODIs for England in the last 3 years as well - didn't tour Bangladesh in 2010, missed the tour of India last year, will miss this year's series, missed the first 3 games of the Australia series in 2011. That's 16 ODIs he's missed without even counting the random one-off ODIs he's missed here and there.

Stuart Broad missed the same Test against the West Indies that Anderson missed, and missed a series against Bangladesh in 2010 to do strength and conditioning work.

One other thing to note; Anderson is 30. All of England's younger quicks have suffered their share of injury problems in the past couple of years.

England resting/rotating players in test matches is very much the exception. ODIs is routine (the T20 point is a bit misleading - Anderson is nowhere near England's best team in that format). I certainly can't think of an occasion when they have rested/rotated a bowler in a 'live' test match. Even in the Windies match quoted i think from memory there was a bit of an injury cloud over Anderson at least.

With hindsight as well i wouldn't be surprised if the management regretted it, because they looked significantly short of match fitness come the start of the South African series, having not played in the interim. ("Keeping them fresh" for that series being the justification given - rather than any general workload management that the Australians seem to be engaged in)

"Rotation" also only applies to the recognised first choice team. Back up players routinely return to their counties if not selected, and i don't think it is seen as a good thing to rest players who wouldn't appreciate missing the chance to prove themselves. This is arguably the problem with the Starc situation - he is by no means an automatic pick for Australia, so it's not surprising he's pretty upset by the way he is being 'managed'.

[CWB304]

Originally Posted by Plumbinfront

and what is it without the flat tracks of Pakistan and the minnows (Bang)? Genuine question, I suck with statsguru. I'd wager it'd be in the low 40s. He sucks in Eng, sucks in SA, was mediocre in India too I think and bombed in the West Indies. Steyn made him look like a school boy last time Sri Lanka were here. He got a century thanks to Mark Boucher dropping the simplest of chances when he was in single digits snd still ended up averaging in the 30s for the series. And to the one or two other posters, we can do without the derrogatory remarks. On a forum people will have different opinions. Comment on it in a decent way befitting your background or don't comment at all. The point is, Sangakkara is as much of a home bully as Hussey, Hayden and Sehwag (home bully meaning kinda sucks away from home, especially outside the subcontinet) but he gets a pass whereas the other 3 continually get looked down at.

If the cap fits, wear it. Your malice or stupidity - I'd previously assumed you were merely ill-informed - is manifest in the fact that, even after your case has been completely refuted by a number of other posters, you prefer to continue arguing the toss, to the extent of moving the goal posts by dismissing a team like Pakistan, which has had one of, if not the most consistently menacing bowling attack in test cricket throughout the time Sanga has been playing - simply because he has an outstanding record against them.

With "what is it without the flat tracks of Pakistan", your jejune hypothesis lost any right it might otherwise have had to be taken seriously. A fair-minded person would set Sanga's average of 66 in NZ - where conditions favouring seam and swing bowlers have led to some great players struggling in the past -, 57 in Australia, and whatever it is against Pakistan - I'm guessing it's probably in the 70s - against the below-par showings in SA (35) and England (30), which are in themselves not exactly disastrous, given that he has scored centuries and made match-saving or match-winning contributions in both countries.

You clearly are neither fair-minded nor in possession of even average analytical capabilities. If you were fair-minded then you presumably would be setting the fact that players as great as Lara and Ponting have had underwhelming records in certain countries as a justification for dismissing them in the same way as you have dismissed Sanga as "mediocre" away from home. If you had even average mental capabilities then you presumably would have used Ockham's Razor as your guide to analysing the data in the round.

This would have helped you to give Sanga's performances in countries like Pakistan and Australia - which have had stronger attacks than some of the countries he has struggled in (relatively speaking) - the weight they deserve. It would have helped you to consider that anomalies due to the tiny sample sizes make definitive statements such as the ones you have made about Sanga, about players who have proved themselves over a great many tests in all sorts of conditions, very problematic. It might even have helped you to attempt to account for the impact that Sri Lanka's limited touring opportunities by comparison to more high profile test playing nations seem to be having on the averages and performances of their best players away from home.

Perhaps all that would have been too much to ask. But your popping off ignorantly at Sanga's supposed "mediocre" away record seems to me to be just another instance of a clever clogs attempting to make a name for 'contrarian' and 'original' analysis on this board by unjustly denigrating a class player. I can think of some rather more appropriate sacred cows for you to slaughter, if you're desperate. Just PM me for advice.

[GIMH]

Originally Posted by andyc

Pretty sure Saj Mahmood played Boxing Day in 06/07.

Seem to remember some attack conceding 152 without taking a wicket after the opposition attack had skittled the other side for 98 one year as well. Belongs in the argument.

[Lostman]

Just seen the highlights of the last two days and I am glad that I didn't watch this live.
Depressing stuff from a SL pov. Hoping we can at least get this to day 4.
At least we got no tests for a while next year.

Mahela Jayawardene since 2011 in away tests. (incl UAE)
11 matches, 21 innings, average 17.6, with 0-50's and 0-100's, taking his HTB skills to a new level.

[Ruckus]

Odds a Johnson 5-for in the second innings if he gets a 100?

[Hurricane]

Put Lyon back to number 11 after that shot.

[howardj]

Would do Rhonda

[Ruckus]

Bird really doesn't have a great helmet face does he

[NUFAN]

Mitch Johnson to play Stella in the remake of how Stella got her Groove Back II - at a cinema near you.