• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

How good is Sanga?

.....

  • Total voters
    69
A

Arachnodouche

International Captain
CWB304 said:
You have taken delusional Indian posting to new lows with these latest comments. To suggest that the limited Laxman is a better player than Sangakkara or even belongs to the same ballpark in terms of batting achievements - let alone "far greater" - indicates to me that you live in a parallel universe occupied by elves, orcs and goblins.

Sanga has nearly twice as many hundreds in something like twenty less tests and an eleven runs per innings superior batting average. In addition, he - contrary to your ignorant or spiteful comments - has put in some fantastic performances against Australia in Australia when they were the number one side and for which he was voted by the Oz players the most feared opposition batsman - ahead of your holy trinity. Your trolling is a complete joke and I can only hope that it is because of congenital imbecility rather than malice.

In fact responding to you reminds me of watching an England vs Australia test match at the Oval many years ago and having the misfortune of sitting next to a boozed up cretin who was seriously trying to persuade me that a decent player (Graham Thorpe; I feel embarrassed for him to even recount the tale) was better than Brian Lara - on the basis of some random performance parameters that I can't recall now which he'd obviously pulled out of his backside in an alcoholic stupor.
Click to expand...
I prefer my universe replete with Jaghuts, Tiste Andii and T'lan Imass, thank you very much. Laxman Down Under '99,'03,'07. Dravid in England last year. Tendulkar..yeah crap player.

Besides, I thought the Australians really, REALLY rated Laxman. The Australians that mattered anyway. The ones that kept whipping England...those ones :D

And I'm not really trolling. Sangakkara hasn't played 5 games in Australia as compared to Laxman who's been there four times if I'm not mistaken. Whatever may be the reason for Lankans not being called over more often, that's a pitiable sample size for basing your statements.
 
Last edited:
Migara

Migara

Cricketer Of The Year
Arachnodouche said:
I prefer my universe replete with Jaghuts, Tiste Andii and T'lan Imass, thank you very much. Laxman Down Under '99,'03,'07. Dravid in England last year. Tendulkar..yeah crap player.

Besides, I thought the Australians really, REALLY rated Laxman. The Australians that mattered anyway. The ones that kept whipping England...those ones :D
Click to expand...
Rating Laxman over Sanga is just meh.
 
Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
Yeah no I rate Laxman incredibly highly but Laxman > Sanga is just a bit silly

edit: oops
 
Last edited:
Ruckus

Ruckus

International Captain
But seriously at the same time, I don't think it's outrageous at all to compare them. Laxman will be poorer than the majority of greats in terms of his overall stats, but that's not where his true value lies. His ability to play awesome knocks under such pressure, and to save/win games for his team is damn impressive, no doubt. Exaggeration to say they aren't even in the same ballpark. Laxman isn't an ATG but he really isn't that far off it imo.
 
Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
Test batting is as much about not getting into the fire as it is getting out of it though. Laxman's firefighting ability is second-to-none, but on the other hand his conversion rate is shocking.
 
C

CWB304

U19 Cricketer
Arachnodouche said:
I prefer my universe replete with Jaghuts, Tiste Andii and T'lan Imass, thank you very much. Laxman Down Under '99,'03,'07. Dravid in England last year. Tendulkar..yeah crap player.

Besides, I thought the Australians really, REALLY rated Laxman. The Australians that mattered anyway. The ones that kept whipping England...those ones :D
Click to expand...
First off you can leave Dravid and Tendulkar out of this discussion and stop implying that I have suggested that either of these two great players is crap. I was talking about Laxman - and more specifically your ridiculous contention that a player averaging 46 and with 17 centuries in 133 tests is "far greater" than one averaging 57 and with 30 centuries in 111 tests.

Second no doubt Laxman has done well in Australia, but one doesn't evaluate batsmen simply by highlighting their best performances and ignoring all the mediocre or poor ones. You take an overall view of what they have done in all sorts of conditions and against all sorts of opposition. Once you do that for Laxman you discover that he is not so special after all. And even if performing in Australia were the only criteria for greatness then Sanga would not be found wanting as he has ticked that box handsomely. As I have said the Australian players he actually played against voted him the most feared or most dangerous opposition batsman after he toured there.
 
A

Arachnodouche

International Captain
CWB304 said:
First off you can leave Dravid and Tendulkar out of this discussion and stop implying that I have suggested that either of these two great players is crap. I was talking about Laxman - and more specifically your ridiculous contention that a player averaging 46 and with 17 centuries in 133 tests is "far greater" than one averaging 57 and with 30 centuries in 111 tests.

Second no doubt Laxman has done well in Australia, but one doesn't evaluate batsmen simply by highlighting their best performances and ignoring all the mediocre or poor ones. You take an overall view of what they have done in all sorts of conditions and against all sorts of opposition. Once you do that for Laxman you discover that he is not so special after all. And even if performing in Australia were the only criteria for greatness then Sanga would not be found wanting as he has ticked that box handsomely. As I have said the Australian players he actually played against voted him the most feared or most dangerous opposition batsman after he toured there.
Click to expand...
But you conveniently ignore Sangakkara's less than stellar stats in India, SA, and England. The guy has played 3 Tests in Australia, flopped miserably in the first, then did very well indeed in the other two. But if three tests is a good enough pool for you to proclaim his awesomeness in Australia, then surely 6,8 , and 9, in those three countries respectively with middling returns, is decent enough to knock him down a few pegs in the ATG pecking order. I don't see how that is fallacious, or dishonest reasoning.
 
Last edited:
Migara

Migara

Cricketer Of The Year
Arachnodouche said:
But you conveniently ignore Sangakkara's less than stellar stats in India, SA, and England. The guy has played 3 Tests in Australia, flopped miserably in the first, then did very well indeed in the other two. But if three tests is a good enough pool for you to proclaim his awesomeness in Australia, then surely 6,8 , and 9, in those three countries respectively with middling returns, is decent enough to knock him down a few pegs in the ATG pecking order. I don't see how that is fallacious, or dishonest reasoning.
Click to expand...
Now what is the fair sample you are looking at? Can you educate us on that?
 
C

CWB304

U19 Cricketer
Arachnodouche said:
But you conveniently ignore Sangakkara's less than stellar stats in India, SA, and England. The guy has played 3 Tests in Australia, flopped miserably in the first, then did very well indeed in the other two. But if three tests is a good enough pool for you to proclaim his awesomeness in Australia, then surely 6,8 , and 9, in those three countries respectively with middling returns, is decent enough to knock him down a few pegs in the ATG pecking order. I don't see how that is fallacious, or dishonest reasoning.
Click to expand...
You brought up Australia, and Laxman. I simply defended Sanga against your more absurd charges - and comprehensively demolished your arguments while I was at it. Now you seem to have given up on that line of attack - perhaps you should have wasted my time for a few more posts, for form's sake? - and opened up a new front.

But what is the point of my even responding, if you genuinely believe - after all, you've yet to withdraw the remark - that a good but nowhere near great player like Laxman is "far greater" than Sanga?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top