Pietersen vs Sangakkara

[OverratedSanity]

Not really surprised 18 people voted for Pietersen tbh. KP had 3-4 innings in 2012 which were absolutely extraordinary and short memories etc.

 

[harsh.ag]

I guess in terms of who was the "better batsman", I have always given a lot of leeway to personal opinion, because it's different from greatness. Claiming somebody was a better batsman than Bradman is not weird imo. Pietersen was in some ways a better batsman than Sanga.

 

[Gob]

Baahah. Forgot I posted this.

Pist Fump!

man loved pierce

 

[Furball]

Am I missing something here? It's Sangakkara.

So glad I didn't post anything stupid a couple of years ago.

What I will say though is that in terms of hitting the highs of batsmanship, KP is the best I've seen, with Clarke 2nd. I'll try and clarify this; what I mean is "10/10" innings where the batsman has basically looked like they were taking the piss. Pietersen has his 3 epics from 2012, the 2011 Indian home series, his 2006 series vs Sri Lanka, the 158 at the Oval etc. Clarke has the 151 in South Africa, a tremendous innings on a **** tip in Galle and his home series last time South Africa went down under off the top of my head. So I'm going to annoint KP as the best batsman I've seen on this basis.

However, before anyone comes in with a "wtf are you talking about", the best batsman and the greatest batsman are two entirely different things. Not everyone has it in them to do what KP did in Mumbai or what Clarke did at Cape Town. Theirs is a different kind of talent, the ability to just churn out a 7 or 8/10 innings where they'll bat within their limitations and just pile on runs. It's what Cook did brilliantly down under 4 years ago, for example. And it's what KP arguably didn't do enough of during his career.

So yeah. Sangakkara unquestionably the greater of the two batsmen. It'll take someone ****ing special to dislodge KP from being the best I've seen though.

 

[GIMH]

Are you drunk

 

[harsh.ag]

I guess in terms of who was the "better batsman", I have always given a lot of leeway to personal opinion, because it's different from greatness. Claiming somebody was a better batsman than Bradman is not weird imo. Pietersen was in some ways a better batsman than Sanga.

However, before anyone comes in with a "wtf are you talking about", the best batsman and the greatest batsman are two entirely different things. Not everyone has it in them to do what KP did in Mumbai or what Clarke did at Cape Town. Theirs is a different kind of talent, the ability to just churn out a 7 or 8/10 innings where they'll bat within their limitations and just pile on runs. It's what Cook did brilliantly down under 4 years ago, for example. And it's what KP arguably didn't do enough of during his career.

So yeah. Sangakkara unquestionably the greater of the two batsmen. It'll take someone ****ing special to dislodge KP from being the best I've seen though.

Oi.

 

[Spark]

It's worth noting that, depending on your lineup, the "better" can be more useful than your "greater". Batting is primarily about quality, not quantity - when, not how - and in certain situations the batsman who plays great innings from seemingly lost situations can be more useful than the more consistent batsman. Laxman would be a better fit in an ATG-minus-one batting lineup than many ATG batsman who are "greater" than him, for example. So it's not as simple as "more runs at a higher average = the batsman you take every time"

 

[GIMH]

Better and greater mean the same thing you bunch of buffoons.

 

[harsh.ag]

Get off your horse, GIMH. Author with one insane masterpiece who never wrote again could be better than another great writer with many great books.

 

[viriya]

This thread has turned to straight idiotic.

 

[OverratedSanity]

This thread has turned to straight idiotic.

woah

 

[Furball]

Better and greater mean the same thing you bunch of buffoons.

Ugh, I can't think how to properly explain it.

KP at his best is the best batsman I've watched. But sport isn't just about how good your best is, the greatest players are defined more by how consistently very good they are.

It's the Lampard v Gerrard thing again, as a fan of the sport I'd say Gerrard's given me more great individual performances that I'd remember but if I was a manager I'd want Lampard because the consistency of his performances is much better for building a team around.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I get the logic but it just doesn't apply here. Sanga at his best is just as astonishing as KP. He's played some ridiculously great knocks.

 

[harsh.ag]

Better could just as much be inferred from style, shot making, elegance, and such as from great innings. Hence, quite a leeway between better and greater can exist. Pretty subjective.

 

[Spark]

I get the logic but it just doesn't apply here. Sanga at his best is just as astonishing as KP. He's played some ridiculously great knocks.

idk about this. sanga at his best is awesome but kp at his best is difficult to comprehend.

 

[GIMH]

Get off your horse, GIMH. Author with one insane masterpiece who never wrote again could be better than another great writer with many great books.

Only one of them is better though, whichever one you think

Also I knew full well what the scotch egg meant I was just being annoying. Though his Gerrard-Lampard comparison is wrong tbf.

 

[Furball]

Yeah, that consistent level of performance certainly explains those league titles Gerrard won in his career.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, that consistent level of performance certainly explains those league titles Gerrard won in his career.

What about all those cricket world cups and #1 test rankings that Sangakarra bloke has had hey

Almost as if team sports aren't about just one player

 

[Cabinet96]

Yeah, that consistent level of performance certainly explains those league titles Gerrard won in his career.

And I suppose Lampard's explain the international honours he won when filthy Russian money wasn't there to help.

 

[GIMH]

And I suppose Lampard's explain the international honours he won when filthy Russian money wasn't there to help.

And why Mourinho wanted to sign Gerrard to play ahead of him, and why no England manager ever picked Lampard over Gerrard. But whatever