Shaun Pollock vs Kumar Sangakarra

[Prince EWS]

Apart from Gilchrist and Knott, who else is clearly ahead of Sanga as wicket-keeper in test cricket history? There are about 20 pacers ahead of Pollock.

At a 3 pacer:1 keeper ratio, Sanga still takes it over Pollock I think.

I think Waite was better.

I actually think Sanga would have been #1 if just focussed on being a WKB his whole career. He had a higher calling in his team though, especially given PJ existed.

 

[Himannv]

Apart from Gilchrist and Knott, who else is clearly ahead of Sanga as wicket-keeper in test cricket history? There are about 20 pacers ahead of Pollock.

At a 3 pacer:1 keeper ratio, Sanga still takes it over Pollock I think.

Ames. Also most people just pick Sanga as a specialist bat due to the stats difference. If you're talking about pure keeping ability, there are several others (including some from Sri Lanka).

 

[Adorable Asshole]

This is a great thread though. Those who only want to compare players who are very similar are boring and should feel bad.

Based

Sanga based on the below

Where do you think I got the idea from?

 

[Himannv]

I think Waite was better.

I actually think Sanga would have been #1 if just focussed on being a WKB his whole career. He had a higher calling in his team though, especially given PJ existed.

I agree that he should have just been a pure keeper.

I feel he's a better limited overs keeper than a Test keeper in general. He just seemed more consistent with lesser overs to keep to so it suited him better in my view.

 

[Prince EWS]

I agree that he should have just been a pure keeper.

I feel he's a better limited overs keeper than a Test keeper in general. He just seemed more consistent with lesser overs to keep to so it suited him better in my view.

Yeah batting 3 and keeping in Tests just isn't really sustainable. It's not a surprise that he got sloppier when he had to keep/bat for longer periods.

If he batted 5-6 and kept his entire Test career he'd have been comfortably better than Gilchirst IMO. But it's speculation.

 

[Himannv]

Yeah batting 3 and keeping in Tests just isn't really sustainable. It's not a surprise that he got sloppier when he had to keep/bat for longer periods.

If he batted 5-6 and kept his entire Test career he'd have been comfortably better than Gilchirst IMO. But it's speculation.

I think we can say he'd be a better Test bat with hindsight in mind and I reckon he'd have averaged 40ish, but it'd be less than what Gilchrist averaged. I think it's underrated how good an environment that Aussie team created for Gilchrist to score runs. By the time he came to the crease, there was rarely any pressure and he could bat relatively freely.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Agree this is a good comparison because, weirdly, these two are exactly as good as each other.

 

[The_CricketUmpire]

Some comparisons are just too ridiculous for words. This is one of them.

Agreed.

 

[BazBall21]

I think batting specialist vs bowling specialist is actually quite fun and perfectly valid. This is really hard though because of Pollock's extra batting.

 

[Silver Silva]

Sangakkara a much better cricketer than Pollock.

 

[BazBall21]

Big win for Sanga. Pollock vs Miandad or Walcott etc might be closer.

 

[BazBall21]

I think I'd take Donald over Dravid and Sangakkara but it would be very close