How good is Sanga?

[thierry henry]

heh, I quoted and replied to the exact same sentence as PEWS

 

[Jono]

Well by the same token, if someone like Sanga is just as good if not better than usual during his twilight years (and by usual standards I would suggest that at 37 he is well into them), that surely earns him credit over the players who deteriorate significantly over the last few years of their careers.

That's not to say Tendulkar/Ponting's achievements earlier in their careers are devalued by later failures, but it is to say that in a head to head comparison with Sanga (if he continues in this vein) you'd have to accept that he continued with outstanding performances well into cricketing old-age, while some of his contemporaries who were his equal or better during their primes fell away more. And that might (obviously it doesn't for a lot of people) be the decisive factor in deciding that you prefer Sanga overall, if you see him as being in pretty close competition with the Pontings or Tendulkars.

FWIW I do see Sanga as being quite comparable to Sachin or Ponting, and I might just be inclined to rate him higher if he rounds out his career without ever deteriorating (as I would consider 37 to already be a pretty advanced age, and I would say he has already proven his rare ability to be outstanding at this age) as well as having kept for such a big chunk of his career, and having achieved such an extraordinary record when playing as a batsman alone. By all means, I understand the arguments that the "top tier" guys are a level above Sanga, but I just can't get to that place myself.

Yeah sure, but Sanga wasn't doing what Sachin did at 23 so him doing it at 37 is great, but doesn't make it better than what someone did at 23. Its overall years of service and runs that counts, not age of doing it.

 

[Dan]

At the end of the day, Tendulkar was averaging 40 in Test cricket (or whatever, something close to that) at the age when most people are more concerned with that new and cool alcohol thing, copping a feel, playing CoD or Habbo or something, and complaining about having to analyse why the curtains were blue in a novel.

No way that averaging 40 in Test cricket when your peers are all popping pimples and failing algebra should ever be held against you. It's ****ing amazing.

 

[Prince EWS]

Do you ever think less of a batsman for having a poor twilight of their career? In an overall sense of their career I mean.

I don't think less of them than I would if they'd just retired instead, no. Not justifying your spot in the side and not playing are basically the same thing to me.

I do think less of them than I would if they actually played well though.

 

[Blocky]

I can't believe anyone is trying to claim the "overall number of years that they did it that counted" in lieu of Sangakarra spending from 2005-2015 averaging over 70, amassing more than 100 runs per test on average (no one else except the Don has done that for a longer period)

 

[Cabinet96]

I don't think less of them than I would if they'd just retired instead, no. Not justifying your spot in the side and not playing are basically the same thing to me.

I do think less of them than I would if they actually played well though.

So do you actually think higher of someone like Alastair Cook now than you did a couple of years ago? Cause I'd hazard a guess that most certainly wouldn't. I guess you'd argue that what has happened since hasn't changed what happened from 2006-12, and I'd agree, but people can definitely use an argument that things like his 10/11 Ashes exploits were more the work of an unlikely purple patch or whatever given he did poorly in his last 10 Ashes tests.

 

[thierry henry]

Yeah sure, but Sanga wasn't doing what Sachin did at 23 so him doing it at 37 is great, but doesn't make it better than what someone did at 23. Its overall years of service and runs that counts, not age of doing it.

Absolutely...but then if Tendulkar was better at a younger age, and Sanga was better at an older age, and in the end Sanga's record is appreciably better...how do we get to "Tendulkar is better"?

Is it just the argument that Tendulkar had such a long career, and that you can take the middle chunk of his career where he had a similar record to Sanga, and the rest (several years of decent contributions at the beginning and end) is the cream on top which puts him above Sanga- arguably well above, given his career overall was 7-8 years longer than pretty much anyone's?

I understand the argument but it just doesn't do a lot for me. So he played really old, and he played really young, and during those times he wasn't nearly as good as he was during his prime years. That would probably apply to pretty much anyone else ever, Sanga included. I get the longevity argument, but "longevity while being inferior to your prime by about the amount you would expect someone out of their prime to be" seems to me a weird thing to lavish praise on someone for.

I guess if you stay around past your best (or before your best) and your record deteriorates because of it, I'm not going to disregard your excellence at peak, but nor am I going to give you credit for getting worse. And maybe if I'm comparing you to someone who also had a really long career and yet never deteriorated, I might lean towards that guy, because IMO sub-par performances have to count for something. Not diminishing from earlier performances, but they just have to be acknowledged in their own right.

 

[cnerd123]

It's an interesting debate this.

How much weight do you give to the Peak of a cricketer's performance vs. how he performed over the rest of his career?

Should the performances of a player before they found their feet at Test level and after they have passed their prime be counted against them? What about those who were thrust in early and succeeded, or those who defied age to succeed? How do you compare a player who only played Tests at the peak of their abilities against one who has played out an entire career at Test level?

Guys like Ryan Harris, Zaheer Khan, James Anderson, Ken Barrington, Clarrie Grimmet...all very relevant to this discussion.

 

[viriya]

At the end of the day, Tendulkar was averaging 40 in Test cricket (or whatever, something close to that) at the age when most people are more concerned with that new and cool alcohol thing, copping a feel, playing CoD or Habbo or something, and complaining about having to analyse why the curtains were blue in a novel.

No way that averaging 40 in Test cricket when your peers are all popping pimples and failing algebra should ever be held against you. It's ****ing amazing.

How hard is it to differentiate 27 and 40 ffs. "whatever, something close to that".. ok

 

[Contra]

The funny thing with Tendulkar was that even post 2011 WC he never genuinely looked out of form, he wasn't at his best, scratchy on occasions and his reflexes had slowed down. Despite all that he still looked like he could score runs any time, the only aspect of his game that had deteriorated was perhaps his batting against spin (off-spin in particular), and it wasn't even any technical issue, he just lost all confidence against spin and seemed to just play odd shots.

Some of the innings Tendulkar played post 2011 were only that Tendulkar could play imo, 73 @ MCG, 81 @ Chennai and even his 74 against WI came under massive crowd pressure.

 

[Blocky]

So do you actually think higher of someone like Alastair Cook now than you did a couple of years ago? Cause I'd hazard a guess that most certainly wouldn't. I guess you'd argue that what has happened since hasn't changed what happened from 2006-12, and I'd agree, but people can definitely use an argument that things like his 10/11 Ashes exploits were more the work of an unlikely purple patch or whatever given he did poorly in his last 10 Ashes tests.

I think when a purple patch lasts two years to three years, it's different than say a purple patch lasting a decade - as both Tendulkar and Sangakarra were able to do in their careers. Sanga was better in his "purple patch" which was "Hey, why don't I stop keeping all day, then coming out and batting three for a team that's never had more than one effective opener in the entire time I've played for it" versus Tendulkar's "purple patch" and overall, Sanga has been better.

I don't mind thinking about "A batsman's peak" - but it better comprise of at least 80% of their runs if you want it to hold merit in discussing them as a great player..

 

[thierry henry]

It's an interesting debate this.

How much weight do you give to the Peak of a cricketer's performance vs. how he performed over the rest of his career?

Should the performances of a player before they found their feet at Test level and after they have passed their prime be counted against them? What about those who were thrust in early and succeeded, or those who defied age to succeed? How do you compare a player who only played Tests at the peak of their abilities against one who has played out an entire career at Test level?

Guys like Ryan Harris, Zaheer Khan, James Anderson, Ken Barrington, Clarrie Grimmet...all very relevant to this discussion.

Yeah.

I really can't ever agree that you just disregard someone's performances when outside of their prime, even if it was a lengthy prime. At the very least you have to add a caveat ("Tendulkar is the best batsman of his era if you consider his era to be 1996-2010" or whatever). This is international sport we're talking about. The guy got selected and went out and played, and was obliged to perform well. I just can't get to the point of feeling sympathy (?) for someone for playing. You play and you get judged for how you perform. That's how it works.

As Blocky said above, Sangakkara has had a helluva long career. If he retires today I'd have to say "Sanga played forever and was pretty frickin awesome the whole time". Tendulkar or Ponting, I'd have to say "they played forever and were pretty frickin awesome most of the time, but significantly worse for a decent period of time at the end of their careers". Obviously you'd break down the specifics and the context more than that, but that's the gist of it. I'd find it bizarre to say that Sanga retiring at 37 somehow dodged an inevitable form slump or that I can't possibly compare him to Ponting/Tendulkar at 38/39, or I have to ignore that part of their careers to make a comparison. It just seems artificial to me. You can only base your views on what actually happened.

 

[Jono]

I can't believe anyone is trying to claim the "overall number of years that they did it that counted" in lieu of Sangakarra spending from 2005-2015 averaging over 70, amassing more than 100 runs per test on average (no one else except the Don has done that for a longer period)

This debate is beyond Sanga vs. Sachin/Ponting now. Its just conceptual. So cool your jets, its not an anti Sanga thing. Love the bloke to bits.

 

[Spark]

How hard is it to differentiate 27 and 40 ffs. "whatever, something close to that".. ok

think you need to read the post again

 

[Prince EWS]

So do you actually think higher of someone like Alastair Cook now than you did a couple of years ago?

Difficult question to answer coherently without invoking theoretical dimensions. I have lower expectations for his career than I did a couple of years ago, but if you want a compare two Cooks from parallel universes -- one from which he retired two yeas and one from which he retired yesterday -- I'd rate them about equally, or perhaps the "retired yesterday" version ever so slightly higher. I refuse to make assumptions about how I think a player might have gone if he played on once he retires (other than for fun, obvs); the burden of proof lies with the player.

Cause I'd hazard a guess that most certainly wouldn't.

I think that is exhibits a flaw in how most people rate players rather than how I do. A player's value fluctuates throughout his career; if you make assumptions about how they would have gone should they have played as long as someone else then you could be horribly wrong. Most people would not have expected Cook to bomb like he has, and the fact that he has, in a way, has vindicated my methodology. Leaving as many assumptions and guesses aside as possible (I mean, you do have to make some for the very fact that no two innings have ever faced the same challenges in he same game, let alone across eras) about how a player would have played in games he didn't play in is the only fair way to rate anyone.

 

[Jono]

Yeah.

I really can't ever agree that you just disregard someone's performances when outside of their prime, even if it was a lengthy prime.

What does that mean though? How can not playing when you're 20 and not helping your team be worth more than playing when you're 20 and averaging 40 and helping your team (cos no one else in that country is going to average 40)?

Its a team game.

 

[Prince EWS]

I really can't ever agree that you just disregard someone's performances when outside of their prime, even if it was a lengthy prime.

I agree with this. However I just can't ever agree that not playing should be considered better than being less than your best either.

I am definitely not a 'judge by peaks' guy. But I find sometimes that other people in my camp 'your entire career counts' make no attempt to reconcile the fact that some careers are longer than others.

I actually think the only way you can really argue Sanga > Tendulkar is by making a peak argument. All the evidence suggests Tendulkar was a much better cricketer when he was 18 than Sanga was when he was 18, so somehow making that count against Tendulkar just because Sanga wasn't good enough to be selected and have his Tests stats affected makes the least sense out of any of these positions.

 

[cnerd123]

Yeah.

I really can't ever agree that you just disregard someone's performances when outside of their prime, even if it was a lengthy prime. At the very least you have to add a caveat ("Tendulkar is the best batsman of his era if you consider his era to be 1996-2010" or whatever). This is international sport we're talking about. The guy got selected and went out and played, and was obliged to perform well. I just can't get to the point of feeling sympathy (?) for someone for playing. You play and you get judged for how you perform. That's how it works.

As Blocky said above, Sangakkara has had a helluva long career. If he retires today I'd have to say "Sanga played forever and was pretty frickin awesome the whole time". Tendulkar or Ponting, I'd have to say "they played forever and were pretty frickin awesome most of the time, but significantly worse for a decent period of time at the end of their careers". Obviously you'd break down the specifics and the context more than that, but that's the gist of it. I'd find it bizarre to say that Sanga retiring at 37 somehow dodged an inevitable form slump or that I can't possible compare him to Ponting/Tendulkar at 38/39. It just seems artificial to me. You can only base your views on what actually happened.

Yea, exactly. It's kind of hard to compare players with such different career progressions and yet such similar records.

One way I was thinking about going about it is breaking down each player's career into chunks. So for Sachin you have The Early Years, God Mode, Posts-Tennis Elbow Senior, and then Post-WC decline. For Sanga you basically have Sanga The Good Keeper and Sanga The Great Number 3.

You can then compare phase vs phase, and made give Sachin some credit for playing out essentially 3 careers + hanging about during his decline to mentor the new breed, while Sanga gets credit for being a solid keeper while averaging 40+, and for being so epic for so long at number 3.

You can then add criteria such as value to the team, the pressure they had to face, aesthetic value, and you can breakdown performances by country and opposition. Maybe also factor in match-winning and match-saving abilities too.

It's a rough idea but might lend more meaning to these discussions.

 

[Cabinet96]

Difficult question to answer coherently without invoking theoretical dimensions. I have lower expectations for his career than I did a couple of years ago, but if you want a compare two Cooks from parallel universes -- one from which he retired two yeas and one from which he retired yesterday -- I'd rate them about equally, or perhaps the "retired yesterday" version ever so slightly higher. I refuse to make assumptions about how I think a player might have gone if he played on once he retires (other than for fun, obvs); the burden of proof lies with the player.



I think that is exhibits a flaw in how most people rate players rather than how I do. A player's value fluctuates throughout his career; if you make assumptions about how they would have gone should they have played as long as someone else then you could be horribly wrong. Most people would not have expected Cook to bomb like he has, and the fact that he has, in a way, has vindicated my methodology. Leaving as many assumptions and guesses aside as possible (I mean, you do have to make some for the very fact that no two innings have ever faced the same challenges in he same game, let alone across eras) about how a player would have played in games he didn't play in is the only fair way to rate anyone.

Yeah thanks. I guess most people when rating Cook a couple years ago would've almost assumed he would continue performing at at least a decent level for a while, since he was still very much in his prime years age wise. I think you tend to rate players kind of based on the value they brought, but discounting individual team specifics and looking in a hypothetical any team ever, kind of way. So longevity makes a player more valuable because they're around performing for longer. Whereas others tend to think "I thought he was this good a batsman, but him struggling has since made me revaluate how good he was and how well he would perform in a longer career", so longevity just reassures them how likely it would've been for him to continue along that path. I always tend to think about your methodology (or what I considered it to be) more easily by thinking about things like Soccer, or even the IPL, where the value you get from someone is relative to how much you pay for them.

 

[Blocky]

I actually think the only way you can really argue Sanga > Tendulkar is by making a peak argument. All the evidence suggests Tendulkar was a much better cricketer when he was 18 than Sanga was when he was 18, so somehow making that count against Tendulkar just because Sanga wasn't good enough to be selected and have his Tests stats affected makes the least sense out of any of these positions.

By this measure though, Steve Waugh wasn't a good cricketer, nor was Ricky Ponting, nor was Damien Martyn, nor was Justin Langer, nor was Matty Hayden, nor was Martin Crowe. You've got to take into account that being a great international cricketer generally means being able to adapt, adjust and find a way to perform.

Also if you compare the ages in which most of their runs were scored, Tendulkar scored most of his runs between 24-36. Sanga scored all of his runs from 24-36.