Sanga retiring, where does he place?

[viriya]

Can you provide some evidence?

Only 6 doubles in his 51 tons.
vs Lara 9 from his 34
and Sanga 11 from his 38
and even Dravid 5 from his 36.

Generally speaking, big tons are the ones that are match-defining (not always of course).

 

[Contra]

He kept churning out great knocks.. 600+ vs Murali in SL with a 221 in the last test.. 226 vs Aus in Adelaide.. great knocks don't always end up winning you the game but they still are great knocks.

Which is basically Tendulkar in the 90's lol.

 

[AldoRaine18]

Haha, could have guessed that these sort of opinions are coming from someone who only has his stats to look at. Carry on.

 

[Contra]

Only 6 doubles in his 51 tons.
vs Lara 9 from his 34
and Sanga 11 from his 38.

Ah so scores of 150 - 199 are basically getting a century and getting out?

 

[viriya]

Which is basically Tendulkar in the 90's lol.

Yea, in the 90s he churned out small tons in draws/losses.. Not big tons. Only double he got in the 90s was in 1999.

 

[Contra]

Yea, in the 90s he churned out small tons in draws/losses.. Not big tons. Only double he got in the 90s was in 1999.

 

[OverratedSanity]

He kept churning out great knocks.. 600+ vs Murali in SL with a 221 in the last test.. 226 vs Aus in Adelaide.. great knocks don't always end up winning you the game but they still are great knocks.

Yeah and Tendulkar never had those in the 90s did he? fmd.

Nice shifting of the goalposts btw, now you're only considering doubles.

 

[Contra]

Yeah and Tendulkar never had those in the 90s did he? fmd.

Nice shifting of the goalposts btw, now you're only considering doubles.

Yeah great knocks to him basically = doubles and onwards.

 

[viriya]

Ah so scores of 150 - 199 are basically getting a century and getting out?

150+ scores:
Sachin 20/51
Lara 19/34
Sanga 19/38

Same point.

 

[Contra]

150+ scores:
Sachin 20/51
Lara 19/34
Sanga 19/38

Same point.

That doesn't answer my question so I'll ask again, (its as easy as saying either yes or not =)

Ah so scores of 150 - 199 are basically getting a century and getting out?

 

[viriya]

Yeah and Tendulkar never had those in the 90s did he? fmd.

Nice shifting of the goalposts btw, now you're only considering doubles.

In general 200+ are match-defining. Even 150+, which he got less of %wise anyway.

Of course, you don't need to score 150+ for an innings to be great, but generally speaking, a batsmen makes a big impact in the game when he makes big scores. Small match-winning tons are possible in tough batting environments/tight chases but those aren't typically the majority of a top order batsman's great knocks.

 

[viriya]

That doesn't answer my question so I'll ask again, (its as easy as saying either yes or not =)

If he had made more 150+ scores then no, but he didn't. Most of the time he got <150 when he got a ton and got out. Which is generally speaking a lower-impact score (especially in Indian conditions).

 

[OverratedSanity]

He was consistently good.. the typical good Sachin performance involves him getting a ton and then getting out.

Yeah which is why he has more 150+ scores than anyone in history, right? Come on man, don't be dim on purpose.

 

[Chrish]

Scoring big is nice but what about consistency? Matter of opinion, but I would go with a player who scores more consistently rather than someone who scores big once in a while but then would go on for 8-9 innings without scoring even 50.

 

[viriya]

Yeah which is why he has more 150+ scores than anyone in history, right? Come on man, don't be dim on purpose.

That's just a longevity argument. He played 200 tests remember? I'm not knocking him for that obviously.

I still consider him close to the #2 greatest batsman of all-time (Lara probably, but Sachin has a good argument), but it baffles me how fanboys can't even agree that he wasn't the type to churn out match-defining knocks. It's so obvious.

 

[Chrish]

That's just a longevity argument. He played 200 tests remember?.

Last time I checked, longevity wasn't something presented to him as a birthday gift

 

[OverratedSanity]

That's just a longevity argument. He played 200 tests remember? I'm not knocking him for that obviously.

I still consider him close to the #2 greatest batsman of all-time (Lara probably, but Sachin has a good argument), but it baffles me how fanboys can't even agree that he wasn't the type to churn out match-defining knocks. It's so obvious.

Oh ffs stop with this crap, you can't even debate Tendulkar on here without being pigeonholed as a fanboy. I've criticized Tendulkar here on a number of things more than even most non-indians.

Your problem is that your argument was originally that Tendulkar didn't play great innings, which we disagreed with, so you changed it to doubles, which you then changed to 150+ scores and finally settled on "match- defining". You've constantly shifted the goalposts to whatever suits you. Don't think anyone argues that Tendulkar has played as many great innings as Lara... he hasn't imo. But you've been all over the place.

 

[Contra]

but it baffles me how fanboys can't even agree that he wasn't the type to churn out match-defining knocks. It's so obvious.

Because most people's definition of "match-defining knocks" is not the same as yours.

 

[Jono]

you all are deadset idiots for debating with him.

 

[viriya]

Oh ffs stop with this crap, you can't even debate Tendulkar on here without being pigeonholed as a fanboy. I've criticized Tendulkar here on a number of things more than even most non-indians.

Your problem is that your argument was originally that Tendulkar didn't play great innings, which we disagreed with, so you changed it to doubles, which you then changed to 150+ scores and finally settled on "match- defining". You've constantly shifted the goalposts to whatever suits you. Don't think anyone argues that Tendulkar has played as many great innings as Lara... he hasn't imo. But you've been all over the place.

I never shifted goal posts.. great innings = match-defining, and easiest way to define them is by big knocks. I never flip flopped you are the one claiming so for some reason.