Kumar Sangakkara and Adam Gilchrist

[silentstriker]

Gilchrist has obviously had the better career so far, but right now you'd take Sanga every single time. He's the better player at the moment, just like Ponting is the better player than Tendulkar.

Thats Exactly what I said, what are you arguing about?

As of this moment, Sanga is better

 

[PhoenixFire]

And you'd know because you watched them?
Or because of all the cricket literature youv'e read?

Oh yeah that's right, that Cricinfo 1 paragraph summary is all you need to know.

Gilchrist has obviously had the better career so far, but right now you'd take Sanga every single time. He's the better player at the moment, just like Ponting is the better player than Tendulkar.

What's so obvious?

 

[Jono]

I'm arguing about you bagging older cricketers not Sanga or Gilly.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

If you were picking a World XI side at the moment, the structure of your side (especially your top 4) would decide whether you pick Sangy or Gilly. Sangy has to bat in your top 4 IMO, and if you can't fit him in there, I don't think there's a point batting him low in the order because Gilchrist can do what he did today.

Their glovework is reasonably close for mine and makes very little difference in the choice.

 

[silentstriker]

I'm arguing about you bagging older cricketers not Sanga or Gilly.

That was said in jest, and I don't "bag" them. I think overall, the quality of cricket pre-professional era was not very good, and it is perhaps something that a lot of people fail to take into account. Hobbs, Bradman, Hammond, Trueman, etc would all make my all time side, as an example. It's possible I underrate them, but I don't 'bag' them.

 

[PY]

Use quotations (properly ), I've no idea who's replying to who in here.

 

[Jono]

What's so obvious?

Well, people use the argument that Gilly has dug in against weaker attacks on flat tracks right? Sanga came even later.

I love Sanga, easily one of my favourite players not only now, but ever. But its too early to claim that if both were to retire now due to injury or whatever, that Sanga would go down as the better player.

 

[Jono]

Use quotations (properly ), I've no idea who's replying to who in here.

Haha that's so true. I completely buggered this thread with my quick reply work.

 

[PY]

I've

no i

dea

w

hat you're talking about.

In answer to the thread, I think both at their prime at about the same to me but Gilchrist did it for longer so I'd go with him at the moment but I'm not against Sanga moving in if he sustains his form for 5 years.

 

[Dasa]

If you were picking a World XI side at the moment, the structure of your side (especially your top 4) would decide whether you pick Sangy or Gilly. Sangy has to bat in your top 4 IMO, and if you can't fit him in there, I don't think there's a point batting him low in the order because Gilchrist can do what he did today.

Their glovework is reasonably close for mine and makes very little difference in the choice.

Agree with everything you've said there.

 

[marc71178]

Fair knock by both players this past couple of days though. Sanga was backs to the wall stuff which is likely to turn out match-winning, whilst Gilly's was just pure entertainment.

IMO Sangakkara's was 10 times the innings Gilchrist's was.

 

[Jono]

IMO Sangakkara's was 10 times the innings Gilchrist's was.

Haha obviously. One is going to likely win their team a test match and draw a series, the other was just fun.

But still, you can't deny Gilly was amazing.

 

[kwigibo]

Put this into cotntext of facts. Sangakkara averages more runs per innings, he averages less matches per hundred, averages a fair but more runs per match, plays in a far weaker team, has to (unlike Gilchrist) play against Australia), has a higher highest score and contributed to the highest ever FC and Test Partnership of all time.

I think you're taking this out of context. Excepting average and country, do you think these stats have anything to do with position in the batting order? Coming after what has usually been 6 very competent and prolific batsman, do you expect one to feature in record partnerships or score hundreds at a higher frequency. An excellent player like Sangakkara in a lesser team batting in the top 5 should score more hundreds and hit more runs per match etc., I don't think that speaks to the two players' relative value.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Haha obviously. One is going to likely win their team a test match and draw a series, the other was just fun.

But still, you can't deny Gilly was amazing.

I don't think anyone is doubting how good the innings was, just Sangakkaras was a lot more difficult in the circumstances. I didn't matter one bit if Gilchrist got out half way through, Sri Lanka would be screwed if Sanagkkara got out.

 

[Jono]

I don't think anyone is doubting how good the innings was, just Sangakkaras was a lot more difficult in the circumstances. I didn't matter one bit if Gilchrist got out half way through, Sri Lanka would be screwed if Sanagkkara got out.

I know, I just acknowledged the irony that both men just scored centuries in the last two days, when we're having this convo.

I watched Sanga's knock, it was amazing. So was his ton in the 1st test.

Is he in the top 5 batsman in the world ATM? Ponting, Hussey and Yousuf are given, and you'd still take Dravid over him. Lara too. That about it?

 

[PhoenixFire]

In my books, in no particular order:

Ponting, Yousuf, Hussey, Pietersen, Sangakkara, Clarke, Dravid and Lara.

 

[aussie tragic]

In my books, in no particular order:

Ponting, Yousuf, Hussey, Pietersen, Sangakkara, Clarke, Dravid and Lara.

Finallly, this thread has gotten to where it should be, i.e. comparing Sangakkara with other Middle order batsmen as he's not the current SL WK anyway.

As to whose century was better, its a pointless argument for the same reason, you're comparing a # 3 Batsman innings with that of a # 7 WK innings.

 

[aussie tragic]

Some interesting stats of players keeping vs non-keeping:

Sangakkara: 81.31 vs 41.24 as keeper
Walcott: 64.67 vs 40.36 as keeper
Stewart: 46.70 vs 34.92 as keeper
Phillips: 40.31 vs 29.12 as keeper

So this definitely implies that keeping takes a bit away from the batting and therefore maybe Gilchrist would be averaging 60 if he was just playing as a batsman

Seems like a sound argument until Flower goes and messes it up by actually averaging more as a WK then as a batsman (35.45 vs 53.71 as keeper)

 

[PhoenixFire]

It depends really on the individual. Sangakkara once said that it helped him personally keeping, because he had the best view of the pitch, and how it would behave.

 

[pasag]

Agree with Smith here.

Two of my favorite players as well.