Andy Flower: Underrated or Overrated?

[Pap Finn Keighl]

WK Sanga Avg vs Batsman Sanga Avg

2000
17, 46

2001
56, 51

2002
49, 75

2003
33, 49

2004
27, 85

2005
32, X

2006
49, 122

2007
X, 138

2008
12, 46

 

[Migara]

What peak? He was averaging 79 as specialist batsman until 2006.
He averaged only 64 as a specialist batsman since.

So, Dhoni averaged 38 in whole career, while Sanga averaged 40 in his peak 6 years.

Which is wrong. Sanga's peak came only after he gave up gloves. There goes your argument out of the window.

 

[Migara]

What peak? He was averaging 79 as specialist batsman until 2006.
He averaged only 64 as a specialist batsman since.

So, Dhoni averaged 38 in whole career, while Sanga averaged 40 in his peak 6 years.

I also want something that you are smoking. Here is Sanga up to 2005 November, where he last kept as a designated keeper. In 2008 he kept two matches as stand in keeper. He averages 41.2 up to 2006/11 and with two matches he was standing in 40.4. From 2006/11 till his retirement in 2015, Sanga averaged 66.5 as a specialist batsman. I am not sure where are you pulling these numbers out of.

 

[Migara]

If Sanga kept keeping he almost certainly wouldn't have ended up averaging 57. Keeping in Test cricket is an insanely hard and exhausting job, especially keeping up to the stumps a lot as Sanga would have. So you can't just assume he would have still averaged 50+, let alone 57, if he kept his whole career.

This is a very fair assessment. On other side of the coin, if he started as a pure batsman we could argue he would have averaged 60+ with the bat.

However you obviously can't just look at his average as keeper, of 40, and assume that it would have stayed there forever if he kept keeping. He became a much better batsman afterward. PFK makes a good point though, if Sanga didn't give up keeping who knows he might never have had the opportunity to put time and effort into improving his batting that much. It's plausible that Sanga's improvement as a batsman afterward could have been a lot down to being able to focus purely on that and not worry about wicket-keeping.

This would have been compelling argument if the improvement was only in tests. He kept in ODIs and the progress in ODI cricket was much more than in test cricket (despite being not as flashy as a test player). So the available evidence points towards the improvement can happen even with keeping. The level of improvement of course is debatable as we have discussed earlier. Even if Sanga hasn't improved a bit from 2006 onwards, he still averages more than Dhoni. That the the punch line here.

 

[CricAddict]

Sanga is very clearly better than Dhoni.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Which is wrong. Sanga's peak came only after he gave up gloves. There goes your argument out of the window.

Sanga Averaged more in 2000-2006 period as a specialist batsman compared to rest of his career. So, that could be his peak period.

He started averaging more since 2006, because he was free from double duty. Nothing to do with batting form.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

I also want something that you are smoking. Here is Sanga up to 2005 November, where he last kept as a designated keeper. In 2008 he kept two matches as stand in keeper. He averages 41.2 up to 2006/11 and with two matches he was standing in 40.4. From 2006/11 till his retirement in 2015, Sanga averaged 66.5 as a specialist batsman. I am not sure where are you pulling these numbers out of.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Sanga as Specialist Batsman averaged 79 until 2006, almost double of what he averaged in the same phase as WK Batsman.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Sanga is very clearly better than Dhoni.

Not as WK batsman.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

In terms of calendar years, Sanga played 7 years as both specialist batsman and WK..

In these 7 years, every year he averaged more as Specialist batsman ( except for 2001 where he averaged 5 runs more as WK )
All other years, the avg difference was more than 25 in favor of specialist batsman ( except 2003, where the difference was only 16 in favor of specialist batsman )

 

[TheJediBrah]

This would have been compelling argument if the improvement was only in tests. He kept in ODIs and the progress in ODI cricket was much more than in test cricket (despite being not as flashy as a test player). So the available evidence points towards the improvement can happen even with keeping. The level of improvement of course is debatable as we have discussed earlier. Even if Sanga hasn't improved a bit from 2006 onwards, he still averages more than Dhoni. That the the punch line here.

Keeping in ODIs isn't comparable to keeping in Tests though

 

[Migara]

Sanga Averaged more in 2000-2006 period as a specialist batsman compared to rest of his career. So, that could be his peak period.

He started averaging more since 2006, because he was free from double duty. Nothing to do with batting form.

Sanga in 2000-2006 only played 17 matches as non keeper compared to 80 odd in next few years. Still his non wk highest cumulative average of 96.4 occurs in 2007after of giving up the gloves (when standing in matches of 2008, due to injury to PJ, discounted)

Even when ICC rankings considered, his highest of 938 occurs after giving up gloves and almost all his 800+ rating happens after giving up gloves. So there is absolutely no evidence to say that Sanga has hit the peak while he was keeping.

 

[Migara]

Keeping in ODIs isn't comparable to keeping in Tests though

It is not mutually exclusive fact either.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Sanga in 2000-2006 only played 17 matches as non keeper compared to 80 odd in next few years. Still his non wk highest cumulative average of 96.4 occurs in 2007after of giving up the gloves (when standing in matches of 2008, due to injury to PJ, discounted)

Even when ICC rankings considered, his highest of 938 occurs after giving up gloves and almost all his 800+ rating happens after giving up gloves. So there is absolutely no evidence to say that Sanga has hit the peak while he was keeping.

View attachment 32348

Because He was a WK in his peak.. That reduced his batting output. Had he played as a pure batsman in that phase, his avg would have been much much better as evident from those 17 tests where he averaged 79 compared to avg of 41 as WK in the same period . ( almost double )

 

[Magrat Garlick]

you guys have had this argument of Dhoni v Sanga before, if you want to have it in this thread could you at least try to make it relevant to the OP or there will be infractions

 

[Migara]

Because He was a WK in his peak.. That reduced his batting output. Had he played as a pure batsman in that phase, his avg would have been much much better as evident from those 17 tests where he averaged 79 compared to avg of 41 as WK in the same period . ( almost double )

Still not true. There are plenty of 17 match blocks he averaged more than this. Once again, argument not true.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I would take both of them ahead of Andy Flower as WK/bats