Kumar Sangakarra

Remove this Banner Ad

DT_fanatic said:
Don't think that's a very useful basis for comparison, Sanga has played 144 innings v Tendulkar's 329 innings.
Click to expand...

And Bradman played just 80 Test innings, all of which were either in Australia or England. 10 of his Test centuries came against weak West Indian, South African and Indian teams of his day too, in three five-match Test series where Australia had a combined record of 13 wins, one draw and one loss. Nobody discounts his record because of it though.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

Buzzasto DaSilva said:
Surely you are joking? You think this current group of Australians are better than Sangakarra or Kallis? o_O
Click to expand...
Seems like a Bradesmaen-Warner type relationship.
 
Buzzasto DaSilva said:
Surely you are joking? You think this current group of Australians are better than Sangakarra or Kallis? o_O
Click to expand...

if the likes of clarke, smith and warner played on those shithouse subcontinent pitches, their averages would look even better.

as it stands, clarkey averages 50+ and does it playing most of his matches on proper cricket pitches. he is better than all these subcontinent flat track bullies we hear about
 
CheekyMonkey said:
if the likes of clarke, smith and warner played on those shithouse subcontinent pitches, their averages would look even better.

as it stands, clarkey averages 50+ and does it playing most of his matches on proper cricket pitches. he is better than all these subcontinent flat track bullies we hear about
Click to expand...
I want to place you on my ignore list but your posts are hilarious
 
Cristiano Ronaldo said:
I want to place you on my ignore list but your posts are hilarious
Click to expand...

u know i'm right tho




d3Os2lG.gif
 
Damon_3388 said:
And Bradman played just 80 Test innings, all of which were either in Australia or England. 10 of his Test centuries came against weak West Indian, South African and Indian teams of his day too, in three five-match Test series where Australia had a combined record of 13 wins, one draw and one loss. Nobody discounts his record because of it though.
Click to expand...

I'm not discounting him, I've already said in this thread that Sangakarra belongs in the same bracket as Tendulkar, Lara etc. Still don't think using that average is a useful way of claiming Sanga is better, it isn't 30-40 points better like the Don's was.

And to even compare them and argue one is better than the other is splitting hairs IMO.
 
DT_fanatic said:
I'm not discounting him, I've already said in this thread that Sangakarra belongs in the same bracket as Tendulkar, Lara etc. Still don't think using that average is a useful way of claiming Sanga is better, it isn't 30-40 points better like the Don's was.

And to even compare them and argue one is better than the other is splitting hairs IMO.
Click to expand...
No, but it's 15 points better. When comparing champions of the game, 15 points is a massive difference. Nobody will ever get near the Don, but in other circumstances, 15 points is a massive margin.
 
CheekyMonkey said:
if the likes of clarke, smith and warner played on those shithouse subcontinent pitches, their averages would look even better.

as it stands, clarkey averages 50+ and does it playing most of his matches on proper cricket pitches. he is better than all these subcontinent flat track bullies we hear about
Click to expand...
How do explain Jacques Kallis then? Dodgy South African pitches??

This is the best thing about Test cricket, a variety of conditions. Supporters of Indian and Sri Lankan cricket probably think our pitches are shithouse.
 
Last edited:
Buzzasto DaSilva said:
How do explain Jacques Kallis then? Dodgy South African pitches??

This is the best thing about Test cricket, a variety of conditions. Supporters of Indian and Sri Lankan cricket probably think our pitches are shithouse.
Click to expand...

Its always been interesting to watch how the usage of subcontinental pitches flips and flops depending on the poster's ignorance/hypocrisy.

For example, when assessing the likes of Tendulkar, Sangakarra etc, we hear that they've just feasted on absolute roads at home and how easy it is to score runs.

But then its pointed out how poor Ponting's record is in India, but the story conveniently changes to the the pitches there being 'doctored' and anyone can take wickets on those dustbowls there.

However, Warne didn't have a great time there either and on Indian pitches in particular, his record is also quite ordinary. But then, the story flips again to being forced to play on roads that offer nothing for the bowlers.

The story just continues to change depending on the bias view the poster is trying to make.

Quite amusing to watch.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

eth-dog said:
No, but it's 15 points better. When comparing champions of the game, 15 points is a massive difference. Nobody will ever get near the Don, but in other circumstances, 15 points is a massive margin.
Click to expand...

You're using very selective stats though. You could find a similarly long period of Tendulkar or Ponting's career where they averaged 70 if you're willing to exclude periods that don't flatter them.
 
It is soooo funny people that want to bag subcontinental players for having to play on easy pitches. If its so easy why do other players struggle? Ponting etc? And when a subcontinent bowler does well why do people say the pitches favour them??? waht is it? easy batting pitch or bowling pitch?? people are confused. WHen AUstralia play they play on wickets that suit them too??? They play against piss weak bowling attacks. The SL attack yesterday was woeful as was the indian attack in the tests here as was many english and west indian attacks that Australians have plundered runs against. Australia have won 1 serious in half a century in India and only 1 in Pakistan i think...hardly great stats.
 
SriLankanCat said:
It is soooo funny people that want to bag subcontinental players for having to play on easy pitches. If its so easy why do other players struggle? Ponting etc? And when a subcontinent bowler does well why do people say the pitches favour them??? waht is it? easy batting pitch or bowling pitch?? people are confused. WHen AUstralia play they play on wickets that suit them too??? They play against piss weak bowling attacks. The SL attack yesterday was woeful as was the indian attack in the tests here as was many english and west indian attacks that Australians have plundered runs against. Australia have won 1 serious in half a century in India and only 1 in Pakistan i think...hardly great stats.
Click to expand...
The people that live here are idiots.
 
Buzzasto DaSilva said:
How do explain Jacques Kallis then? Dodgy South African pitches??

This is the best thing about Test cricket, a variety of conditions. Supporters of Indian and Sri Lankan cricket probably think our pitches are shithouse.
Click to expand...

nothing wrong with kallis, i was talking about sangakara.

if thats the way they think, they are idiots. australian pitches are proper cricket pitches, we don't play on rolled fertilizer like they do over there. i mean seriously, could clarkey take 6/9 on any of our decks? those matches shouldn't even count.

success in australia/south africa/england and to a lesser extent NZ, is what batsmen should be judged on.
 
SriLankanCat said:
It is soooo funny people that want to bag subcontinental players for having to play on easy pitches. If its so easy why do other players struggle? Ponting etc? And when a subcontinent bowler does well why do people say the pitches favour them??? waht is it? easy batting pitch or bowling pitch?? people are confused. WHen AUstralia play they play on wickets that suit them too??? They play against piss weak bowling attacks. The SL attack yesterday was woeful as was the indian attack in the tests here as was many english and west indian attacks that Australians have plundered runs against. Australia have won 1 serious in half a century in India and only 1 in Pakistan i think...hardly great stats.
Click to expand...

doctored pitches - a.k.a rolled fertilizer - where a spinner doesn't even have to spin the ball, just land on the giant heckin'g crack.

the umpires, they are all dodgy. i mean how many wickets would murali have got if he wasn't allowed to chuck 50 overs in a row by helpful umps. i still haven't forgotten that racist w***er harbajaan singh, take a look at his hat-trick - if that isn't disgraceful umpiring than i don't know what is. it was appalling.

then theres the crowds, the pollution, etc. yes, i guess we're not used to all that.

in spite of all those circumstances, australia actually won test series in india the one time and won multiple test series against sri lanka (we whitewashed u 3-0) and pakistan. no subcontinent team has EVER come close to winning a test series in australia. and they never will

why dont u admit that clarkey is better than sangakkara?
 
CheekyMonkey said:
doctored pitches - a.k.a rolled fertilizer - where a spinner doesn't even have to spin the ball, just land on the giant heckin'g crack.

the umpires, they are all dodgy. i mean how many wickets would murali have got if he wasn't allowed to chuck 50 overs in a row by helpful umps. i still haven't forgotten that racist ****** harbajaan singh, take a look at his hat-trick - if that isn't disgraceful umpiring than i don't know what is. it was appalling.

then theres the crowds, the pollution, etc. yes, i guess we're not used to all that.

in spite of all those circumstances, australia actually won test series in india the one time and won multiple test series against sri lanka (we whitewashed u 3-0) and pakistan. no subcontinent team has EVER come close to winning a test series in australia. and they never will
Click to expand...

LOL clearly you are trying to bait people which is sad enough or if not you need some serious help :) either way couldnt care less what you say :)

FACT: Murali is a legend who is the greatest wicket taker of all time
FACT: Sri Lanka won the world cup in 1996 and made finals in 2007 and 2011
FACT: Sangakarra is probably the best batsman since Bradman (ok this is an opinion)
FACT: you can respond in whatever way you want, couldnt care less waht you think ;)
 
SriLankanCat said:
LOL clearly you are trying to bait people which is sad enough or if not you need some serious help :) either way couldnt care less what you say :)

FACT: Murali is a legend who is the greatest wicket taker of all time
FACT: Sri Lanka won the world cup in 1996 and made finals in 2007 and 2011
FACT: Sangakarra is probably the best batsman since Bradman (ok this is an opinion)
FACT: you can respond in whatever way you want, couldnt care less waht you think ;)
Click to expand...


FACT:
49796.2.jpg


FACT: don't care. australia has 4 world cups
FACT: clarkey is better
FACT: u do, which is why u replied

:D:D:D:D
 
CheekyMonkey said:
why dont u admit that clarkey is better than sangakkara?
Click to expand...
Who cares?

I don't see the point of comparing great players for the sake of a pissing contest.

Why not just admit they are both great players and leave it at that?
 
Barry_Badrinath said:
You're using very selective stats though. You could find a similarly long period of Tendulkar or Ponting's career where they averaged 70 if you're willing to exclude periods that don't flatter them.
Click to expand...
Neither of them ever kept in test cricket though. Averaging 69 over an 82 test period is nothing short of remarkable, especially since the closest rival since, say, 1990, averages a whopping 14 less (Kallis). When playing as a pure bat Sanga is statistically only beaten by the greatest cricketer ever and arguably the greatest sportsman ever.
 
eth-dog said:
Neither of them ever kept in test cricket though. Averaging 69 over an 82 test period is nothing short of remarkable, especially since the closest rival since, say, 1990, averages a whopping 14 less (Kallis). When playing as a pure bat Sanga is statistically only beaten by the greatest cricketer ever and arguably the greatest sportsman ever.
Click to expand...

Kallis' career average is 14 less than Sangakkara's selective stats average. If you want to play the selective game though Kallis had an average of just under 73 for a 60 match stretch. He also took over 120 wickets in that time. I don't think we should dismiss Sangakkara's batting form when he kept but ignore the effect that bowling would've had on Kallis.
 
Barry_Badrinath said:
Kallis' career average is 14 less than Sangakkara's selective stats average. If you want to play the selective game though Kallis had an average of just under 73 for a 60 match stretch. He also took over 120 wickets in that time. I don't think we should dismiss Sangakkara's batting form when he kept but ignore the effect that bowling would've had on Kallis.
Click to expand...
Wow.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Kumar Sangakarra

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top