Kumar Sangakarra

[raptalia]

Would be in my top 10 for batsmen I've seen since I started watching the game in 1976. An wonderful talent, but I think his average is inflated by playing against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh many times more compared to others I rate.

That about sums it up. A talented player but his figures are inflated by good performances against minnows. Against Australia, South Africa and England Sangakarra averages around 44. A useful average but against Bangladesh he has played 15 Tests for an Average of 95 and another 5 against Zimbabwe for an average of 89.00. Those 20 Tests plus good performances on the flatter sub continent pitches against India and Pakistan tend to inflate Sangakarra's comparison with Lara, Tendulkar Ponting etc. and that is a point other posters have made.

Even Dizzy Gillespie made a double century against Bangladesh back in 2006. That may be the last time Australia played Bangladesh in a Test.

 

[Power Raid]

Would be in my top 10 for batsmen I've seen since I started watching the game in 1976. An wonderful talent, but I think his average is inflated by playing against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh many times more compared to others I rate.

how do you come to that conclusion? his average against the big 4 sides is the same as his actual average

 

[sherb]

That about sums it up. A talented player but his figures are inflated by good performances against minnows. Against Australia, South Africa and England Sangakarra averages around 44. A useful average but against Bangladesh he has played 15 Tests for an Average of 95 and another 5 against Zimbabwe for an average of 89.00. Those 20 Tests plus good performances on the flatter sub continent pitches against India and Pakistan tend to inflate Sangakarra's comparison with Lara, Tendulkar Ponting etc. and that is a point other posters have made.

Even Dizzy Gillespie made a double century against Bangladesh back in 2006. That may be the last time Australia played Bangladesh in a Test.

Against South Africa and England Ponting averaged 45.62.

Against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh Tendulkar scored 1738 runs at 124.14.

So -

You can do with stats what you want to support a pre-conceived view. Especially when you are talking about a group of players such as Kallis, Sanga, Ponting, Lara, Tendulkar, Shiv and Dravid - who have scored so many runs in so many test matches, played all over the world at so many venues over such long careers.

 

[CURVE]

how do you come to that conclusion? his average against the big 4 sides is the same as his actual average

I'm guessing the same way you came up with your conclusion. A mixture of statistics, reports, video footage and comparisons against other players I have witnessed over the last 40 years.

 

[KissKiss]

Personally have him with Kallis (his allround record boosts him up) as the best two players I have seen.

 

[sherb]

Let's work the stats the other way then.

Expecting a full-time keeper to also bat at no 3 is a considerable burden to bear and would reflect in the player's batting output.

So let's look at Sangakkara's record when playing as a batsman only, against each country.
v Aust 764 runs at 63.66
v Bangladesh 1612 runs at 124.00
v England 852 runs at 47.33
v India 937 runs at 66.92
v NZ 816 runs at 58.28
v Pak 2126 runs at 75.92
v SA 1251 runs at 59.57
v WI 442 runs at 55.25
v Zim 281 runs at 140.50

Nice massaging........

 

[Glacier]

My opinion for what its worth is that he is the most watchable batsmen I have seen, makes batting seem so easy and to me his timing is a delight
He seems to hardly hit the ball, yet it screams across the turf, particularly his cover drives
I rate him very very highly, perhaps below Lara and above Kallis, Tendulkar and Ponting as the best I have seen

De Villiers is quickly rising up the ranks as well

 

[thetank]

That about sums it up. A talented player but his figures are inflated by good performances against minnows. Against Australia, South Africa and England Sangakarra averages around 44. A useful average but against Bangladesh he has played 15 Tests for an Average of 95 and another 5 against Zimbabwe for an average of 89.00. Those 20 Tests plus good performances on the flatter sub continent pitches against India and Pakistan tend to inflate Sangakarra's comparison with Lara, Tendulkar Ponting etc. and that is a point other posters have made.

1. "The Bangladesh/Zimbabwe" argument:
Even when you take out Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, Sanga has still averaged 62.50 while playing only as a batsman. 126 innings, 11 no, 7188 runs.

Sanga is easily superior to any batsman of the modern era over an equivalent data set.

2. "Runs on the subcontinent" argument:
This argument doesn't really make much sense. If it is so much easier to score on the subcontinent then this should be reflected in the averages of other great batsmen.

As it stands:
- Ponting was rubbish in India (av 26.48 in 14 tests), while playing only 1 test in Pakistan for a ton;
- Tendulkar averaged 52.67 and 40.25 in India and Pakistan, respectively;
- Viv Richards 45.42 and 42.76;
- Lara 33 in India (only 3 tests) and 48.15 in Pakistan.
- Steve Waugh 47.36 and 41.50.

This random selection of modern day greats shows that, if anything, it is HARDER to score in the subcontinent than in other parts of the world.

At the end of the day, players may score more in one place than another. It shouldn't really matter too much where the runs are score, unless there is a failure to perform in certain conditions - to this end, there is a big question mark on the careers of the following:-
- Warne in India - the best players of spin tore him to pieces for an average of 43.11;
- Ponting in India (av 26.48, Harbajan cleaned him up).
- Although not so big a question mark, away from home and excluding the minnows Ponting managed to average above 50 only in New Zealand and the West Indies...so obviously Ponting was far weaker overseas than at home.

(Australian/western media will never bring these facts up though...)

3. "Stats don't tell the whole story" argument
Stats tell 99% of the story, with the 1% being made up of declining performances due to old age, injuries, and running up of stats against poor teams. Stats are by far the most objective way to ascertain a player's output.

One thing that has been frequently done in this thread are opinions made based on what people "have seen". People have seen Tendulkar, Lara and Richards perform great feats in Australia, and thus they doubt that Sanga could displace any of these batsmen.

However, we in Australia only get to see a very small proportion of all these batters' careers! Maybe 10-20 innings, maximum. Even professional commentators and players only get to see a small proportion of these batters' innings...I doubt if even Richie Benaud has seen 20% of Sangakkara's career.

The only measure that captures the entirety of a player's career? Statistics.

 

[raptalia]

Let's work the stats the other way then.

Expecting a full-time keeper to also bat at no 3 is a considerable burden to bear and would reflect in the player's batting output.

So let's look at Sangakkara's record when playing as a batsman only, against each country.
v Aust 764 runs at 63.66
v Bangladesh 1612 runs at 124.00
v England 852 runs at 47.33
v India 937 runs at 66.92
v NZ 816 runs at 58.28
v Pak 2126 runs at 75.92
v SA 1251 runs at 59.57
v WI 442 runs at 55.25
v Zim 281 runs at 140.50

Nice massaging........

Those figures give Sangakarra an average of 77 while his Test average is 58. You accuse others of 'massaging' yet you want to talk about a 'batsman only'. That Sangakarra played as a wicket keeper early in his career is a credit to him but he is judged on his entire career not just the bits you want to include.
I will judge Sangakarra by the career stats shown in the record books you are free to invent your own version.

Massaging, you should open your own parlour.

 

[thetank]

Those figures give Sangakarra an average of 77 while his Test average is 58. You accuse others of 'massaging' yet you want to talk about a 'batsman only'. That Sangakarra played as a wicket keeper early in his career is a credit to him but he is judged on his entire career not just the bits you want to include.
I will judge Sangakarra by the career stats shown in the record books you are free to invent your own version.

Massaging, you should open your own parlour.

4. The "judge Sangakkara over his whole career" argument

Sanga critics always want to ignore the parts of Sanga's career where he may have had an "advantage" (eg. against Zim and Bangladesh), but hate to acknowledge when Sanga was at a "disadvantage" (ie. when keeping).

Ok then. If no stats are "massaged", then Sangakkara >>> Gilchrist.

Also, on this basis, Sanga is still better than any other batsmen post WW2 that has played 30+ tests...and he is still significantly ahead of Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting, S Waugh, Richards etc, who are all more than 10% in output behind Sanga.

 

[sherb]

Those figures give Sangakarra an average of 77 while his Test average is 58. You accuse others of 'massaging' yet you want to talk about a 'batsman only'. That Sangakarra played as a wicket keeper early in his career is a credit to him but he is judged on his entire career not just the bits you want to include.
I will judge Sangakarra by the career stats shown in the record books you are free to invent your own version.

Massaging, you should open your own parlour.

I am not pushing an agenda like others. I have said in this thread that I am not interested in trying to separate players like Tendulkar, Ponting, Lara, Kallis, Sangakkara etc.

I'm just playing the game to point out the futility of the never ending circle jerk which is trying to manipulate stats to suit an argument.

In other words, for just about every stat you want to produce to push someone like Sangakkara down in peoples' estimation, you can produce one as a counter balance.

As for the bolded, I'd suggest you keep that in mind the next time you want to produce a selective statistic in relation to Sangakkara as well.

And lastly, if you want to re-read my post, the last comment was a self-deprecating one directed at myself. I knew precisely what I was doing in my post.

 

[evdo1706]

By creating an "alien conditions" stat, you come up with a misleading result - either deliberately or otherwise.

Anyone reading it would reasonably conclude that Sangakkara's record in all five venues was well below his normally high standards.

Further to that, they would also reasonably conclude that he could not perform to his career standard outside of sub-continental conditions.

Neither is true. Because in both Australia and New Zealand his record is outstanding. And it is telling that is those two venues, because I have seen both are used as markers for sub-continental batsmen - Australia because of our attack and bouncier pitches and New Zealand because of their seaming pitches.

It's a classic example of what I was talking about. Massaging the stats to support an argument. In this case, an outstanding record in two countries being hidden in a wider statistic.

By all means, present such a statistic, but at least provide a further breakdown to show that it isn't as negative as it would appear.

It should be obvious to anyone who knows how averages are calculated that the individual values (in this case runs in those countries) are likely to be different from the average. An average includes both good and bad performances so that a fair assessment can be made. That is the whole point of calculating averages. By your logic, one should also stop calculating away averages. What I did was not very different from calculating away averages. I just picked the countries outside subcontinent (minus Zimbabwe).

 

[evdo1706]

Those figures give Sangakarra an average of 77 while his Test average is 58. You accuse others of 'massaging' yet you want to talk about a 'batsman only'. That Sangakarra played as a wicket keeper early in his career is a credit to him but he is judged on his entire career not just the bits you want to include.
I will judge Sangakarra by the career stats shown in the record books you are free to invent your own version.

Massaging, you should open your own parlour.

Sangakkara improved as a batsman massively in the later part of his career. Personally I don't think wicket keeping has a big role to play in it. Gilly was averaging in the 50s as a wicket keeper for a long time in his career. So just taking his good years is a form of cherry picking.

 

[KissKiss]

Sangakkara improved as a batsman massively in the later part of his career. Personally I don't think wicket keeping has a big role to play in it. Gilly was averaging in the 50s as a wicket keeper for a long time in his career. So just taking his good years is a form of cherry picking.

While there should be natural improvement over a career I disagree with you on how hard is is to keep. It definitely takes its toll and it would generally be easier (ie only have to focus on 1 job) to be a batsman only.

 

[Tulip]

Bradman

Tendulkar
Lara
Ponting Sangakarra
Dravid

How I rank the bets bat of all time followed by the best in this era.

 

[QAFL_Fan]

While there should be natural improvement over a career I disagree with you on how hard is is to keep. It definitely takes its toll and it would generally be easier (ie only have to focus on 1 job) to be a batsman only.

Gilly did that at #7, not #3.

Gilchrist could/would have been a top order or middle order batsman in most teams, including the current Australian one. But he played in an era where we only needed 4 bowlers, and had an abundance of batting talent - thus he was perfectly suited to plundering runs at #7.

 

[Buzzasto DaSilva]

For me Sangakarra is head and shoulders above Ponting and Tendulkar- the only one that is in his league for me is Dravid.

I hate the whole "weaker pitches in the subcontinent theory"- it makes no sense. If they are so easy, then how come Ponting was well below his best and time and time again Australian batsman struggle to adapt to Indian conditions? Yes, you can say that they struggle to adapt to the conditions; but so does every other batsman in the world when they come to Australia. The nature of Test cricket is the ability of teams to adapt to a variety of conditions, not every pitch should be like what we have here in Australia or England.

 

[sherb]

It should be obvious to anyone who knows how averages are calculated that the individual values (in this case runs in those countries) are likely to be different from the average. An average includes both good and bad performances so that a fair assessment can be made. That is the whole point of calculating averages. By your logic, one should also stop calculating away averages. What I did was not very different from calculating away averages. I just picked the countries outside subcontinent (minus Zimbabwe).

I am sure most people know how averages are calculated.

Your "alien conditions" stat nevertheless gives a grossly misleading impression regarding Sangakkara's performances in Australia and New Zealand.

It's just inventing a statistic to suit an argument.

Speaking of away averages, you could have used that of course, except an average of 53.65 was just a bit too high I guess.

 

[blackcat]

By creating an "alien conditions" stat, you come up with a misleading result - either deliberately or otherwise.

Anyone reading it would reasonably conclude that Sangakkara's record in all five venues was well below his normally high standards.

Further to that, they would also reasonably conclude that he could not perform to his career standard outside of sub-continental conditions.

Neither is true. Because in both Australia and New Zealand his record is outstanding. And it is telling that is those two venues, because I have seen both are used as markers for sub-continental batsmen - Australia because of our attack and bouncier pitches and New Zealand because of their seaming pitches.

It's a classic example of what I was talking about. Massaging the stats to support an argument. In this case, an outstanding record in two countries being hidden in a wider statistic.

By all means, present such a statistic, but at least provide a further breakdown to show that it isn't as negative as it would appear.

by sheer gravity of numbers, the amount of games played this is, it is a pretty good sample to filter out the good and bad and positive and negative and disadvantages and advantages. But the whack of games played, he has played across the spectrum of conditions. Hence, we get an average. i agree with your overarching motif here sherb and in previous contributions

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Bradman

Tendulkar
Lara
Ponting Sangakarra
Dravid

How I rank the bets bat of all time followed by the best in this era.

AB De Villers is better than Dravid but a pretty good list. Where is Kallis as well!

 

[Buzzasto DaSilva]

AB De Villers is better than Dravid but a pretty good list. Where is Kallis as well!

Talent wise maybe, but Dravid has the runs on the board and bailed out India so many times. I also favour him because he batted at three most of his career which is generally more difficult than 4/5. Each batsman has their own strengths and weaknesses but I feel as though Dravid was more vital to his team over the length of his career.

 

[SriLankanCat]

At this point someone mentioned wicket keepers...Andy Flower has to be the best keeper batsman

 

[Oaktree]

Talent wise maybe, but Dravid has the runs on the board and bailed out India so many times. I also favour him because he batted at three most of his career which is generally more difficult than 4/5. Each batsman has their own strengths and weaknesses but I feel as though Dravid was more vital to his team over the length of his career.

I think Dravid is highly underrated. For a few reasons, the fact he played in the same team as Tendulkar and he is almost more renowned his defense than offense stick out.

His overseas record is outstanding. I was watching highlights of his 2003/04 series in Australia recently and his strokeplay was magnificent.

The 91 not out he scored in the second innings of the SCG test is brilliant to watch, particularly his straight six off Bracken (10:15 on the link below).

 

[The Passenger]

Sangakkara improved as a batsman massively in the later part of his career. Personally I don't think wicket keeping has a big role to play in it. Gilly was averaging in the 50s as a wicket keeper for a long time in his career. So just taking his good years is a form of cherry picking.

It's hard to argue that keeping didn't effect his performances with the bat. Prior to giving up the gloves he had 48 tests keeping for an average of 40. During that period he didn't keep in 25 tests and averaged 88 in those tests.

And in those 25 tests, he belted basically everyone
v Aus, 389 runs @ 97
v Eng, 292 @ 72
v Saf, 899 @ 81

Didn't play during that period v India as a non keeper.

When your breaking down averages, I look for how many fails they have:

< 40 average v a country (Sango no fails)
< 40 average in a country (India, SAF, WIN, just passes in England)
< 40 average in first, second, third or fourth innings (none)
< 45 home or away (none). i don't worry about neutral unless > 10 tests played (Sanga passes anyway)
< 40 in losses (fail for Sanga)
< 40 in first or second test of a series (none)

Four fails is very very good.

Sachin has two (fourth innings, losses) and you'll find no one is lower than that, and one of the reasons why he is rated #1 by so many. The other great modern day players have around 3 to 6/7 categories that they failed in.

I also like to look at how many % of calendar years they average > 50 and Sanga's 10/15 is very high (and he also had a 49.23 a few years back).

For mine Sanga is probably just below Sachin (who I rate #1 since I've started watching around 1990), but he is getting rapidly closer and doesn't look like slowing down.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

At this point someone mentioned wicket keepers...Andy Flower has to be the best keeper batsman

Up there but only played 51 tests. Probably a couple ahead but not by much.