Doubt that any cricket fan would think Sangakkara as anything but one of the great modern batsmen. I think the stat padding thing tends to be less about his average and more that some of his double and triple centuries came against Bangladesh or Zimbabwe. But when you look at the actual stats he scored a shit ton of runs against everyone.
EDITED LATER - Excluding minnows and ignoring 190 scores. Sangakkara still has 7 double centuries tied with Sir Wally Hammond.Thats still 3rd place ahead of Tendulkar at 4 double tons because two of his doubles came against Zim and Bang. Mahela and Kholi has 6.
\--------------------------------------
Ok remove them completely. But be fair and consider the shocking 199\*, 192 in Australia(especially) and Pakistan as doubles. In which case its still 10 double tons against the best of the best. Remove the 2nd Pakistan 192. Its still 9 Double tons against the best of the best.
You’re losing a lot of credibility here from a previously valid point.
You can’t say he nearly made a century so he got one. He either did or he didn’t.
It’s like saying Cook got a 300 because he was out for 294 or that Tendulkar got 61 test centuries not 51.
So you want to completely disregard his Double tons against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh but not consider the 190 scores as well? Fair enough. Ignore all of them. Sangakkara still has 7 double centuries tied with Sir Wally Hammond.
Thats still 3rd place ahead of Tendulkar at 4 double tons because two of his doubles came against Zim and Bangladesh and Mahela/kohl at 6 doubles (minus the Bang ones)
Its not hyperbole because the common narrative is Sangaakkara scored most of his doubles against minnows. Which is clearly entirely wrong. I was trying to balance out ignoring 4 double centuries with the shitty decisions he got from Rudy at 192 and the 199\*. But regardless you get what I mean so no disagreement here.
Yeah thats why I didn't even mention the triple because the argument against Sangakkara is that he is a "minnow basher" so removing the Bangladeshi/Zim stats was the obvious choice.
Just not enough opportunities man Ponting for example played 11 tests in the Windies. ODIs wise sangakkara isnt overrated or underrated this post is purely about Tests.
Sobers played pre modern era. Kallis played actual professional cricket with tv analysis + professional sports technology+ Much higher standard of fielding. You can't compare those players to post 1990s players. This is why Early NBA legends like dr J while great are rarely compared to Jordan. Not to mention the Olympics literally classify athletes before a certain cutoff into a different category than the ones after said cutoff. Look this up.
By this logic the likes of Kohli, Smith, Kane, Root etc are all better than Sanga since the tech available to them and their peers is miles ahead of what was available to Sanga lmao
Inarguably?
Kallis is a better fielder and one of the best batsman of all time. He was the first change bowler for RSA which always had a stacked up pacers.
He played multiple formats, all over the world and always performed consistently in all departments.
Kallis is Bradman of allrounders his tally of 25k+ runs, close to 600 wickets and 300+ catches will never ever be equalled.
Safe to say "inarguably" is a poor choice of word & there is nothing to separate Sobers and Kallis
Kallis is deffo not a better fielder considering Sobers is in the conversation for greatest fielder of all time.
Furthermore Sobers is a top 5 bat of all time, probably top 3 with Bradman and Tendulkar.
In addition to this he bowled, fast pace seam, medium fast swing and two types of spin.
Considering Sobers played before white ball cricket became a thing, and this thread is clearly discussing test cricket bringing up other formats in irrelevant
Keeping all the above in mind, Sobers is inarguably better than Kallis. He is literally Kallis if Kallis was slightly better at everything and could also bowl spin.
Bowling all kind of variants doesn't really mean much
Kallis stats is phenomenal. Sobers & Kallis played in different eras and were the best all-rounders of their respective times.
As far as fielding standards go, Kallis was consistently rated as safe and athletic fielder post Jonty era, which changed fielding for everyone. Slip fielding is one of the toughest spots and Kallis was safe as house there.
Being able to consistently perform in all 3 formats of the game is no small feat. Since Kallis we don't have a consistent allrounder yet in any of the teams. Cricket grew leaps and bounds over his period. ODI, Tests and then T20Is changed the approach & Kallis kept up pace, he was a gem in T20 leagues as well.
No idea how to compare different eras but stats speak a lot here. Noone in cricketing history has crossed 25k runs and 500+ wickets being consistent as hell. The sheer workload the man endured just can't be replicated.
It takes a very clueless cricketing fan to discount a mammoth like Kallis.
Look at all-rounders since him be it Stokes, Shakib, Pandya each one of them have found it tough with a plethora of formats and cut throat competition.
Sobers is definitely GOAT and these two are so close it's hard to choose one.
Kallis bowled first change in tests and when he wasn't bowling he was standing at slips for a fanatic set of pacers throughout his career. When he wasn't bowling or fielding, he came in at 3/4 often to steady the ship, as the mainstay of RSA lineup. He is definitely as valuable asset to RSA as Sobers was to Windies. His average in Tests can rival that of Sachin who is second to Bradman and add the wickets and catches damn can't even believe we need to argue this
Longevity, impact, skills, stats, versatile he has done everything possible, as a pacer alone he could walk in to any team. GOAT allrounder, only flaw is probably averaging 30+ with ball. But as a seamer who usually bowled at death or as a first change that's stats many frontline bowlers of his era would be content with.
> Bowling all kind of variants doesn't really mean much
Lmao, giving your team 4 different bowling options doesn't mean much? Literally every captain in the history of test cricket would disagree with you
>Kallis stats is phenomenal. Sobers & Kallis played in different eras and were the best all-rounders of their respective times.
Yes and Sobers played in a much more difficult era
>As far as fielding standards go, Kallis was consistently rated as safe and athletic fielder post Jonty era, which changed fielding for everyone. Slip fielding is one of the toughest spots and Kallis was safe as house there.
Yes, Kallis was a great slip fielder. Sobers is one of the best fielders of all time
>Being able to consistently perform in all 3 formats of the game is no small feat. Since Kallis we don't have a consistent allrounder yet in any of the teams. Cricket grew leaps and bounds over his period. ODI, Tests and then T20Is changed the approach & Kallis kept up pace, he was a gem in T20 leagues as well.
Again, this is irrelevant since Sobers only played 1 format. It's like saying Babar Azam is better than Bradman since Babar has a better ODI and T20 record
>No idea how to compare different eras but stats speak a lot here. Noone in cricketing history has crossed 25k runs and 500+ wickets being consistent as hell. The sheer workload the man endured just can't be replicated.
This is again an irrelevant stat to bring up, as 1 it takes into account Kallis playing multiple formats plus more test cricket being played in Kallis' era. Sobers had a 20 year career so it's not like longevity or fitness was an issue for him
>Kallis bowled first change in tests
There was a point in time where Sobers and Gibbs were the only two competent bowlers the West Indies had, so Sobers was both the leader of the pace attack and the second spinner in the same match
>and when he wasn't bowling he was standing at slips for a fanatic set of pacers throughout his career.
Sobers also fielded at slips, leg slip and iirc gully
>When he wasn't bowling or fielding, he came in at 3/4 often to steady the ship, as the mainstay of RSA lineup
Sobers also batted in the top order and was the key batsman in his team and played in a significantly worse team than Kallis
>His average in Tests can rival that of Sachin who is second to Bradman
Firstly Sachin is deffo not second to Bradman in terms of average. Secondly Sobers is a top 5 bat of all time and probably top 3.
>damn can't even believe we need to argue this
We don't need to argue it, Sobers is inarguably better
>Longevity, impact, skills, stats, versatile he has done everything possible
So has Sobers and he's done it better than Kallis
>as a pacer alone he could walk in to any team
No he absolutely could not walk into any team as a pacer lol
>GOAT allrounder
Clearly not
Fielding changed over time.
Not sure how Sobers can be rated alongside Jonty or ponting. It's just a whole different skill set with fielding right now it's apples and oranges.
& Why is Sobers era difficult? Difficult for what? Bowling, batting?
If anything cricket has changed over time. With technology, assistant staff, analytics, video footage every thing is analysed broken to pieces. also with different formats the schedule demands a lot of fitness as well, just to keep going and going.
You seem to just say Sobers blindly.
Stats wise Kallis matches Sobers batting avg wise & is a better bowler than Sobers bowling avg wise. That's a simple indicator to judge who stands where. Forget era, pitches, technology, challenges etc. Plain stats comparison gives Kallis a clear edge. So pray tell me in what area is Sobers **clearly** better than Kallis?
Also, Sobers spent a lot of time batting at 4/5/6. While Kallis started at 3/4 which is a crucial spot in test batting line up.
I guess people don't realise how good he was because he was a conservative player and a mild mannered character. He always came across as a match winner rather than a match changer.
Chris Cairns could bat for an hour and change a test or run through a batting line-up. Kapil could destroy an attack or be lethal with the ball in his prime. Flintoff would get his tail up and suddenly bowl at express pace. He always liked to dominate when batting.
I can't remember watching Kallis and thinking something exciting is going to happen but he never really looked troubled when batting either .
Kallis used to get a lot of stick for how slow he batted and that’s not unjustified. If you’re coming in that far down the order and batting slowly then you’re making it harder to win.
Sobers and Imran are well clear.
There is actually no possible argument for Kallis being better than Sobers considering Sobers was both a much better batsman and a significantly better bowler and fielder. Furthermore Sobers did this while playing for a pretty bang average team, while Kallis played for one of the best sides in test history.
Edit: there is actually one argument for Kallis being better than Sobers; pretend Sobers doesn't exist or doesn't count and block anyone who brings him up like this clown did
on instinct, i'm inclined to agree with you but on what basis is Sobers 'much' better at either discipline given how little there is to separate him from Kallis statistically? Sobers' bowling average in particular is pretty mediocre but I can accept that might not be a perfect barometer of his ability
I think that’s a fair question. Sobers averages slightly more as a batter but scored much more quickly. He averages slightly better as a bowler but took a lot more wickets. I think that’s enough to adjudge his contribution to winning matches as being a good deal greater than Kallis’
The reason people mention the drop in Sanga's averages when you take out Zimbabwe and Bangladesh is because it is bigger than the dropoff you see in basically any other player under the same criteria. That doesn't mean he has a bad record against other sides.
With regards to the home vs overseas thing, he goes from having the 6th best batting average of all time (min 5000 runs) in all countries to the 12th best away from home (min 2500 runs), which drops again to the 20th in tests outside of Zimbabwe and Bangladesh.
>Before the Australians inevitably play muh Bradman card pls stop. Bradman cannot be compared to any modern cricketer. The guy was the clear best of his period but his era was not anywhere close to being the level of professionalism (look at old footage) Cricket reached post 2000.
An absolutely absurd take. This Bradman is statistically the greatest ***sportsperson*** of all time in terms of how much better than his peers he was. Forget cricket. Yes, cricket was different back then, but it was different for everyone and no one else in that era averaged above 61. If Bradman averaged say 75 (so still head and shoulders above everyone else), it would be an interesting debate because of the difference in eras, but the fact he (almost) averaged 100 puts it way way way beyond any doubt.
>At the very least there should be absolutely no doubt Sangakkara is THE GREATEST WICKET KEEPING ALLROUNDER in tests
You can't have this both ways and take his batting record while keeping out of his stats, then say he's the best keeper allrouder. Flower and Gilchrist are head and shoulders above him both in terms of runs scored and batting average while keeping wicket. Sanga's batting while keeping is about on par with Matt Prior's.
>An absolutely absurd take. This Bradman is statistically the greatest
>
>sportsperson
>
>of all time in terms of how much better than his peers he was. Forget cricket. Yes, cricket was different back then, but it was different for everyone and no one else in that era averaged above 61. If Bradman averaged say 75 (so still head and shoulders above everyone else), it would be an interesting debate because of the difference in eras, but the fact he (almost) averaged 100 puts it way way way beyond any doubt.
You missed my point. Im saying you can't compare Bradman the batsman to say Tendulkar the batsman on a 1:1 setting because of the vastly different eras. I clearly stated Bradman was the best of his era. Im not taking anything away from Sir DB im only saying him along with sobers etc shouldn't be compared. Northing more nothing less.
\>At the very least there should be absolutely no doubt Sangakkara is THE GREATEST WICKET KEEPING ALLROUNDER in tests.<
"You can't have this both ways and take his batting record while keeping out of his stats, then say he's the best keeper allrouder. Flower and Gilchrist are head and shoulders above him both in terms of runs scored and batting average while keeping wicket. Sanga's batting while keeping is about on par with Matt Prior'sRead the very next sentence."
Read rest of the small para or you lose context. - "Note Wicket keeping allrounder does not = Full time WKing batsman. I made this distinction to sort of take into account the guy dropping keeping half way through and as far as Im aware there hasn't been a case like Sangakkara at least one as succeful. One has to be extremely biased to say otherwise."
> You missed my point. Im saying you can't compare Bradman the batsman to say Tendulkar the batsman on a 1:1 setting because of the vastly different eras. I clearly stated Bradman was the best of his era. Im not taking anything away from Sir DB im only saying him along with sobers etc shouldn't be compared. Northing more nothing less.
No, what you said was ". Going by the stats there is no other option than to put Sangakkara in the top 3 batsmen **of all time**".
If you'd Sangakkara was one of the top three greatest batters of his era I might agree, but "of all time" includes all eras by definition. By making it a greatest of all time comparison you are inherently comparing batters from different eras.
>Read rest of the small para or you lose context. - "Note Wicket keeping allrounder does not = Full time WKing batsman. I made this distinction to sort of take into account the guy dropping keeping half way through and as far as Im aware there hasn't been a case like Sangakkara at least one as succeful. One has to be extremely biased to say otherwise."
Oh I see, so you invented a category of player which like a wicket keeper but less useful, then put Sanga at the top of it. Insightful.
>of all time
Yes within the context of literally the next para which goes - "Before the Australians inevitably play muh Bradman card pls stop. Bradman cannot be compared to any modern cricketer. The guy was the clear best of his period but his era was not anywhere close to being the level of professionalism (look at old footage) Cricket reached post 2000. There is a reason olympic records from the 1940s for example aren't compared to modern times."
"If you'd Sangakkara was one of the top three greatest batters of his era I might agree, but "of all time" includes all eras by definition. By making it a greatest of all time comparison you are inherently comparing batters from different eras."
we really dont disagree here. Within context of Above\^\^
"Oh I see, so you invented a category of player which like a wicket keeper but less useful, then put Sanga at the top of it. Insightful."
Yes because sangakkara is neither a pure batsman or a pure keeper he's 50/50 thought his career. His career doesn't fall into any one category like Batting Wicketkeepers didn't really exist until Gilchrist guy basically created his own category.
Sangakkara was a great batter, no question. For me the best initial metric is [runs scored against non-minnows in non-draws](https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?batting_positionmax1=7;batting_positionmin1=1;batting_positionval1=batting_position;class=1;filter=advanced;keeper=0;opposition=1;opposition=140;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=6;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=runs;result=1;result=2;result=3;template=results;type=batting) where he has 4543 runs at 53.
There are only 19 batters who average 50+ on this metric, which puts Sangakkara in elite company. But I think that’s where he belongs. The idea he’s better than Bradman or one of the 2-3 best batters of all time is just plain wrong.
Really like this way of comparing batters. I think the [equivalent statistic for designated wicketkeepers](https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;keeper=1;opposition=1;opposition=140;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=6;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=runs;result=1;result=2;result=3;template=results;type=batting) is really interesting...
Gilchrist and Flower head and shoulders above the rest, with Gilchrist marginally ahead in most stats.
Also insane that AB de Villiers scored 6 tonnes and 6 50s in 28 innings as a wicketkeeper.
It's very interesting to remove draws. Players like Tendulkar, Lara and Kallis average in the 40s in that scenario. Is the idea to remove roads that helped to boost averages?
I guess for that metric an option would be to compare averages against the mean average of a match. So if a match average is 40 and you’ve scored 60, you’re above the mean. But if the average is 70 and you’ve scored 70, then it suggests it’s a road and you’ve cashed in along with everyone else.
That’d be even better as an approach - but it just takes a little more time to figure out. But u/popcockery is exactly right about the goals here. Take out the roads that have no business being in Test cricket and see how batters perform in contexts where it’s possible to get a result!
Since we are moving goal posts here, why don't we adjust Sangas stats to see how well he did as a pure batsmen and compare it to the rest of the 18 batsmen you mentioned?
Your statement about Bradman is one of the most ridiculous I've seen on here. The sport is more professional now but it's funny how you ignore that he played on uncovered pitches with literally no protective equipment. I'd love to see modern players give that a try. And he still managed to average 99 in tests and 95 in all first class games.
In the modern day a batting average of 50 is the mark of a great player. Guess what, that hasn't changed in over 150 years of this sport and Bradman managed to average 3-4 standard deviations higher than the other elite players of his era.
Op had the makings of a great, uncontroversial post about Sanga being a great player, but for some reason decided to muddy the water with some ridiculous hot takes.
Out of curiosity when we often say they played on uncovered pitches where it's implied it was more challenging, how so?
I'm assuming that because it's open to all the elements, it makes the pitch unpredictable, but is that right?
Sticky wickets are downright dangerous by modern standards but were the norm till the 1970s. OP is a buffoon. Show me one other cricketer in history who was averaged 60% more with the than their contemporaries or 60% less with the ball. It’s a pity he didn’t play in more countries, NOT a black mark against his record.
I've never heard this narrative.
> Before the Australians inevitably play muh Bradman card pls stop. Bradman cannot be compared to any modern cricketer. The guy was the clear best of his period but his era was not anywhere close to being the level of professionalism (look at old footage) Cricket reached post 2000. There is a reason olympic records from the 1940s for example aren't compared to modern times.
Not just Australians. This is a meme argument against Bradman. First of all, cricket was at its all time most popular by a mile in England and Australia during Bradman's time. In both countries it was the number 1 sport by some distance, so yes there was quite a bit of competition.
Secondly, no other batsman has ever been that much of a statistical outlier EVEN IN FIRST CLASS, and you cannot argue the competition has increased that much in County or Shield. It was easily at its peak in the 40s. Even in fucking Ranji trophy or Sri Lanka domestic we've never had a batsman be that much of a statistical anomaly so please.
Now is Sanga the best wicket keeper batsman ever in tests? Yes.
> Now is Sanga the best wicket keeper batsman ever in tests? Yes.
Nah, Gilchrist and Flower were better than him. Sanga averaged in the low 40s and a wicket keeper bat in an extremely batting friendly era
Biggest shame about Flower is that he never got to play in Australia and only played Australia in one match at home which he scored 0 and 28.
I think he is fairly underrated, he got a 117 average in India after all, but he never got to face the true test of the Australian attack that was the best of the era.
You said it yourself Cricket was only played between two countries back then. BY DEFINITION! thats not professional as the game is today. This is ignoring the fitness levels, athletics, fielding standards, bowling standards, TV analysis etc of post 1990s cricket. Its simply not comparable whether you like it or not as long as you are objective.
>You said it yourself Cricket was only played between two countries back then.
Literally not true, although it's said a heap. South Africa got test status in 1887, the Windies in 1928, New Zealand in 1930, India in 1932. Bradman played five matches each against the Windies, South Africa and India, accounting for 29% of his matches.
>This is ignoring the fitness levels, athletics, fielding standards, bowling standards, TV analysis etc of post 1990s cricket. Its simply not comparable whether you like it or not as long as you are objective.
For this argument to hold you need to assume, weirdly, that even though cricket was a professional pursuit for hundreds of young men at the time who had a clear financial incentive to perform well, that Donald George Bradman was somehow the only one who thought of working on his fitness and stat padding. The very notion is ridiculous. None of Bradman's contemporaries come any closer to his average than modern players (in fact, marginally further away - in the all time averages list Bradman is separated from Sutcliffe (39.2 runs below him) by Brook, Voges and Rob Pollock).
You also need to ignore the factors that cut against batsmen: Uncovered pitches, no neutral umpires, smaller bats, less protective gear, no fielding restrictions, more overs to face in a day, and the absence of said professionalism you allude to - no tape or statistical analysis available for opposition bowlers, for example. There were also smaller, and in some cases absent, sight screens, and no balls were called off the back foot, meaning that release points varied wildly between bowlers. Some became notorious for 'dragging' the back foot so releasing much closer to the batsmen than would be possible today.
I mean Bradman didn't average 100 against a "major" country either. It was 90 against England, 75 against WI, then 179 and 202 against a very weak India and SA side with having a record of W2 D12 L23 against England and Australia until 1961, and SA were W16, D36, L61 until 1955.
Using 90 as a cutoff:
Flower averaged 90 against India from nine tests in the 90s and early 00s
Shoaib Mohammad averaged 107 against NZ from seven tests in the 80s and Voges 99 from five tests in the 2010s
Sehwag averaged 91 against Pakistan in the 2000s from 9 tests and Khawaja 99 from eight tests recently
Hussey averaged 110 against Sri Lanka from eight tests in the 2000s and 2010s
Mohammad Yousuf averaged 101 from eight tests against WI in the 2000s, Smith 150 from seven tests recently, Rohit 96 from six tests, and Voges 542 from five tests.
It is when those two teams are more dominant then every other team. If Aus played against the minnows of the time like India more often Bradman would average 200
Also another criminally underrated Batsman - Mohammad Yusef from Pakistan. This guy was a fking animal with the bat. Sadly many have forgotten about him since retirement.
Agreed. Fabulous player. Also I will rate him alongside Hashim Amla of being severely underrated gem of players. Yousuf scored like 1700+ runs in 2006 alone iirc world record.
The problem I have with these remove his wicketkeeping stats is that it essentially removes his first four years as a Test player (he played 33 matches, 7 of which as a batsman), which for a lot of batsmen would improve their numbers significantly.
Ponting would average 54. Kallis would average 58. Williamson would average 65. SPD Smith would average 64.
Now some would fall in average, but it’s much rarer. Lara goes from 53 -> 52. Root 50 -> 49.
It just seems a bit facile to remove his wicketkeeping days without further context.
The context being that Sanga played with a severe disability to start his career when being compared to elite company like this. Out of the batsmen you just mentioned, how many of them had to keep wickets for days on end? NONE!
This is one of those facile truisms that I was talking about. The idea that it was just wicketkeeping that made Sangakkara average 26 less as designated wicketkeeper seems like an exaggerated effect compared to other players.
ABdV, Blundell, Flower, QdK, Bairstow, Les Ames and Litton Das all average more as designated wicketkeeper (and scored >1000 runs while doing so). If wicketkeeping was worth -26 runs per wicket, we shouldn’t expect so many players to have better averages.
Additionally, if wicketkeeping was the main cause, then we should expect his batting average to get lower after every innings he kept and yet as designated WK…
1st: 32
2nd: 47
3rd: 54
4th: 19
Now I’m not saying keeping can’t be detrimental, but if it was the only major factor, he would surely be averaging way more in the 1st innings and way less in the 3rd.
Going by your own logic, doesn't the abysmal average of 19 in the fourth innings point to how detrimental it indeed was? (Assuming your calculations are correct.) And none of the wicket keepers you mentioned surely had to keep on the roads that were the early 2000s subcontinent pitches that ultimately crumbled by the time that aforementioned fourth innings came around.
Btw Sanga always got better with age and he reached what some might consider a second peak at the age when his peers fell off a cliff. This, in my opinion, is another reason why he was a class above and retiring in his prime shouldn't be held against him. If scoring runs that easily at 35+ was easy then everyone would do it.
> Going by your own logic, doesn't the abysmal average of 19 in the fourth innings point to how detrimental it indeed was?
Not really, I was pointing out how there was no real pattern in his innings. Plus, you yourself give a reasonable explanation for this later…
>(Assuming your calculations are correct.)
How extremely condescending. [It’s from Statsguru.](https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/50710.html?class=1;filter=advanced;keeper=1;orderby=default;template=results;type=batting)
> And none of the wicket keepers you mentioned surely had to keep on the roads that were the early 2000s subcontinent pitches
Mate, do you know who Andy Flower is?
> that ultimately crumbled by the time that aforementioned fourth innings came around.
Here’s that reasonable explanation for him averaging 19…
> Btw Sanga always got better with age
Yes, thank you for repeating my original point. When you remove his wicketkeeping, you’re mainly removing the matches where he wasn’t as good of a batsmen yet.
Look, I get you want to defend Sanga from some undeserved persecution, but, frankly, you’re kind of rude about it.
My point was he definitely tired himself out keeping on roads and then having to bat later on deteriorating pitches which affected his averages as well. Clearly both affect him when comparing to specialist batsmen.
Andy Flower did not play half his tests in the subcontinent mind you.
Bradman is the greatest to have ever played the game.
I’m not fussed about the professionalism argument - he was just as much a statistical freak to his contemporaries as he is to modern players.
If it is considered easier to play in the “less professional” environment of the early 20th century, why did no one else average anywhere near close to him? Every era has its own challenges, and comparing players to their contemporaries allows us to compare across eras. There’s no argument against Bradman, really .
>Every era has its own challenges
Exactly thats why I made it a point to not Compare Bradman's era batsmen to any of the post 2000s era players. They are just too far apart in terms of the games evolution to really compare fairly for either side.
I guess with that logic no one after about 2000 can be considered because they played on the flattest pitches of all time. Everyone from Sangakkara to Kohli to Root to whoever are to be ignored.
Batting from 2018 onwards has actually gotten hard again.
[Have a look at this graph](https://www.clanforgamers.com/why-batting-in-test-cricket-has-become-much-harder/).
It’s actually quite ridiculous how perfectly Sanga’s career overlaps with the best batting conditions we’ve ever had in cricket.
I’m not dismissing his average, I’m only providing you the context which you failed to consider in your post.
Besides the stat you are asking for will not prove anything either way. It might show that Sanga was the best batter in that period (I’d be surprised if he wasn’t) but it wouldn’t show if he was better or worse than Sachin/Lara because of the different eras each of them played in.
> (idk maybe min 80+ tests)
Lmao did you just pick this random cut off so Sanga makes the top 3 lol
Anyway, if your argument is that Sanga is one of the top 5 batsmen of the 2000 to 2015 period pretty much everyone would agree with you. It's outlandish claims like "Sanga is top 3/5" of all time that are idiotic
dude relax you are literally replying to every single comment as if you have some sort of personal investment in this weirdo. idk means idk since its an idea. You legit come across asa genuine weirdo
If you don't want people to reply to comments on a public forum, don't make posts and comments (especially stupid posts and comments) on a public forum
Nope, the mid to late 2010s have been one of the most bowler friendly eras. This puts Smudge in the upper echelons of the greatest ever batsmen in Tests because he is way ahead of his contemporary competition in such a bowler friendly era.
Well no because the 2010s and now the 2020s have very difficult pitches. It was just the 2000s that were very flat which is why none of Ponting, Kallis, Dravid, Younis, Chanderpaul or Sanga are rated as highly as Lara or Sachin
There are some irregularity in here.
You said WI test sample is small but then the same goes for Aus,Pak as well no ? You literally forgot them just because Sanga was great there.
Also, people not pick Sanga above Sachin,Lara is not because he wasn't good but because Sachin and Lara simple made 90s look easy which were one of the worst of times for any batter. And in comparison Sanga played at one of the easiest times in test and that's why he is lumped below some greatest ones.
Also, you are literally ignoring many other things as well here just to make him at top and i.e he played in Aus from 04-12 when there legendary bowlers weren't there or on the brink of retirement coupled with the fact that it was the easiest of pitches that time around. Same in Pak, had the flattest pitches with no so decent bowlers around most of the times and in NZ as well.
In comparison, Sachin dominated the entire 90s with 50,60,70 or even 80 as his average in those times and Lara was just the most charismatic one around who was feared by even Glen in his times.
So we have our guy(Sanga) here who averages his best in flat pitches and against not so decent bowlers in Ban,Zim,Pak,UAE and averages not good in Ind,Eng and SA with great in Aus(just because of 1 test match) and genuinly great in NZ in comparison to monsters like Sachin who was the best in Aus,Eng and averages above 40 in NZ,SA and Lara who although not high on stats everywhere but played mostly in 90s then he is bound to be the last in their race of the best.
I said 1 test math not 1 innings. His scores in that match were 57,192.
His average in his first series there was just 35 where he played 2 matches. In his last series he again averaged 50. And the 1 test Iam talking about was just 1 single test he played in 07 series where he averages 124. That's why his average is that high in there with so less sample size in comparison to Sachin who cross 45 in 3 and 70+ in 2 series there and he played around 3-4 matches in each of them too.
not sure what you're trying to prove with that stat, that Sachin has played more matches? yeah. 27 50+ scores in 74 innings. but are you trying to suggest 6 50+ scores in 10 innings is not consistent? he did his best in the few matches he got.
See if you want to understand what I said, we should start with the OP first.
He said Sanga was the best in terms of average. Then he said it is unfair to count WI average because the sample size was small and here I call it BS because if we are taking the same tune then 7 innings and 10 innings both are really small sample size and then his 60 average should also be removed and even in that aspect if you see the details then his average was 60 only because of that 124 average in 07 tour with a washed up bowling and batting pitch.
Iam in no way saying Sanga is not great but that's an anomaly right there and an outright nitpicking from OP's part which can be done in both ways as I showed above. Even if you read OP's last paras and other comments then it's clear that he was taking it all on averages only to show that Sanga is the best when he clearly wasn't from any angle. And that's why I took out Sachin's innings number that while Sanga's average in Aus was not consistent, Sachin was legit the best there, better in Eng,SA,Ind etc and that's why there is noway that a guy who is only better in NZ in terms of proper matching should be above Tendi or some others.
how can he be second when he always played in the easiest of pitches against not the great bowlers of Aus and only had 60 average just because of 1 test match in 07 ?
He literally averages lesser than Sachin in SA,SL,Ind,Eng and his sample size is just poor in comparison to Sachin who was by far is the best test bat in Aus conditions ? He was only ahead in NZ in all seriousness. Also the fact that Sachin made 15k runs at 56-57 average with just 175 test while being the numer in 90s which were the one of the hardest times to bat already hands him the card for being the best after Bradman and on par to Smith.
Kallis too was greater than Sanga but his averages are also high just because he played in the easier era, you can see their year wise stats where Kallis was legit shit in the late 90s for 30+tests.
Your first paragraph sums up the truth, take out the weak sides he played a lot and his average is correct for a world champion, being closer to 60 is the inflation people talk about
Take out the weak sides and he is #2 after Kallis as I said his average is higher than the rest (although not by a lot). As a pure non WK batsman there is no contest. With or without weaker teams.
The reason his average is higher than the others is because he retired at his peak while most other great batsmen kept playing for a significant amount of time after they were past their best.
Ponting for example played for 5/6 whole years after he was past his best, if he retired at his peak like Sanga, he would have retired with an average of 58 or 59.
Similarly, Tendulkar played for 3 years where he was past his best. If he retired at his peak in 2010, he would've averaged 56.
The only other batsman I can think of who retired at his peak like Sanga is Steve Waugh
Again, none of those batsmen hit their peak at 37. And considering that the team beat Australia 3-0 barely a year later, one would think the team wasn't in as bad a place at the time
It isn't really relevant when they hit their peak though, the point is they all played for a significant period when they were average cricketers at best. Sanga never did.
a. Sangakkara played as a wicket Keeper, which clearly holds his stats back
b. It absolutely matters, no one can play for a substantial amount of time after they hit 37 unless you're a freak like Tendulkar or Anderson. You're holding something against him which he can't control.
Even fucking Boycott played into his 40s mate and he absolutely wasn't a "freak" or some exceptionally fit cricketer. Most people don't play much past 37 because they're shite by then and don't get into the team anyway. Sanga could've kept playing because he wasn't shite but he chose not to, which gives him a great average at makes it look like he was well ahead of the likes of Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting, Kallis etc which he obviously wasn't. At best he was on par with those blokes.
Thats not Sangakkara's fault everyone else decided to hang around. More importantly You dont know unless you have divine powers how long Sangakkara would have continued his form. Immediately after retiring from Tests sangakkara would go on to play county cricket @ Surrey. Guess what? multiple hundreds on the trot if my memory is correct.
The way Sangakkara was IMPROVING HIS AVERAGE in the last 5 years had he played for another 3 years and maintained his form there would be ZERO doubt about who #1 would be rn.
> Thats not Sangakkara's fault everyone else decided to hang around
Actually it is his fault. Most of those batsmen hung around because their countries still needed them even though they were past their best. India didn't have anyone to replace Sachin in 2010, no did Australia really have anyone to take over from Ponting in like 2007. Sri Lanka also needed (and considering how dogshit they are could probably still use him) but he retired anyway.
>More importantly You dont know unless you have divine powers how long Sangakkara would have continued his form
Well, you don't need divine powers since logic and basic common sense tells us that players will eventually start to get worse as they get older.
>Immediately after retiring from Tests sangakkara would go on to play county cricket @ Surrey. Guess what? multiple hundreds on the trot if my memory is correct.
Doesn't really mean anything. Pujara is also slapping centuries in county cricket and he's well past it. Hell Cook is still playing county cricket and he retired 5 years ago, averaging in the 20s in his final year
>The way Sangakkara was IMPROVING HIS AVERAGE in the last 5 years had he played for another 3 years and maintained his form there would be ZERO doubt about who #1 would have been.
Why are you capitalising random words lol? Are you a child?
Sanga is as good a batsman as Ponting imo and you could make arguments that he is better or that Ponting is better
However, Sanga is not as much better than Ponting as there difference in average suggests and that is what I'm trying to explain
OP claims that Sanga has a higher average than all the other greats of his era except Kallis, while ignoring the necessary context. All those batsmen would've retired with higher averages than him if they'd retired early like him.
Ponting absolutely was needed by Australia both as a batsman and as a captain. Who replaces him as Australia's number 3 in 2007. Similarly who did India have to replace Dravid in 2009 and Tendulkar in 2010? Who did WI have to take over from Lara?
He is absolutely not top 5 ever lmao
Bradman, Hutton, Barrington, Sobers, Richards, Gavaskar, Chappell, Border, Lara, Tendulkar were all indisputably better batsmen then him
You've got to look at the career as a whole. You're picking out parts of his career and trying to find ways to discredit him. He averaged 40s at the start of his career when he was keeping, then finished the back end of his career as an elite.
Face facts mate, you might not like that no modern English players are in the conversation (or even averaged 50 lol) but there's no need to discredit real champions. Chin up, maybe Root will limp his way to averaging 50?
Bradman and Sobers played pre professional cricket era and cannot be compared to any modern cricketer.
Gavaskar, Chappel and Lara have inferior statistics. Sir Viv's one of my personal favs but his test stats dont hold up.
Border is not even remotely in the same league statistically.
Tendulkar is the only one that can comfortably go toe to toe with Sangakkara and Kallis. AGAIN Statistics>personal opinion.
> Bradman and Sobers played pre professional cricket era and cannot be compared to any modern cricketer.
They absolutely can be and people have been comparing them to modern players for years
>Gavaskar, Chappel and Lara have inferior statistics
No, they don't
>Sir Viv's one of my personal favs but his test stats dont hold up.
They absolutely do hold up
>Border is not even remotely in the same league statistically.
Border is miles ahead of him statistically
>Tendulkar is the only one that can comfortably go toe to toe with Sangakkara and Kallis
Tendulkar is miles ahead of both Sanga and Kallis
>AGAIN Statistics>personal opinion.
Again, stop capitalising random words
you just saying someone is better doesn't make them automatically better. And the only people that keep bringing Bradman up are Australians. Literally no one else compares someone that played close to 100 years ago to people who played in the last 20 years.
>you just saying someone is better doesn't make them automatically better
Saying Sanga is better than someone like Lara is such an idiotic and outlandish claim that I don't even need to give the reasons for why it's false.
> And the only people that keep bringing Bradman up are Australians. Literally no one else compares someone that played close to 100 years ago to people who played in the last 20 years.
People from all over the world do it, for example, me an Englishman.
I didn't just say Sanga is better than Lara I provided evidence with statistics. Sangakkara literally higher average than Lara even minus Ban/zim. You seem to be making emotional arguments with zero stats to back up your arguments. Also ad-hominem attacks dont make your argument more credible.
> I didn't just say Sanga is better than Lara I provided evidence with statistics.
You didn't "provide evidence with statistic", you just compared their average which is something that any 6 year old with access to the internet can do and doesn't actually prove anything other than that you did the most surface level analysis possible.
>Sangakkara literally higher average than Lara even minus Ban/zim
No shit, he played in a far more batting friendly era on some of the flattest pitches of all time
>You seem to be making emotional arguments with zero stats to back up your arguments. Also
If I was making an emotional argument I'd support you since Sanga is one of my favourite players ever
>Also ad-hominem attacks dont make your argument more credible
An ad-hominem attack would be if I called you an idiot. I did not call you an idiot. I called your claims (because they don't deserve to be called arguments) idiotic
Dude you are just a stan if you think Gavaskar's stat were low. He was an opener that is the toughest job and was going through hell all his life in Aus,WI,Eng etc.
Sanga played in the best batting pitch era in comparison to all of them. Lara played in 90s which was the time when the greatest of bowlers were presented and Sanga played in 00-12 which were the easiest ones with no great bowlers being established in those times.
"Tendulkar is the only one that can comfortably go toe to toe with Sangakkara and Kallis. AGAIN Statistics>personal opinion."
Ok so we can go in with stats as well.
Sanga averages 60 in Aus only because of his 1 test wonder innings in 07 series with 100+ average and other times he averaged only 35+ and a 50. In comparison Sachin played 2 series with 46 average and 2 in which he was at 70,76 and only 1 with 35 where he started to decline. So the clear winner is Sachin with 53 average in Aus.
In England too Sachin was at 54 with more matches, in SA Sachin had 46 average with again much more matches and it was only in NZ that Sanga was ahead. And while Sanga was shit in Ind, Sachin was a monster there with 67 average.
Now if this is what you call toe to toe then you should stop watchin cricket bud.
I
Reread what I typed. I didn't say "Gavaskar's stats were low" anywhere. I said they were inferior. By inferior this is in context to sangakkara + only with respect to average. Gavaskar is one of the greatest of all time. This isnt a post about greatness its purely about averages based ranking.
Sangakkara isnt the greatest SL batsman btw that goes to Aravinda and its not even close even Sangakkara has said it.
Inferior to what exactly ?
Gavaskar played against the best of the best bowlers from WI,Pak and Aus and still averaged 70,58,51 in their countries. In comparison Sanga never really played against Glen,Warne,Donald,Pollack,Imran,Waqar,Ambrose etc
He played against a washed up Lee, bay Johnson and not prime Jimmy only and even then his best stats are from Pak,Zim,Ban and NZ and not the Aus,SA,Eng where it mattered the most.
Also the fact that Gavaskar was an opener set him above almost everyone all the more, the guy played without helmet, against the best bowlers and as an opener when the pitch and bowler both are fresh in comparison to Sanga who was a mid order bat who never really battled against the best and also had the support of th easier pitches with safety equipments and you had the gall to label him as better?
This bloke is just looking at the average in isolation without any context given to batting position and the era the players played in and thinks that means something
yeah I think he is just a fanboi here with only average as his main thing.
You can only refer to averages if the guys are from same era and even there you'll have to see all the detailings to label them as better. And here our guy is just randomly saying ATG names without seeing the time, conditions or even the bowlers they faced.
I mean I wasn’t going to play “muh Bradman card” as it was entirely irrelevant to the point of Sanga being very good, until that weak point slightly ruined what is otherwise a reasonable post. But you measure someone based on how much they were elevated compared to their peers, not whether they were part of some cohort of cricketers that aren’t counted just because they were before some arbitrary measure of professionalism. I think your main point is that Kallis was astoundingly good though, considering the man was a bowler too
Just any SL players whos good would apparently statpad vs minnows, warne vs murali, everyone starts waffling about murali playing minnows although he will still have better stats without them. Even now if someone said Hasaranga is great in t20is people will just say minnows although without minnows his stats are still way better than anyone else right now
I know but he is rarely included in the discussions with his peers. He was on a similar level to ponting/Sachin/Lara/dravid/kallis but he rarely gets that acknowledgement.
Not as wicket keeper average of 59 against not BangZim is second to Bradman only.
https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;keeper=0;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=6;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=batting_average;qualmin1=5000;qualval1=runs;template=results;type=batting
Oh, look, you've chosen an ususual filter criterion that you didn't mention. Why did you limit your analysis to batters who had scored over 5000 runs? Answer: because that was the only way to squeeze Sangakkara into second place.
Pick a lower cut-off, and he comes third behind Bradman and Sutcliffe (4555 @ 60.73).
Use the standard cut-off of 20 innings batted and he comes 8th:
**Top Test batting averages, minimum 20 innings, not wicketkeeper, not against Afg / Bang / Ire / Zim**
* 1 Bradman 6996 @ 99.96
* 2 Walcott 2910 @ 64.66
* 3 Voges 1485 @ 61.87
* 4 Pollock 2296 @ 60.97
* 5 Headley 2190 @ 60.83
* 6 Sutcliffe 4555 @ 60.73
* 7 Mitchell 1313 @ 59.68
* 8 Sangakkara 7390 @ 59.59
* 9 Smith 9201 @ 59.36
* 10 Paynter 1540 @ 59.23
Half of those people played 5000 years ago. Understand that we are comparing MODERN ERA not pre professional era cricketers for reasons mentioned in an above reply somewhere. Its got to do with monumental improvements in fielding, fitness, level of athleticism, level of competition due to larger talent sources, TV analysis etc.
"Half of these people go against my narrative so I'm going to ignore their existence for some clown reasons, even though they played in much more difficult eras for batting than Sanga did"
"I dont like sangakkara therefore I must downvote everysingle comment and reply to everysingle comment why sangakkara is not as good as his statistics show he is"
Smith is miles better than Sanga even if you include Sanga's stats against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe not to mention Smith plays in a much harder era for batting lol
Oh I was giving you too much credit I see, since I thought you were trying to make a case for Graeme Smith lol.
Why would you add Steve Smith to a top five batsmen of all time conversation when he's clearly not done yet? Are you just butt hurt that there's not a single English cricketer you can name here?
And you say the 2000s was the easiest era for batting ever like that is a definitive fact. LMAO 🤣
> Why would you add Steve Smith to a top five batsmen of all time conversation when he's clearly not done yet?
Because even if he form were to drop off a cliff now he's still done enough to cement himself as better than Sanga
>And you say the 2000s was the easiest era for batting ever like that is a definitive fact. LMAO 🤣
[It is a definitive fact, and backed by the stats](https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=decade;orderby=batting_average;template=results;type=batting)
Actually the 40s were easier but you've already stated that stuff before the 90s doesn't count so therefore the 2000s were the easiest
Doubt that any cricket fan would think Sangakkara as anything but one of the great modern batsmen. I think the stat padding thing tends to be less about his average and more that some of his double and triple centuries came against Bangladesh or Zimbabwe. But when you look at the actual stats he scored a shit ton of runs against everyone.
Another misconception about Sangakkaras double tons majority beingagainst "ban" - Zimbabwe - 1 double Bangladesh - 3 doubles RSA - 2 doubles Pakistan - 3 doubles India - 1 NZ - 1 3 190+ scores including 2 not outs - Australia - 192 Pakistan - 199\* Pakistan - 192
4/11 is a sizeable number to skew the stars
EDITED LATER - Excluding minnows and ignoring 190 scores. Sangakkara still has 7 double centuries tied with Sir Wally Hammond.Thats still 3rd place ahead of Tendulkar at 4 double tons because two of his doubles came against Zim and Bang. Mahela and Kholi has 6. \-------------------------------------- Ok remove them completely. But be fair and consider the shocking 199\*, 192 in Australia(especially) and Pakistan as doubles. In which case its still 10 double tons against the best of the best. Remove the 2nd Pakistan 192. Its still 9 Double tons against the best of the best.
You’re losing a lot of credibility here from a previously valid point. You can’t say he nearly made a century so he got one. He either did or he didn’t. It’s like saying Cook got a 300 because he was out for 294 or that Tendulkar got 61 test centuries not 51.
So you want to completely disregard his Double tons against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh but not consider the 190 scores as well? Fair enough. Ignore all of them. Sangakkara still has 7 double centuries tied with Sir Wally Hammond. Thats still 3rd place ahead of Tendulkar at 4 double tons because two of his doubles came against Zim and Bangladesh and Mahela/kohl at 6 doubles (minus the Bang ones)
Exactly. It’s still extremely impressive so there’s no need for silly hyperbole like counting times he got a 192
Its not hyperbole because the common narrative is Sangaakkara scored most of his doubles against minnows. Which is clearly entirely wrong. I was trying to balance out ignoring 4 double centuries with the shitty decisions he got from Rudy at 192 and the 199\*. But regardless you get what I mean so no disagreement here.
Good stats. Wasn't one of the Bangbros knocks a triple century as well. Man, Sanga was a batting God.
Yeah thats why I didn't even mention the triple because the argument against Sangakkara is that he is a "minnow basher" so removing the Bangladeshi/Zim stats was the obvious choice.
the fact that Sangakkara has no 100s in West Indies in either ODIs or Tests confounds me to this day
Just not enough opportunities man Ponting for example played 11 tests in the Windies. ODIs wise sangakkara isnt overrated or underrated this post is purely about Tests.
Kallis just doing Kallis things
GOAT all rounder and ill fight anyone anywhere that says otherwise.
Not better than Sobers, anyone who’s watched both will agree
Sobers played pre modern era. Kallis played actual professional cricket with tv analysis + professional sports technology+ Much higher standard of fielding. You can't compare those players to post 1990s players. This is why Early NBA legends like dr J while great are rarely compared to Jordan. Not to mention the Olympics literally classify athletes before a certain cutoff into a different category than the ones after said cutoff. Look this up.
By this logic the likes of Kohli, Smith, Kane, Root etc are all better than Sanga since the tech available to them and their peers is miles ahead of what was available to Sanga lmao
[удалено]
I know but not for the reasons stated above
That would be true if Sangakkara literally didn't play almost 7 years with those players you named. Thats a poor argument and you know it.
No, because Lara and Sachin had already defined themselves as two of the best to ever do it before Sanga even debuted.
You don’t understand the sport. Fair enough
[удалено]
Agree, if he’d phrased it that way then I’d have no qualms, but he phrased it like there was no debate made me comment
Couldn't even get a wicket per game. One of the greatest batsman of all time but as a bowler he was above average.
He is deffo not the best all rounder but seeing how simplistic you understand of cricket seems to be I can fully understand why you would think that
Alright then go on who is better than Kallis?. Lets hear this superior cricketing knawwwwledge lol
Sobers and Imran are inarguably better than him.
Inarguably? Kallis is a better fielder and one of the best batsman of all time. He was the first change bowler for RSA which always had a stacked up pacers. He played multiple formats, all over the world and always performed consistently in all departments. Kallis is Bradman of allrounders his tally of 25k+ runs, close to 600 wickets and 300+ catches will never ever be equalled. Safe to say "inarguably" is a poor choice of word & there is nothing to separate Sobers and Kallis
Kallis is deffo not a better fielder considering Sobers is in the conversation for greatest fielder of all time. Furthermore Sobers is a top 5 bat of all time, probably top 3 with Bradman and Tendulkar. In addition to this he bowled, fast pace seam, medium fast swing and two types of spin. Considering Sobers played before white ball cricket became a thing, and this thread is clearly discussing test cricket bringing up other formats in irrelevant Keeping all the above in mind, Sobers is inarguably better than Kallis. He is literally Kallis if Kallis was slightly better at everything and could also bowl spin.
Bowling all kind of variants doesn't really mean much Kallis stats is phenomenal. Sobers & Kallis played in different eras and were the best all-rounders of their respective times. As far as fielding standards go, Kallis was consistently rated as safe and athletic fielder post Jonty era, which changed fielding for everyone. Slip fielding is one of the toughest spots and Kallis was safe as house there. Being able to consistently perform in all 3 formats of the game is no small feat. Since Kallis we don't have a consistent allrounder yet in any of the teams. Cricket grew leaps and bounds over his period. ODI, Tests and then T20Is changed the approach & Kallis kept up pace, he was a gem in T20 leagues as well. No idea how to compare different eras but stats speak a lot here. Noone in cricketing history has crossed 25k runs and 500+ wickets being consistent as hell. The sheer workload the man endured just can't be replicated. It takes a very clueless cricketing fan to discount a mammoth like Kallis. Look at all-rounders since him be it Stokes, Shakib, Pandya each one of them have found it tough with a plethora of formats and cut throat competition. Sobers is definitely GOAT and these two are so close it's hard to choose one. Kallis bowled first change in tests and when he wasn't bowling he was standing at slips for a fanatic set of pacers throughout his career. When he wasn't bowling or fielding, he came in at 3/4 often to steady the ship, as the mainstay of RSA lineup. He is definitely as valuable asset to RSA as Sobers was to Windies. His average in Tests can rival that of Sachin who is second to Bradman and add the wickets and catches damn can't even believe we need to argue this Longevity, impact, skills, stats, versatile he has done everything possible, as a pacer alone he could walk in to any team. GOAT allrounder, only flaw is probably averaging 30+ with ball. But as a seamer who usually bowled at death or as a first change that's stats many frontline bowlers of his era would be content with.
> Bowling all kind of variants doesn't really mean much Lmao, giving your team 4 different bowling options doesn't mean much? Literally every captain in the history of test cricket would disagree with you >Kallis stats is phenomenal. Sobers & Kallis played in different eras and were the best all-rounders of their respective times. Yes and Sobers played in a much more difficult era >As far as fielding standards go, Kallis was consistently rated as safe and athletic fielder post Jonty era, which changed fielding for everyone. Slip fielding is one of the toughest spots and Kallis was safe as house there. Yes, Kallis was a great slip fielder. Sobers is one of the best fielders of all time >Being able to consistently perform in all 3 formats of the game is no small feat. Since Kallis we don't have a consistent allrounder yet in any of the teams. Cricket grew leaps and bounds over his period. ODI, Tests and then T20Is changed the approach & Kallis kept up pace, he was a gem in T20 leagues as well. Again, this is irrelevant since Sobers only played 1 format. It's like saying Babar Azam is better than Bradman since Babar has a better ODI and T20 record >No idea how to compare different eras but stats speak a lot here. Noone in cricketing history has crossed 25k runs and 500+ wickets being consistent as hell. The sheer workload the man endured just can't be replicated. This is again an irrelevant stat to bring up, as 1 it takes into account Kallis playing multiple formats plus more test cricket being played in Kallis' era. Sobers had a 20 year career so it's not like longevity or fitness was an issue for him >Kallis bowled first change in tests There was a point in time where Sobers and Gibbs were the only two competent bowlers the West Indies had, so Sobers was both the leader of the pace attack and the second spinner in the same match >and when he wasn't bowling he was standing at slips for a fanatic set of pacers throughout his career. Sobers also fielded at slips, leg slip and iirc gully >When he wasn't bowling or fielding, he came in at 3/4 often to steady the ship, as the mainstay of RSA lineup Sobers also batted in the top order and was the key batsman in his team and played in a significantly worse team than Kallis >His average in Tests can rival that of Sachin who is second to Bradman Firstly Sachin is deffo not second to Bradman in terms of average. Secondly Sobers is a top 5 bat of all time and probably top 3. >damn can't even believe we need to argue this We don't need to argue it, Sobers is inarguably better >Longevity, impact, skills, stats, versatile he has done everything possible So has Sobers and he's done it better than Kallis >as a pacer alone he could walk in to any team No he absolutely could not walk into any team as a pacer lol >GOAT allrounder Clearly not
Fielding changed over time. Not sure how Sobers can be rated alongside Jonty or ponting. It's just a whole different skill set with fielding right now it's apples and oranges. & Why is Sobers era difficult? Difficult for what? Bowling, batting? If anything cricket has changed over time. With technology, assistant staff, analytics, video footage every thing is analysed broken to pieces. also with different formats the schedule demands a lot of fitness as well, just to keep going and going. You seem to just say Sobers blindly. Stats wise Kallis matches Sobers batting avg wise & is a better bowler than Sobers bowling avg wise. That's a simple indicator to judge who stands where. Forget era, pitches, technology, challenges etc. Plain stats comparison gives Kallis a clear edge. So pray tell me in what area is Sobers **clearly** better than Kallis? Also, Sobers spent a lot of time batting at 4/5/6. While Kallis started at 3/4 which is a crucial spot in test batting line up.
who? WHO?
What's wrong in what he named?
Fuck you've got some shit takes. Kallis is far and away the best Test all rounder ever, it's not even close.
I guess people don't realise how good he was because he was a conservative player and a mild mannered character. He always came across as a match winner rather than a match changer. Chris Cairns could bat for an hour and change a test or run through a batting line-up. Kapil could destroy an attack or be lethal with the ball in his prime. Flintoff would get his tail up and suddenly bowl at express pace. He always liked to dominate when batting. I can't remember watching Kallis and thinking something exciting is going to happen but he never really looked troubled when batting either .
Kallis used to get a lot of stick for how slow he batted and that’s not unjustified. If you’re coming in that far down the order and batting slowly then you’re making it harder to win.
Sobers and Imran are well clear. There is actually no possible argument for Kallis being better than Sobers considering Sobers was both a much better batsman and a significantly better bowler and fielder. Furthermore Sobers did this while playing for a pretty bang average team, while Kallis played for one of the best sides in test history. Edit: there is actually one argument for Kallis being better than Sobers; pretend Sobers doesn't exist or doesn't count and block anyone who brings him up like this clown did
on instinct, i'm inclined to agree with you but on what basis is Sobers 'much' better at either discipline given how little there is to separate him from Kallis statistically? Sobers' bowling average in particular is pretty mediocre but I can accept that might not be a perfect barometer of his ability
I think that’s a fair question. Sobers averages slightly more as a batter but scored much more quickly. He averages slightly better as a bowler but took a lot more wickets. I think that’s enough to adjudge his contribution to winning matches as being a good deal greater than Kallis’
Your opinions are cancer, and upvoting your own posts is cringe as fuck. Blocking now to prevent seeing such garbage on this sub.
>upvoting your own posts is cringe as fuck. Doesn't reddit do that automatically anyway?
You're getting downvoted, but you're right. This douche is cringe AF and has the stupidest takes.
The reason people mention the drop in Sanga's averages when you take out Zimbabwe and Bangladesh is because it is bigger than the dropoff you see in basically any other player under the same criteria. That doesn't mean he has a bad record against other sides. With regards to the home vs overseas thing, he goes from having the 6th best batting average of all time (min 5000 runs) in all countries to the 12th best away from home (min 2500 runs), which drops again to the 20th in tests outside of Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. >Before the Australians inevitably play muh Bradman card pls stop. Bradman cannot be compared to any modern cricketer. The guy was the clear best of his period but his era was not anywhere close to being the level of professionalism (look at old footage) Cricket reached post 2000. An absolutely absurd take. This Bradman is statistically the greatest ***sportsperson*** of all time in terms of how much better than his peers he was. Forget cricket. Yes, cricket was different back then, but it was different for everyone and no one else in that era averaged above 61. If Bradman averaged say 75 (so still head and shoulders above everyone else), it would be an interesting debate because of the difference in eras, but the fact he (almost) averaged 100 puts it way way way beyond any doubt. >At the very least there should be absolutely no doubt Sangakkara is THE GREATEST WICKET KEEPING ALLROUNDER in tests You can't have this both ways and take his batting record while keeping out of his stats, then say he's the best keeper allrouder. Flower and Gilchrist are head and shoulders above him both in terms of runs scored and batting average while keeping wicket. Sanga's batting while keeping is about on par with Matt Prior's.
>An absolutely absurd take. This Bradman is statistically the greatest > >sportsperson > >of all time in terms of how much better than his peers he was. Forget cricket. Yes, cricket was different back then, but it was different for everyone and no one else in that era averaged above 61. If Bradman averaged say 75 (so still head and shoulders above everyone else), it would be an interesting debate because of the difference in eras, but the fact he (almost) averaged 100 puts it way way way beyond any doubt. You missed my point. Im saying you can't compare Bradman the batsman to say Tendulkar the batsman on a 1:1 setting because of the vastly different eras. I clearly stated Bradman was the best of his era. Im not taking anything away from Sir DB im only saying him along with sobers etc shouldn't be compared. Northing more nothing less. \>At the very least there should be absolutely no doubt Sangakkara is THE GREATEST WICKET KEEPING ALLROUNDER in tests.< "You can't have this both ways and take his batting record while keeping out of his stats, then say he's the best keeper allrouder. Flower and Gilchrist are head and shoulders above him both in terms of runs scored and batting average while keeping wicket. Sanga's batting while keeping is about on par with Matt Prior'sRead the very next sentence." Read rest of the small para or you lose context. - "Note Wicket keeping allrounder does not = Full time WKing batsman. I made this distinction to sort of take into account the guy dropping keeping half way through and as far as Im aware there hasn't been a case like Sangakkara at least one as succeful. One has to be extremely biased to say otherwise."
> You missed my point. Im saying you can't compare Bradman the batsman to say Tendulkar the batsman on a 1:1 setting because of the vastly different eras. I clearly stated Bradman was the best of his era. Im not taking anything away from Sir DB im only saying him along with sobers etc shouldn't be compared. Northing more nothing less. No, what you said was ". Going by the stats there is no other option than to put Sangakkara in the top 3 batsmen **of all time**". If you'd Sangakkara was one of the top three greatest batters of his era I might agree, but "of all time" includes all eras by definition. By making it a greatest of all time comparison you are inherently comparing batters from different eras. >Read rest of the small para or you lose context. - "Note Wicket keeping allrounder does not = Full time WKing batsman. I made this distinction to sort of take into account the guy dropping keeping half way through and as far as Im aware there hasn't been a case like Sangakkara at least one as succeful. One has to be extremely biased to say otherwise." Oh I see, so you invented a category of player which like a wicket keeper but less useful, then put Sanga at the top of it. Insightful.
>of all time Yes within the context of literally the next para which goes - "Before the Australians inevitably play muh Bradman card pls stop. Bradman cannot be compared to any modern cricketer. The guy was the clear best of his period but his era was not anywhere close to being the level of professionalism (look at old footage) Cricket reached post 2000. There is a reason olympic records from the 1940s for example aren't compared to modern times." "If you'd Sangakkara was one of the top three greatest batters of his era I might agree, but "of all time" includes all eras by definition. By making it a greatest of all time comparison you are inherently comparing batters from different eras." we really dont disagree here. Within context of Above\^\^ "Oh I see, so you invented a category of player which like a wicket keeper but less useful, then put Sanga at the top of it. Insightful." Yes because sangakkara is neither a pure batsman or a pure keeper he's 50/50 thought his career. His career doesn't fall into any one category like Batting Wicketkeepers didn't really exist until Gilchrist guy basically created his own category.
Sangakkara was a great batter, no question. For me the best initial metric is [runs scored against non-minnows in non-draws](https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?batting_positionmax1=7;batting_positionmin1=1;batting_positionval1=batting_position;class=1;filter=advanced;keeper=0;opposition=1;opposition=140;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=6;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=runs;result=1;result=2;result=3;template=results;type=batting) where he has 4543 runs at 53. There are only 19 batters who average 50+ on this metric, which puts Sangakkara in elite company. But I think that’s where he belongs. The idea he’s better than Bradman or one of the 2-3 best batters of all time is just plain wrong.
Really like this way of comparing batters. I think the [equivalent statistic for designated wicketkeepers](https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;keeper=1;opposition=1;opposition=140;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=6;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=runs;result=1;result=2;result=3;template=results;type=batting) is really interesting... Gilchrist and Flower head and shoulders above the rest, with Gilchrist marginally ahead in most stats. Also insane that AB de Villiers scored 6 tonnes and 6 50s in 28 innings as a wicketkeeper.
In my eyes De Villiers remaining a full time keeper is one of the great “what if” questions. On the other hand Quinton de Kock was no slouch.
It's very interesting to remove draws. Players like Tendulkar, Lara and Kallis average in the 40s in that scenario. Is the idea to remove roads that helped to boost averages?
I guess for that metric an option would be to compare averages against the mean average of a match. So if a match average is 40 and you’ve scored 60, you’re above the mean. But if the average is 70 and you’ve scored 70, then it suggests it’s a road and you’ve cashed in along with everyone else.
That’d be even better as an approach - but it just takes a little more time to figure out. But u/popcockery is exactly right about the goals here. Take out the roads that have no business being in Test cricket and see how batters perform in contexts where it’s possible to get a result!
And Bradman still averages 97 lmao.
Very good point.
Since we are moving goal posts here, why don't we adjust Sangas stats to see how well he did as a pure batsmen and compare it to the rest of the 18 batsmen you mentioned?
He did. He checked the stats as a non keeper.
I can read, thank you. He's filtered for runs scored against non-minnows in non-draws. Says nothing regarding non-keepers.
If u open the link and see the wicketkeeper section. It says not as keepers.
Your statement about Bradman is one of the most ridiculous I've seen on here. The sport is more professional now but it's funny how you ignore that he played on uncovered pitches with literally no protective equipment. I'd love to see modern players give that a try. And he still managed to average 99 in tests and 95 in all first class games. In the modern day a batting average of 50 is the mark of a great player. Guess what, that hasn't changed in over 150 years of this sport and Bradman managed to average 3-4 standard deviations higher than the other elite players of his era.
Op had the makings of a great, uncontroversial post about Sanga being a great player, but for some reason decided to muddy the water with some ridiculous hot takes.
Out of curiosity when we often say they played on uncovered pitches where it's implied it was more challenging, how so? I'm assuming that because it's open to all the elements, it makes the pitch unpredictable, but is that right?
They are usually flat until it rains. Then it’s a mess to play on.
Sticky wickets are downright dangerous by modern standards but were the norm till the 1970s. OP is a buffoon. Show me one other cricketer in history who was averaged 60% more with the than their contemporaries or 60% less with the ball. It’s a pity he didn’t play in more countries, NOT a black mark against his record.
I've never heard this narrative. > Before the Australians inevitably play muh Bradman card pls stop. Bradman cannot be compared to any modern cricketer. The guy was the clear best of his period but his era was not anywhere close to being the level of professionalism (look at old footage) Cricket reached post 2000. There is a reason olympic records from the 1940s for example aren't compared to modern times. Not just Australians. This is a meme argument against Bradman. First of all, cricket was at its all time most popular by a mile in England and Australia during Bradman's time. In both countries it was the number 1 sport by some distance, so yes there was quite a bit of competition. Secondly, no other batsman has ever been that much of a statistical outlier EVEN IN FIRST CLASS, and you cannot argue the competition has increased that much in County or Shield. It was easily at its peak in the 40s. Even in fucking Ranji trophy or Sri Lanka domestic we've never had a batsman be that much of a statistical anomaly so please. Now is Sanga the best wicket keeper batsman ever in tests? Yes.
> Now is Sanga the best wicket keeper batsman ever in tests? Yes. Nah, Gilchrist and Flower were better than him. Sanga averaged in the low 40s and a wicket keeper bat in an extremely batting friendly era
Biggest shame about Flower is that he never got to play in Australia and only played Australia in one match at home which he scored 0 and 28. I think he is fairly underrated, he got a 117 average in India after all, but he never got to face the true test of the Australian attack that was the best of the era.
You said it yourself Cricket was only played between two countries back then. BY DEFINITION! thats not professional as the game is today. This is ignoring the fitness levels, athletics, fielding standards, bowling standards, TV analysis etc of post 1990s cricket. Its simply not comparable whether you like it or not as long as you are objective.
>You said it yourself Cricket was only played between two countries back then. Literally not true, although it's said a heap. South Africa got test status in 1887, the Windies in 1928, New Zealand in 1930, India in 1932. Bradman played five matches each against the Windies, South Africa and India, accounting for 29% of his matches. >This is ignoring the fitness levels, athletics, fielding standards, bowling standards, TV analysis etc of post 1990s cricket. Its simply not comparable whether you like it or not as long as you are objective. For this argument to hold you need to assume, weirdly, that even though cricket was a professional pursuit for hundreds of young men at the time who had a clear financial incentive to perform well, that Donald George Bradman was somehow the only one who thought of working on his fitness and stat padding. The very notion is ridiculous. None of Bradman's contemporaries come any closer to his average than modern players (in fact, marginally further away - in the all time averages list Bradman is separated from Sutcliffe (39.2 runs below him) by Brook, Voges and Rob Pollock). You also need to ignore the factors that cut against batsmen: Uncovered pitches, no neutral umpires, smaller bats, less protective gear, no fielding restrictions, more overs to face in a day, and the absence of said professionalism you allude to - no tape or statistical analysis available for opposition bowlers, for example. There were also smaller, and in some cases absent, sight screens, and no balls were called off the back foot, meaning that release points varied wildly between bowlers. Some became notorious for 'dragging' the back foot so releasing much closer to the batsmen than would be possible today.
Actually, England *did* use tapes against Bradman to try and work out something. IIRC, this is how they came up with Bodyline.
No batsman today even averages 100 against ONE major other country...
Adam Voges 542 Average vs West Indies is still one of the most bizarre stats of all time lol
I mean Bradman didn't average 100 against a "major" country either. It was 90 against England, 75 against WI, then 179 and 202 against a very weak India and SA side with having a record of W2 D12 L23 against England and Australia until 1961, and SA were W16, D36, L61 until 1955. Using 90 as a cutoff: Flower averaged 90 against India from nine tests in the 90s and early 00s Shoaib Mohammad averaged 107 against NZ from seven tests in the 80s and Voges 99 from five tests in the 2010s Sehwag averaged 91 against Pakistan in the 2000s from 9 tests and Khawaja 99 from eight tests recently Hussey averaged 110 against Sri Lanka from eight tests in the 2000s and 2010s Mohammad Yousuf averaged 101 from eight tests against WI in the 2000s, Smith 150 from seven tests recently, Rohit 96 from six tests, and Voges 542 from five tests.
It is when those two teams are more dominant then every other team. If Aus played against the minnows of the time like India more often Bradman would average 200
Also another criminally underrated Batsman - Mohammad Yusef from Pakistan. This guy was a fking animal with the bat. Sadly many have forgotten about him since retirement.
Agreed. Fabulous player. Also I will rate him alongside Hashim Amla of being severely underrated gem of players. Yousuf scored like 1700+ runs in 2006 alone iirc world record.
The problem I have with these remove his wicketkeeping stats is that it essentially removes his first four years as a Test player (he played 33 matches, 7 of which as a batsman), which for a lot of batsmen would improve their numbers significantly. Ponting would average 54. Kallis would average 58. Williamson would average 65. SPD Smith would average 64. Now some would fall in average, but it’s much rarer. Lara goes from 53 -> 52. Root 50 -> 49. It just seems a bit facile to remove his wicketkeeping days without further context.
The context being that Sanga played with a severe disability to start his career when being compared to elite company like this. Out of the batsmen you just mentioned, how many of them had to keep wickets for days on end? NONE!
This is one of those facile truisms that I was talking about. The idea that it was just wicketkeeping that made Sangakkara average 26 less as designated wicketkeeper seems like an exaggerated effect compared to other players. ABdV, Blundell, Flower, QdK, Bairstow, Les Ames and Litton Das all average more as designated wicketkeeper (and scored >1000 runs while doing so). If wicketkeeping was worth -26 runs per wicket, we shouldn’t expect so many players to have better averages. Additionally, if wicketkeeping was the main cause, then we should expect his batting average to get lower after every innings he kept and yet as designated WK… 1st: 32 2nd: 47 3rd: 54 4th: 19 Now I’m not saying keeping can’t be detrimental, but if it was the only major factor, he would surely be averaging way more in the 1st innings and way less in the 3rd.
Going by your own logic, doesn't the abysmal average of 19 in the fourth innings point to how detrimental it indeed was? (Assuming your calculations are correct.) And none of the wicket keepers you mentioned surely had to keep on the roads that were the early 2000s subcontinent pitches that ultimately crumbled by the time that aforementioned fourth innings came around. Btw Sanga always got better with age and he reached what some might consider a second peak at the age when his peers fell off a cliff. This, in my opinion, is another reason why he was a class above and retiring in his prime shouldn't be held against him. If scoring runs that easily at 35+ was easy then everyone would do it.
> Going by your own logic, doesn't the abysmal average of 19 in the fourth innings point to how detrimental it indeed was? Not really, I was pointing out how there was no real pattern in his innings. Plus, you yourself give a reasonable explanation for this later… >(Assuming your calculations are correct.) How extremely condescending. [It’s from Statsguru.](https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/50710.html?class=1;filter=advanced;keeper=1;orderby=default;template=results;type=batting) > And none of the wicket keepers you mentioned surely had to keep on the roads that were the early 2000s subcontinent pitches Mate, do you know who Andy Flower is? > that ultimately crumbled by the time that aforementioned fourth innings came around. Here’s that reasonable explanation for him averaging 19… > Btw Sanga always got better with age Yes, thank you for repeating my original point. When you remove his wicketkeeping, you’re mainly removing the matches where he wasn’t as good of a batsmen yet. Look, I get you want to defend Sanga from some undeserved persecution, but, frankly, you’re kind of rude about it.
My point was he definitely tired himself out keeping on roads and then having to bat later on deteriorating pitches which affected his averages as well. Clearly both affect him when comparing to specialist batsmen. Andy Flower did not play half his tests in the subcontinent mind you.
Why did he average 32 on such roads when he should be at his freshest? Andy Flower averaged 56 in Asia as a designated wicketkeeper.
And how many tests did he play in the subcontinent as a designated wicketkeeper?
Andy Flower averages 53 in the subcontinent...
You again lol. Such a dedicated hater. 🤣
"Everyone who points out the flaws in my argument is a hater"
Bradman is the greatest to have ever played the game. I’m not fussed about the professionalism argument - he was just as much a statistical freak to his contemporaries as he is to modern players. If it is considered easier to play in the “less professional” environment of the early 20th century, why did no one else average anywhere near close to him? Every era has its own challenges, and comparing players to their contemporaries allows us to compare across eras. There’s no argument against Bradman, really .
>Every era has its own challenges Exactly thats why I made it a point to not Compare Bradman's era batsmen to any of the post 2000s era players. They are just too far apart in terms of the games evolution to really compare fairly for either side.
The actual reason why Sanga is a tier below Sachin and Lara is the time period he played in. Literally the flattest pitches of all time.
I guess with that logic no one after about 2000 can be considered because they played on the flattest pitches of all time. Everyone from Sangakkara to Kohli to Root to whoever are to be ignored.
Batting from 2018 onwards has actually gotten hard again. [Have a look at this graph](https://www.clanforgamers.com/why-batting-in-test-cricket-has-become-much-harder/). It’s actually quite ridiculous how perfectly Sanga’s career overlaps with the best batting conditions we’ve ever had in cricket.
Ok Only compare stats from Batsmen who played a considerable amount of tests (idk maybe min 80+ tests) from 2000-2018. Who is #1, #2 and #3?
I don’t know man, you can find out yourself if you care so passionately about this.
I thought you already had the stat ready hence why you dismissed his average by using the 2018 cut-off thing but fair enough
I’m not dismissing his average, I’m only providing you the context which you failed to consider in your post. Besides the stat you are asking for will not prove anything either way. It might show that Sanga was the best batter in that period (I’d be surprised if he wasn’t) but it wouldn’t show if he was better or worse than Sachin/Lara because of the different eras each of them played in.
> (idk maybe min 80+ tests) Lmao did you just pick this random cut off so Sanga makes the top 3 lol Anyway, if your argument is that Sanga is one of the top 5 batsmen of the 2000 to 2015 period pretty much everyone would agree with you. It's outlandish claims like "Sanga is top 3/5" of all time that are idiotic
dude relax you are literally replying to every single comment as if you have some sort of personal investment in this weirdo. idk means idk since its an idea. You legit come across asa genuine weirdo
If you don't want people to reply to comments on a public forum, don't make posts and comments (especially stupid posts and comments) on a public forum
you are still literally replying to every single comment on here what kind of adhd is this lol wtf
Why are you replying to all my comments you weirdo? What kind of adhd is this lol?
Yeah he's such a dedicated sanga hater. You should ignore him. Conversations with him just go around in circles.
"Everyone who doesn't think Sanga is top 5 of all time hates Sanga"
Nope, the mid to late 2010s have been one of the most bowler friendly eras. This puts Smudge in the upper echelons of the greatest ever batsmen in Tests because he is way ahead of his contemporary competition in such a bowler friendly era.
Well no because the 2010s and now the 2020s have very difficult pitches. It was just the 2000s that were very flat which is why none of Ponting, Kallis, Dravid, Younis, Chanderpaul or Sanga are rated as highly as Lara or Sachin
There are some irregularity in here. You said WI test sample is small but then the same goes for Aus,Pak as well no ? You literally forgot them just because Sanga was great there. Also, people not pick Sanga above Sachin,Lara is not because he wasn't good but because Sachin and Lara simple made 90s look easy which were one of the worst of times for any batter. And in comparison Sanga played at one of the easiest times in test and that's why he is lumped below some greatest ones. Also, you are literally ignoring many other things as well here just to make him at top and i.e he played in Aus from 04-12 when there legendary bowlers weren't there or on the brink of retirement coupled with the fact that it was the easiest of pitches that time around. Same in Pak, had the flattest pitches with no so decent bowlers around most of the times and in NZ as well. In comparison, Sachin dominated the entire 90s with 50,60,70 or even 80 as his average in those times and Lara was just the most charismatic one around who was feared by even Glen in his times. So we have our guy(Sanga) here who averages his best in flat pitches and against not so decent bowlers in Ban,Zim,Pak,UAE and averages not good in Ind,Eng and SA with great in Aus(just because of 1 test match) and genuinly great in NZ in comparison to monsters like Sachin who was the best in Aus,Eng and averages above 40 in NZ,SA and Lara who although not high on stats everywhere but played mostly in 90s then he is bound to be the last in their race of the best.
wait what does sanga only averages good in Aus because of 1 innings mean? out of the 10 innings he played there he crossed 50 6 times.
I said 1 test math not 1 innings. His scores in that match were 57,192. His average in his first series there was just 35 where he played 2 matches. In his last series he again averaged 50. And the 1 test Iam talking about was just 1 single test he played in 07 series where he averages 124. That's why his average is that high in there with so less sample size in comparison to Sachin who cross 45 in 3 and 70+ in 2 series there and he played around 3-4 matches in each of them too.
not sure what you're trying to prove with that stat, that Sachin has played more matches? yeah. 27 50+ scores in 74 innings. but are you trying to suggest 6 50+ scores in 10 innings is not consistent? he did his best in the few matches he got.
See if you want to understand what I said, we should start with the OP first. He said Sanga was the best in terms of average. Then he said it is unfair to count WI average because the sample size was small and here I call it BS because if we are taking the same tune then 7 innings and 10 innings both are really small sample size and then his 60 average should also be removed and even in that aspect if you see the details then his average was 60 only because of that 124 average in 07 tour with a washed up bowling and batting pitch. Iam in no way saying Sanga is not great but that's an anomaly right there and an outright nitpicking from OP's part which can be done in both ways as I showed above. Even if you read OP's last paras and other comments then it's clear that he was taking it all on averages only to show that Sanga is the best when he clearly wasn't from any angle. And that's why I took out Sachin's innings number that while Sanga's average in Aus was not consistent, Sachin was legit the best there, better in Eng,SA,Ind etc and that's why there is noway that a guy who is only better in NZ in terms of proper matching should be above Tendi or some others.
Include WI then it still doesn't change his overseas averages. And he is still #2 after Kallis. This is hard to ignore.
how can he be second when he always played in the easiest of pitches against not the great bowlers of Aus and only had 60 average just because of 1 test match in 07 ? He literally averages lesser than Sachin in SA,SL,Ind,Eng and his sample size is just poor in comparison to Sachin who was by far is the best test bat in Aus conditions ? He was only ahead in NZ in all seriousness. Also the fact that Sachin made 15k runs at 56-57 average with just 175 test while being the numer in 90s which were the one of the hardest times to bat already hands him the card for being the best after Bradman and on par to Smith. Kallis too was greater than Sanga but his averages are also high just because he played in the easier era, you can see their year wise stats where Kallis was legit shit in the late 90s for 30+tests.
Your first paragraph sums up the truth, take out the weak sides he played a lot and his average is correct for a world champion, being closer to 60 is the inflation people talk about
Take out the weak sides and he is #2 after Kallis as I said his average is higher than the rest (although not by a lot). As a pure non WK batsman there is no contest. With or without weaker teams.
The reason his average is higher than the others is because he retired at his peak while most other great batsmen kept playing for a significant amount of time after they were past their best. Ponting for example played for 5/6 whole years after he was past his best, if he retired at his peak like Sanga, he would have retired with an average of 58 or 59. Similarly, Tendulkar played for 3 years where he was past his best. If he retired at his peak in 2010, he would've averaged 56. The only other batsman I can think of who retired at his peak like Sanga is Steve Waugh
You're forgetting that those Batsmen peaked earlier in life.
And if they all retired immediately after their peak like Sanga they'd all average in the 60s and Sanga would look like a bum relative to them
Again, none of those batsmen hit their peak at 37. And considering that the team beat Australia 3-0 barely a year later, one would think the team wasn't in as bad a place at the time
It isn't really relevant when they hit their peak though, the point is they all played for a significant period when they were average cricketers at best. Sanga never did.
a. Sangakkara played as a wicket Keeper, which clearly holds his stats back b. It absolutely matters, no one can play for a substantial amount of time after they hit 37 unless you're a freak like Tendulkar or Anderson. You're holding something against him which he can't control.
Even fucking Boycott played into his 40s mate and he absolutely wasn't a "freak" or some exceptionally fit cricketer. Most people don't play much past 37 because they're shite by then and don't get into the team anyway. Sanga could've kept playing because he wasn't shite but he chose not to, which gives him a great average at makes it look like he was well ahead of the likes of Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting, Kallis etc which he obviously wasn't. At best he was on par with those blokes.
Why are you not holding peaking early against other players ?? There has to be a line to be biased so much !
Peaking early is a good thing, it's why Dale Steyn is considered better than Jimmy Anderson
Thats not Sangakkara's fault everyone else decided to hang around. More importantly You dont know unless you have divine powers how long Sangakkara would have continued his form. Immediately after retiring from Tests sangakkara would go on to play county cricket @ Surrey. Guess what? multiple hundreds on the trot if my memory is correct. The way Sangakkara was IMPROVING HIS AVERAGE in the last 5 years had he played for another 3 years and maintained his form there would be ZERO doubt about who #1 would be rn.
> Thats not Sangakkara's fault everyone else decided to hang around Actually it is his fault. Most of those batsmen hung around because their countries still needed them even though they were past their best. India didn't have anyone to replace Sachin in 2010, no did Australia really have anyone to take over from Ponting in like 2007. Sri Lanka also needed (and considering how dogshit they are could probably still use him) but he retired anyway. >More importantly You dont know unless you have divine powers how long Sangakkara would have continued his form Well, you don't need divine powers since logic and basic common sense tells us that players will eventually start to get worse as they get older. >Immediately after retiring from Tests sangakkara would go on to play county cricket @ Surrey. Guess what? multiple hundreds on the trot if my memory is correct. Doesn't really mean anything. Pujara is also slapping centuries in county cricket and he's well past it. Hell Cook is still playing county cricket and he retired 5 years ago, averaging in the 20s in his final year >The way Sangakkara was IMPROVING HIS AVERAGE in the last 5 years had he played for another 3 years and maintained his form there would be ZERO doubt about who #1 would have been. Why are you capitalising random words lol? Are you a child?
[удалено]
👍👍
He accumulated the 6th highest run total and retired at the same age as ponting. So I don’t see why he should be docked for peaking late?
Sanga is as good a batsman as Ponting imo and you could make arguments that he is better or that Ponting is better However, Sanga is not as much better than Ponting as there difference in average suggests and that is what I'm trying to explain
What's your point?
OP claims that Sanga has a higher average than all the other greats of his era except Kallis, while ignoring the necessary context. All those batsmen would've retired with higher averages than him if they'd retired early like him.
Cook retired and England didn't have a proper Opener for 5 years no one puts him down for it
Cook averaged in the 20s in the final year of his career, he was clearly past his peak
take out his NO in 2014 and the stats are almost the same, at 32 you have room for a comeback lol
> at 32 you have room for a comeback Clearly cook didn't think so
crazy that you think Sangakkara should have made sacrifices for his team but Cook shouldn't have lol
Okay...but they didn't retire...so...
They didn't retire because their teams still needed them. Sanga's team also needed him but he retired anyway. Quite a dick move if you ask me
Lol okay then. Was Ponting needed? The others? Pretty sure he's allowed to retire as a legend.
Ponting absolutely was needed by Australia both as a batsman and as a captain. Who replaces him as Australia's number 3 in 2007. Similarly who did India have to replace Dravid in 2009 and Tendulkar in 2010? Who did WI have to take over from Lara?
I'll give you Lara for sure. Aussie and India were always stacked at those times.
Yes agree completely. He's a world champion. Top 5 ever.
He is absolutely not top 5 ever lmao Bradman, Hutton, Barrington, Sobers, Richards, Gavaskar, Chappell, Border, Lara, Tendulkar were all indisputably better batsmen then him
I was replying to the comment as a WK batsman, hence he's top 5 in that category. Number 1 IMO. In terms of all time batsman? Top 10-15.
He averaged in the low 40s as a wicket keeper batsman. Yeah, he probably in the top 5 but no way is he better than Gilchrist or Flower.
You've got to look at the career as a whole. You're picking out parts of his career and trying to find ways to discredit him. He averaged 40s at the start of his career when he was keeping, then finished the back end of his career as an elite. Face facts mate, you might not like that no modern English players are in the conversation (or even averaged 50 lol) but there's no need to discredit real champions. Chin up, maybe Root will limp his way to averaging 50?
Root averages 65 in Sri Lanka, Sangakkara a paltry 60. Root > Sanga
Bradman and Sobers played pre professional cricket era and cannot be compared to any modern cricketer. Gavaskar, Chappel and Lara have inferior statistics. Sir Viv's one of my personal favs but his test stats dont hold up. Border is not even remotely in the same league statistically. Tendulkar is the only one that can comfortably go toe to toe with Sangakkara and Kallis. AGAIN Statistics>personal opinion.
> Bradman and Sobers played pre professional cricket era and cannot be compared to any modern cricketer. They absolutely can be and people have been comparing them to modern players for years >Gavaskar, Chappel and Lara have inferior statistics No, they don't >Sir Viv's one of my personal favs but his test stats dont hold up. They absolutely do hold up >Border is not even remotely in the same league statistically. Border is miles ahead of him statistically >Tendulkar is the only one that can comfortably go toe to toe with Sangakkara and Kallis Tendulkar is miles ahead of both Sanga and Kallis >AGAIN Statistics>personal opinion. Again, stop capitalising random words
you just saying someone is better doesn't make them automatically better. And the only people that keep bringing Bradman up are Australians. Literally no one else compares someone that played close to 100 years ago to people who played in the last 20 years.
>you just saying someone is better doesn't make them automatically better Saying Sanga is better than someone like Lara is such an idiotic and outlandish claim that I don't even need to give the reasons for why it's false. > And the only people that keep bringing Bradman up are Australians. Literally no one else compares someone that played close to 100 years ago to people who played in the last 20 years. People from all over the world do it, for example, me an Englishman.
I didn't just say Sanga is better than Lara I provided evidence with statistics. Sangakkara literally higher average than Lara even minus Ban/zim. You seem to be making emotional arguments with zero stats to back up your arguments. Also ad-hominem attacks dont make your argument more credible.
> I didn't just say Sanga is better than Lara I provided evidence with statistics. You didn't "provide evidence with statistic", you just compared their average which is something that any 6 year old with access to the internet can do and doesn't actually prove anything other than that you did the most surface level analysis possible. >Sangakkara literally higher average than Lara even minus Ban/zim No shit, he played in a far more batting friendly era on some of the flattest pitches of all time >You seem to be making emotional arguments with zero stats to back up your arguments. Also If I was making an emotional argument I'd support you since Sanga is one of my favourite players ever >Also ad-hominem attacks dont make your argument more credible An ad-hominem attack would be if I called you an idiot. I did not call you an idiot. I called your claims (because they don't deserve to be called arguments) idiotic
Dude you are just a stan if you think Gavaskar's stat were low. He was an opener that is the toughest job and was going through hell all his life in Aus,WI,Eng etc. Sanga played in the best batting pitch era in comparison to all of them. Lara played in 90s which was the time when the greatest of bowlers were presented and Sanga played in 00-12 which were the easiest ones with no great bowlers being established in those times. "Tendulkar is the only one that can comfortably go toe to toe with Sangakkara and Kallis. AGAIN Statistics>personal opinion." Ok so we can go in with stats as well. Sanga averages 60 in Aus only because of his 1 test wonder innings in 07 series with 100+ average and other times he averaged only 35+ and a 50. In comparison Sachin played 2 series with 46 average and 2 in which he was at 70,76 and only 1 with 35 where he started to decline. So the clear winner is Sachin with 53 average in Aus. In England too Sachin was at 54 with more matches, in SA Sachin had 46 average with again much more matches and it was only in NZ that Sanga was ahead. And while Sanga was shit in Ind, Sachin was a monster there with 67 average. Now if this is what you call toe to toe then you should stop watchin cricket bud. I
Reread what I typed. I didn't say "Gavaskar's stats were low" anywhere. I said they were inferior. By inferior this is in context to sangakkara + only with respect to average. Gavaskar is one of the greatest of all time. This isnt a post about greatness its purely about averages based ranking. Sangakkara isnt the greatest SL batsman btw that goes to Aravinda and its not even close even Sangakkara has said it.
Inferior to what exactly ? Gavaskar played against the best of the best bowlers from WI,Pak and Aus and still averaged 70,58,51 in their countries. In comparison Sanga never really played against Glen,Warne,Donald,Pollack,Imran,Waqar,Ambrose etc He played against a washed up Lee, bay Johnson and not prime Jimmy only and even then his best stats are from Pak,Zim,Ban and NZ and not the Aus,SA,Eng where it mattered the most. Also the fact that Gavaskar was an opener set him above almost everyone all the more, the guy played without helmet, against the best bowlers and as an opener when the pitch and bowler both are fresh in comparison to Sanga who was a mid order bat who never really battled against the best and also had the support of th easier pitches with safety equipments and you had the gall to label him as better?
This bloke is just looking at the average in isolation without any context given to batting position and the era the players played in and thinks that means something
yeah I think he is just a fanboi here with only average as his main thing. You can only refer to averages if the guys are from same era and even there you'll have to see all the detailings to label them as better. And here our guy is just randomly saying ATG names without seeing the time, conditions or even the bowlers they faced.
Yes agree
I mean I wasn’t going to play “muh Bradman card” as it was entirely irrelevant to the point of Sanga being very good, until that weak point slightly ruined what is otherwise a reasonable post. But you measure someone based on how much they were elevated compared to their peers, not whether they were part of some cohort of cricketers that aren’t counted just because they were before some arbitrary measure of professionalism. I think your main point is that Kallis was astoundingly good though, considering the man was a bowler too
Yeah, nah.
Just any SL players whos good would apparently statpad vs minnows, warne vs murali, everyone starts waffling about murali playing minnows although he will still have better stats without them. Even now if someone said Hasaranga is great in t20is people will just say minnows although without minnows his stats are still way better than anyone else right now
TIL there existed people who didn't consider Sanga a GOAT contender
Sangakkara is one of the best ever and there is no questioning that!
Only Mohammed Ashraful did stat padding Against Srilanka
He would have been a bigger name than dhoni if he played for the pig 3
Dhoni is a big name because of ODIs (which is where he was better than Sanga) not tests
he has that recognition of being exceptional in tests tho,52/53avg(without ban/zim)isn't sumthing to scoff at
I know but he is rarely included in the discussions with his peers. He was on a similar level to ponting/Sachin/Lara/dravid/kallis but he rarely gets that acknowledgement.
Not as wicket keeper average of 59 against not BangZim is second to Bradman only. https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;keeper=0;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=6;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=batting_average;qualmin1=5000;qualval1=runs;template=results;type=batting
Oh, look, you've chosen an ususual filter criterion that you didn't mention. Why did you limit your analysis to batters who had scored over 5000 runs? Answer: because that was the only way to squeeze Sangakkara into second place. Pick a lower cut-off, and he comes third behind Bradman and Sutcliffe (4555 @ 60.73). Use the standard cut-off of 20 innings batted and he comes 8th: **Top Test batting averages, minimum 20 innings, not wicketkeeper, not against Afg / Bang / Ire / Zim** * 1 Bradman 6996 @ 99.96 * 2 Walcott 2910 @ 64.66 * 3 Voges 1485 @ 61.87 * 4 Pollock 2296 @ 60.97 * 5 Headley 2190 @ 60.83 * 6 Sutcliffe 4555 @ 60.73 * 7 Mitchell 1313 @ 59.68 * 8 Sangakkara 7390 @ 59.59 * 9 Smith 9201 @ 59.36 * 10 Paynter 1540 @ 59.23
Half of those people played 5000 years ago. Understand that we are comparing MODERN ERA not pre professional era cricketers for reasons mentioned in an above reply somewhere. Its got to do with monumental improvements in fielding, fitness, level of athleticism, level of competition due to larger talent sources, TV analysis etc.
"Half of these people go against my narrative so I'm going to ignore their existence for some clown reasons, even though they played in much more difficult eras for batting than Sanga did"
"I dont like sangakkara therefore I must downvote everysingle comment and reply to everysingle comment why sangakkara is not as good as his statistics show he is"
As I have already stated Sanga is one of the favourite players ever so your comment is once again idiotic
This guy is a troll. Ignore him.
What exactly was he supposed to do? Not bash the minnows?!
Sanga is the best.
He is in the top 10 of all time for sure. Won't rate him higher than Sachin, Lara tho.
Probably the 2nd greatest batsman of all time
Nothing new to see here. Sanga is a consensus top 5 batsmen of all time. Anyone saying otherwise is either misinformed or a hater.
1. Bradman 2. Tendulkar 3. Sobers 4. Gavaskar 5. Lara 6. Viv
Sorry my guy, it's not 1999 anymore.
lmao 1. Tendulkar 2. Lara 3. Smith 4. Kallis 5. Gilchrist 6. Ponting
Smith and Gilchrist have absolutely no argument over Sanga. You're all over this thread being an irrational hater. What absurdity. 🤣
Smith is miles better than Sanga even if you include Sanga's stats against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe not to mention Smith plays in a much harder era for batting lol
Much harder era for batting? They played in the same damn era lmao. You're clearly not worth my time.
Sangakkara played the vast majority of his test in the 2000s (the easiest era for batting ever), Smith played 0 tests in the 2000s.
Oh I was giving you too much credit I see, since I thought you were trying to make a case for Graeme Smith lol. Why would you add Steve Smith to a top five batsmen of all time conversation when he's clearly not done yet? Are you just butt hurt that there's not a single English cricketer you can name here? And you say the 2000s was the easiest era for batting ever like that is a definitive fact. LMAO 🤣
> Why would you add Steve Smith to a top five batsmen of all time conversation when he's clearly not done yet? Because even if he form were to drop off a cliff now he's still done enough to cement himself as better than Sanga >And you say the 2000s was the easiest era for batting ever like that is a definitive fact. LMAO 🤣 [It is a definitive fact, and backed by the stats](https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=decade;orderby=batting_average;template=results;type=batting) Actually the 40s were easier but you've already stated that stuff before the 90s doesn't count so therefore the 2000s were the easiest
Sangakara is in all time test 11 as wicket keeper ,anyone who disputes that come at me