Test XI for The Last Quarter Century

[trundler]

Over how many matches is that?

 

[trundler]

Sanga only kept in a third of his tests. Why not give the gloves to AB? Hmm

 

[Bolo]

Sanga was a more polished (if less gifted) keeper than AB. He did a lot more keeping (ODIs count too).

He gets the gloves because Murali. If he's playing with Warne instead, it's a bit of a coin flip.

Bonus of getting AB as a regular fielder this way.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

There's no way to know how much Sangas stats are affected by wk though. With the gloves measures his formative batting years. Without them measures his prime batting years. I'm inclined to say it's more this than the gloves, because we know from other players prime years makes a big difference, but we don't really know how much of an affect keeping has on anyone. Plus his ODI stats went through the roof as well, despite continuing to keep.

5th ODI, Sri Lanka tour of South Africa at Bloemfontein, Jan 14 2001 | Match Summary | ESPNCricinfo

I don't doubt validity in what you're saying about Sanga's ODI career, but I think that there is a persuasive factor between his ODI batting average increasing was him getting into the #3 position from the middle order. Keeping for 50 overs was far less a factor than it may have been in tests as he was happy to do it in ODI and still bat at 3 but not happy to do it in tests due to the longer efforts required in the field.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...=0;template=results;type=batting;view=innings

Just look at his career stats not as a keeper in ODI. Is it the gloves, or the batting position? He is making far more runs in that list at 4 than he is at 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. And we know he goes on to peak at 3 (with the gloves).

In tests, he is batting far more consistently at 3 with or without gloves, and the difference is stark. But the time in the field is incomparable between test and odi.

As wk career http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...=1;template=results;type=batting;view=innings

As non/wk career http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...=0;template=results;type=batting;view=innings

Now if u split the overlap period of keeping and not keeping,

it remains the same for keeping at 40 for keeping obviously, and sky rockets to 83.05 between 2000 and 2008 for not keeping. I think that was enough for Sanga and the selectors to realise that keeping and batting 3 in tests was not for him nor for the best of the team.

Non w/k during years that he kept wicket http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...n;spanval2=span;template=results;type=batting*

Even if you take out his amazing 2007, it still skyrockets to 78.84 not keeping by limiting the overlap years to 2006 where he keeps 7 tests, instead 2008.

Non w/k during years 2000 to 2006 http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...9;spanval3=span;template=results;type=batting

Even if his ODI record is impacted by the gloves, and it probably was, it would have been impacted less from ODI compared to tests due to less time in the field (incl a close to guaranteed long innings break bar rain effected games or incredibly slow over rates), and because it was less, it was better for the team for him to keep and play a further batsman. This may help explain why Kumar has a philosophy of pick the best team, not the best the individuals for pre-defined roles. Or at least demonstrate that he certainly abided by his team first philosophy when both a senior player and a media commentator.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Overlooking Gilchrist and/or Dhoni then having to give the gloves to AB or Sanga doesn't make sense to me. You lose more by giving one of those the gloves than you would by picking Gilly or Dhoni instead of a batsman.

 

[trundler]

This is a second XI. GIlly is a lock in the first team. Probably the easiest selection in that team. Now, the 2nd team becomes difficult to balance and hence you need a WK batsman as good as in the first team. You need to match the first XI pound for pound. Dhoni really wasn't good enough in tests hence the AB/Sanga dilemma.

 

[TheJediBrah]

This is a second XI. GIlly is a lock in the first team. Probably the easiest selection in that team. Now, the 2nd team becomes difficult to balance and hence you need a WK batsman as good as in the first team. You need to match the first XI pound for pound. Dhoni really wasn't good enough in tests hence the AB/Sanga dilemma.

Yeah this is what happens when you're too lazy read through the whole discussion

 

[Bolo]

5th ODI, Sri Lanka tour of South Africa at Bloemfontein, Jan 14 2001 | Match Summary | ESPNCricinfo

I don't doubt validity in what you're saying about Sanga's ODI career, but I think that there is a persuasive factor between his ODI batting average increasing was him getting into the #3 position from the middle order. Keeping for 50 overs was far less a factor than it may have been in tests as he was happy to do it in ODI and still bat at 3 but not happy to do it in tests due to the longer efforts required in the field.

Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo

Just look at his career stats not as a keeper in ODI. Is it the gloves, or the batting position? He is making far more runs in that list at 4 than he is at 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. And we know he goes on to peak at 3 (with the gloves).

In tests, he is batting far more consistently at 3 with or without gloves, and the difference is stark. But the time in the field is incomparable between test and odi.

As wk career Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo

As non/wk career Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo

Now if u split the overlap period of keeping and not keeping,

it remains the same for keeping at 40 for keeping obviously, and sky rockets to 83.05 between 2000 and 2008 for not keeping. I think that was enough for Sanga and the selectors to realise that keeping and batting 3 in tests was not for him nor for the best of the team.

Non w/k during years that he kept wicket Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo*

Even if you take out his amazing 2007, it still skyrockets to 78.84 not keeping by limiting the overlap years to 2006 where he keeps 7 tests, instead 2008.

Non w/k during years 2000 to 2006 Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo

Even if his ODI record is impacted by the gloves, it would have been impacted less from ODI to tests due to less time in the field, and because it was less, it was better for the team for him to keep and play a further batsman. This may help explain why Kumar has a philosophy of pick the best team, not the best the individuals for pre-defined roles. Or at least demonstrate that he certainly abides by his team first philosophy.

Unless a player takes strain from overall workload, I doubt there is too much of a relationship between keeping and batting average in ODIs. Time on the field as you say.

Sanga averaged less with the bat in ODIs when he didn't have the gloves. But this is early in his career when he wasn't the bat he became. There's no correlation between Sangas batting performance in ODIs + tests for keeping/not keeping, but there is one for batting performance by age.

There is a definite relationship between batting position and average in ODIs. In general, the higher you bat, the higher you average. Partly a result of having time to build an innings, but partly a result of putting your best bats near the top. As Sanga improved, he got shifted up the order. This probably created what looked like a positive feedback loop, and boosted his stats more than his improvement alone did. What was the relative impact of his improvement and his changing batting position? No way to tell, but he would never have moved up the order in the first place if he had not improved.

In tests, I would think there is a disadvantage to batting up the order. I don't think his performances improved from batting at 3. He was batting at 3 because his potential to perform improved. In

 

[cnerd123]

I think that Sanga's keeping is what enable him to become the batsman he was. Because he had an extended run at Test cricket on the basis of his keeping. If he wasn't a keeper, would he have played as many Tests, and would have have developed as well as he eventually did? That's hard to say for certain.

Keeping will always be a burden on a player, they're basically an allrounder. Anyone who bowls a substantial amount of overs isn't usually expected to bat a long innings too. So if you are to pick Sanga as a keeper, you have to expect that he won't average 66.

How much would prime Sanga average if he also had the burden of keeping? Hard to say.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Unless a player takes strain from overall workload, I doubt there is too much of a relationship between keeping and batting average in ODIs. Time on the field as you say.

Sanga averaged less with the bat in ODIs when he didn't have the gloves. But this is early in his career when he wasn't the bat he became. There's no correlation between Sangas batting performance in ODIs + tests for keeping/not keeping, but there is one for batting performance by age.

There is a definite relationship between batting position and average in ODIs. In general, the higher you bat, the higher you average. Partly a result of having time to build an innings, but partly a result of putting your best bats near the top. As Sanga improved, he got shifted up the order. This probably created what looked like a positive feedback loop, and boosted his stats more than his improvement alone did. What was the relative impact of his improvement and his changing batting position? No way to tell, but he would never have moved up the order in the first place if he had not improved.

In tests, I would think there is a disadvantage to batting up the order. I don't think his performances improved from batting at 3. He was batting at 3 because his potential to perform improved. In

All sounds good and reasonable to me, 1 comment though - a player does not have to have already improved to get opportunities higher in odi due to retirement and injury, but can then show improvement or more simply just reveal their existing talent with this opportunity.

 

[Burgey]

Why don't you go jump in a boiling hot spring, ****?

Edit: @ *****, obviously.

Edit2: maybe not. I dunno.

 

[Bolo]

I think that Sanga's keeping is what enable him to become the batsman he was. Because he had an extended run at Test cricket on the basis of his keeping. If he wasn't a keeper, would he have played as many Tests, and would have have developed as well as he eventually did? That's hard to say for certain.

Sanga was an excellent bat almost from the start. He would have made it as a specialist if he wasn't a keeper. I doubt keeping had much of an impact on his career trajectory or overall average.

If he'd continued to keep though, I reckon his average could have dipped a bit, or maybe it would have knocked some time off his career. One way or another, workload becomes meaningful with time.

All sounds good and reasonable to me, 1 comment though - a player does not have to have already improved to get opportunities higher in odi due to retirement and injury, but can then show improvement or more simply just reveal their existing talent with this opportunity.

Agreed

 

[cnerd123]

Why don't you go jump in a boiling hot spring, ****?

Edit: @ *****, obviously.

Edit2: maybe not. I dunno.

I'd love to but vacation is over and I'm back at work sadly

I'd recommend you do the same but it's probably not good for your old tame heart.

 

[cnerd123]

Sanga was an excellent bat almost from the start. He would have made it as a specialist if he wasn't a keeper. I doubt keeping had much of an impact on his career trajectory or overall average.

If he'd continued to keep though, I reckon his average could have dipped a bit, or maybe it would have knocked some time off his career. One way or another, workload becomes meaningful with time.



Agreed

No doubt Sanga was a talented batsman, but SL selection is whacky and for all we know he'd have been dumped after one bad series when young and still raw, be left to rot in Domestic cricket, and decide ultimately to give it all up and pursue a career as a lawyer.

Point being, we can't just assume his career would have turned out the same way if he was a specialist bat, and there is no doubt all that time and exposure at Test level ultimately shaped who Prime Sanga was - he didn't start off a child prodigy ala Sachin and Lara. He got significantly better with age and experience. The time spent as a keeper matters.

 

[Burgey]

What a depressing thought.

 

[cnerd123]

What a depressing thought.

IKR. Imagine being stuck pursuing a career in law. Wouldn't wish that even on my worst enemy.

 

[Burgey]

That’s exactly what I was saying, numbskull.

 

[cnerd123]

That’s exactly what I was saying, numbskull.

I know that's what you're saying, I'm just echoing the sentiment, dimwit

 

[TheJediBrah]

Unless a player takes strain from overall workload, I doubt there is too much of a relationship between keeping and batting average in ODIs. Time on the field as you say.

Sanga averaged less with the bat in ODIs when he didn't have the gloves. But this is early in his career when he wasn't the bat he became. There's no correlation between Sangas batting performance in ODIs + tests for keeping/not keeping, but there is one for batting performance by age.

There is a definite relationship between batting position and average in ODIs. In general, the higher you bat, the higher you average. Partly a result of having time to build an innings, but partly a result of putting your best bats near the top. As Sanga improved, he got shifted up the order. This probably created what looked like a positive feedback loop, and boosted his stats more than his improvement alone did. What was the relative impact of his improvement and his changing batting position? No way to tell, but he would never have moved up the order in the first place if he had not improved.

In tests, I would think there is a disadvantage to batting up the order. I don't think his performances improved from batting at 3. He was batting at 3 because his potential to perform improved. In

I've actually had experiences where keeping helped, back when I kept as a junior. Specifically when bowling first then opening the batting, it can almost feel as though you've already got your eye in so to speak. Keeping for 40-50 overs gives you a great idea of how the wicket is playing.

 

[Burgey]

I know that's what you're saying, I'm just echoing the sentiment, dimwit

Just like your posts.