Hashim Amla vs Kumar Sangakkara : Who is the better Test player?

[Adijazz1706]

Not sure how to find out the average for opening stands etc but during Sanga’s time SL openers averaged around 34 overall against top seven teams (home 34 and away bit over 33). Numbers 4 and 5 on the other hand averaged a bit over 42 overall (home just under 50 and away 35). As for Mahela he was brilliant in SL but poor away averaged in the mid 30s.

Overall openers Link

Home Link

Away Link

Numbers 4-5 overall Link

Home Link

Away Link

In comparison during Amla’s time SA openers averaged a bit over 37 overall against top seven teams (home 32 and away 43). Numbers 4-5 on the other hand averaged 50 overall (home around 51 and away around 49).

Overall openers Link

Home Link

Away Link

Numbers 4-5 overall Link

Home Link

Away Link

Sanga himself didn't do well in India, SA and WI.

 

[Bilal7]

Batting support doesn't matter when both batsmen bat at #3. When you're out in the middle, ut doesn't matter if your #5 is ABD or Samaraweera.

 

[sivaji]

When you cant give good reasons for your beliefs why a player is better, you just come up with rubbish arguments like his partners werent good so Sanga is a better player. Load of rubbish

 

[ChennaiFan]

Kumara Sangakara. He is one of all time greats of the game!

 

[Chrish]

a public poll would be nice..

 

[Buffet]

Sangakkara is good nonetheless, very good - but Amla is ATG-level specially in Tests. He has no weakness, has performed against every type of bowling in every country, every condition.

That gets ignored by many. Many in PP ignore the actual performance on ground.

In Test probably a tie (or may be Amla marginally), but in other formats Sanga.

Sanga as a pure batsman was probably a better player statically & definitely aesthetically. Both players played in similar time, so if someone can put respective stats against PAK, IND, WI, AUS, NZ & ENG - home & away; we can check the numbers again.

Sanga as pure batsman is not probably,but surely has a better performance than Amla.

Here are career performance by both in home and away against the countries you listed,

------------------------------------------

Sanga Away -- Amla Away

Ind : 36 -- 62
Eng : 41 -- 75
WI. : 34 -- 20
Aus : 60 - -57
NZ. : 61 -- 47
Pak : 72 -- 54



----------------

Sanga at home -- Amla at home


Aus : 30 -- 46
NZ. : 37 -- 94
Eng : 39 -- 45
Ind : 61 -- 27
WI. : 68 -- 64
Pak : 76 -- 49

I clubbed UAE+Pakistan together.

 

[SL_Fan]

So wait even his original post was edited from this

In Test probably a tie (or may be Amla marginally), but in other formats Sanga.

Sanga's stats are a bit mis leading because he batted at No. 3 & kept for better balance of his team. Sanga as non WK was a far better player than Sanga as WK.

Sanga as a pure batsman was probably a better player statically & definitely aesthetically. Both players played in similar time, so if someone can put respective stats against PAK, IND, WI, AUS, NZ & ENG - home & away; we can check the numbers again. Also, the numbers for Sanga as pure batsman.

To this

In Test probably a tie (or may be Amla marginally), but in other formats Sanga.

Sanga as a pure batsman was probably a better player statically & definitely aesthetically. Both players played in similar time, so if someone can put respective stats against PAK, IND, WI, AUS, NZ & ENG - home & away; we can check the numbers again.

I rest my case

 

[OS_89]

When you consider their whole careers, Amla is still a fair distance behind Sanga. If Amla can have another run like in 2010-12 where he piled on mountains of runs, then the debate can begin. For now, he's not close.

Great batsman, though, for sure.

 

[SL_Fan]

When you cant give good reasons for your beliefs why a player is better, you just come up with rubbish arguments like his partners werent good so Sanga is a better player. Load of rubbish

Not my problem if you can't follow the discussion properly now is it. What I basically said was that Amla’s real test starts now. There’s no more Smith and Kallis to share the load around him. So let’s see if Amla can cope with it like Sanga had to throughout most of his career. Then Adijazz1706 quoted my post and I replied back. That’s it.

 

[SL_Fan]

Sanga himself didn't do well in India, SA and WI.

In WI in the 5 innings that he played as a batsman alone (out of the 7 innings all up) he didn’t do that bad actually (5 innings 214 runs @ 43 with a 70 odd and two 50s). So fairly respectable I would say given the limited opportunities.

In India yes he should have done better. A 130 odd and a couple of 40s in 10 innings is not much to speak of in familiar sort of conditions. He did better without the gloves (5 innings 241 runs @ 48 with a hundred and a 40 odd) but should have done a lot more.

In SA pretty much most top order SC bats have struggled. Dravid for example averaged a bit over 29 there. So an ave in the high 30s, a match winning 100 odd, couple of 90s and a 70 odd in 16 innings is not all bad I would say. Again did better as a batsman alone (10 innings 372 runs @ 37 with a hundred, a 90 odd and a 70 odd). So all up nothing special but that match winning ton I think makes it passable.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Sangakarra is better in all formats.

The following have been the best batsmen in the world since 1990 in chronicle order:

Lara (early 90s)
Tendulkar (late 90s)
Ponting (early 2000s)
Sangakarra (late 2000s)

Right now it is a tie between Root and Kohli.

 

[MMHS]

Sangakarra is better in all formats.

The following have been the best batsmen in the world since 1990 in chronicle order:

Lara (early 90s)
Tendulkar (late 90s)
Ponting (early 2000s)
Sangakarra (late 2000s)

Right now it is a tie between Root and Kohli.

Very good one - easy way to sum up. For early 2010s, I guess it's close between Amla, Sanga & Clarke; while Smith & Will are also in race for late 2010s.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Very good one - easy way to sum up. For early 2010s, I guess it's close between Amla, Sanga & Clarke; while Smith & Will are also in race for late 2010s.

Yes, right now the playfield is wide open. Any of Root, Kohli, Smith, and Williamson can become the batsman of this era.

However, Smith I think is a bit overrated in tests. While, Williamson lacks impact in ODIs. Kohli is catching up in tests. Root looks the best batsman out of all of them who has a very balanced game for all formats.

For me in tests:
1. Williamson
2. Root
3. Smith
4. Kohli

For me in ODIs:
1. Kohli
2. Smith
3. Root
4. Williamson

 

[rixxuu]

There is no comparison what so ever. Sanga Is an ATG. Hashim Amla has a long way to go to match Sanga..

 

[MMHS]

Yes, right now the playfield is wide open. Any of Root, Kohli, Smith, and Williamson can become the batsman of this era.

However, Smith I think is a bit overrated in tests. While, Williamson lacks impact in ODIs. Kohli is catching up in tests. Root looks the best batsman out of all of them who has a very balanced game for all formats.

For me in tests:
1. Williamson
2. Root
3. Smith
4. Kohli

For me in ODIs:
1. Kohli
2. Smith
3. Root
4. Williamson

We are a bit harsh against Smith actually calling him HTB (Root doesn't have great figures in AUS, in fact outside home either). Averaging around 60 (highest of the lot), and he 'll play almost 50% of his career in AUS. Besides, he is actually not dodo against spin - I have seen his hundred at SSC. He is just 27, entering his best 6/7 years & a brilliant learner (imagine the Steve Smith of 2010 & the SS 5 years later) - I won't be surprised if he hits big in IND this time (they'll be better prepared this time, also coming after 6 Tests against SRL/PAK in prior 6 months) & eventually ends career with highest average among the lot. In Test, Virat actually is a bit disappointing so far.

 

[The_Odd_One]

We are a bit harsh against Smith actually calling him HTB (Root doesn't have great figures in AUS, in fact outside home either). Averaging around 60 (highest of the lot), and he 'll play almost 50% of his career in AUS. Besides, he is actually not dodo against spin - I have seen his hundred at SSC. He is just 27, entering his best 6/7 years & a brilliant learner (imagine the Steve Smith of 2010 & the SS 5 years later) - I won't be surprised if he hits big in IND this time (they'll be better prepared this time, also coming after 6 Tests against SRL/PAK in prior 6 months) & eventually ends career with highest average among the lot. In Test, Virat actually is a bit disappointing so far.

Smith averages over 58 in tests which is an inflated average. No way is he a 55+ averaging batsman by calibre. Somewhere around 52-53 is a more realistic average.

 

[Haz95]

Hashim Amla is wayyyyy too underrated in tests. The stats posted above by [MENTION=97523]Buffet[/MENTION] are enough since Amla has not just performed but dominated the best attacks in their respective home grounds and is arguably the best player of spin in the world. On the other end of the spectrum, he's a total beast vs pace too and this Sanga scoring big argument is null vs hashim because he also can score big.

Pretty sure hashim still has that run a ball 190 odd vs Aus in perth. Absolutely brutal knock considering the attack consisted of starc and johnson.

Sangas records vs SA in SA and India in India don't exactly help his case here.

 

[sivaji]

Smith averages over 58 in tests which is an inflated average. No way is he a 55+ averaging batsman by calibre. Somewhere around 52-53 is a more realistic average.

So by the same token, we need to take away 4 runs of average from Root and Kohli too.

 

[The_Odd_One]

So by the same token, we need to take away 4 runs of average from Root and Kohli too.

They are all 52-53 averaging batsman by calibre and way below the likes of Ponting, Lara, Kallis, Tendulkar, Dravid, Sanga, etc.

 

[street cricketer]

Sangakarra is better in all formats.

The following have been the best batsmen in the world since 1990 in chronicle order:

Lara (early 90s)
Tendulkar (late 90s)
Ponting (early 2000s)
Sangakarra (late 2000s)

Right now it is a tie between Root and Kohli.

I would say Sanga became the best batsman from 2010. He was a great batsman even in late 2000s but I think Punter was still the dominant batsman then..

 

[The_Odd_One]

I would say Sanga became the best batsman from 2010. He was a great batsman even in late 2000s but I think Punter was still the dominant batsman then..

I think Ponting was done by 2006 which coincided with Sanga's rise.

 

[The_Odd_One]

I would say Sanga became the best batsman from 2010. He was a great batsman even in late 2000s but I think Punter was still the dominant batsman then..

From 2007 to 2012 when Ponting retired:
Sanga averaged 62 with 18 centuries in 51 matches
Ponting averaged 40 with 8 centuries in 59 matches

 

[street cricketer]

I think Ponting was done by 2006 which coincided with Sanga's rise.

He was still very good between 2005 and the end of 2009. It is after that, he declined and rapidly.

 

[Buffet]

So wait even his original post was edited from this





To this





I rest my case

You don't have any case to rest here to be honest. You actually never bother to read the discussion and start putting one point 100 times. That's called trolling. Anyway, not much to add here.

 

[sivaji]

They are all 52-53 averaging batsman by calibre and way below the likes of Ponting, Lara, Kallis, Tendulkar, Dravid, Sanga, etc.

What is this nonsense calibre. You dont judge players by their technique or output but by the performnces. So far Smith has outdone his competitors and deserve his average.

 

[Buffet]

I would say Sanga became the best batsman from 2010.

Starting from 2010, Averages against non-minnows

Amla - 62
AB - 58
Kallis - 58

...
--

Sanga - 54


Amla has the best performance in this period. He performed pretty much everywhere against everyone. He is underrated by a big margin in PP. Sanga was surely not the best performer in the test format in the last 5-6 years. AB and Amla have done better in the test format. Across all formats, it's AB by some distance if we are talking about period starting from 2010.

 

[hk031992]

Starting from 2010, Averages against non-minnows

Amla - 62
AB - 58
Kallis - 58

...
--

Sanga - 54


Amla has the best performance in this period. He performed pretty much everywhere against everyone. He is underrated by a big margin in PP. Sanga was surely not the best performer in the test format in the last 5-6 years. AB and Amla have done better in the test format. Across all formats, it's AB by some distance if we are talking about period starting from 2010.

i initially thought Sanga was a bit better in tests but you have changed my mind. Great posts.

 

[The_Odd_One]

What is this nonsense calibre. You dont judge players by their technique or output but by the performnces. So far Smith has outdone his competitors and deserve his average.

1 century in a dead rubber in 7 tests in Asia, not a single match winning performance.

Since, you take averages so seriously, Voges must be the best batsman of this millennium.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Starting from 2010, Averages against non-minnows

Amla - 62
AB - 58
Kallis - 58

...
--

Sanga - 54


Amla has the best performance in this period. He performed pretty much everywhere against everyone. He is underrated by a big margin in PP. Sanga was surely not the best performer in the test format in the last 5-6 years. AB and Amla have done better in the test format. Across all formats, it's AB by some distance if we are talking about period starting from 2010.

Only for a brief period (Between 2013 and 2014) was Amla better than Sanga. For the majority of their careers, Sanga enjoyed batter ratings. Note that Sanga never had terminal decline years.

 

[sivaji]

1 century in a dead rubber in 7 tests in Asia, not a single match winning performance.

Since, you take averages so seriously, Voges must be the best batsman of this millennium.

It is only 7 tests. What does Kohli average in England? Lol. Smith has better all around record compared to his competitors

 

[sivaji]

Only for a brief period (Between 2013 and 2014) was Amla better than Sanga. For the majority of their careers, Sanga enjoyed batter ratings. Note that Sanga never had terminal decline years.

What is Sanga's rating without Bangaladesh and Pakistan?

 

[The_Odd_One]

What is Sanga's rating without Bangaladesh and Pakistan?

Ratings don't work like that and is the most accurate measure of one's performance compared to other players.

 

[The_Odd_One]

It is only 7 tests. What does Kohli average in England? Lol. Smith has better all around record compared to his competitors

Kohli has not played 7 tests in England.

Smith has mostly feasted on flat tracks and they can be anywhere. Almost all of his centuries have come when someone else in his team played an equal inning.

 

[MMHS]

What is Sanga's rating without Bangaladesh and Pakistan?

Silly question - because you don't know how the rating point is calculated.

For that 319 against us, he'll get probably less point than what Dilruhan got for his 64 against AUS. While, for his double in that Lahore Test of 2002, he probably'll get more than what Lara got for his 400, considering the match score & bowlers (& their respective rating). Ranking point is based on the quality, not for volume. Actually opposite is more vulnerable - for any low score against BD/ZIM, the discount would be much higher; therefore for Ranking points, it's actually not safe to play minnow.

Appropriate could have been asking for the average, which is discussed here in many formats - with, without.

 

[Ab Fan]

Silly question - because you don't know how the rating point is calculated.

For that 319 against us, he'll get probably less point than what Dilruhan got for his 64 against AUS. While, for his double in that Lahore Test of 2002, he probably'll get more than what Lara got for his 400, considering the match score & bowlers (& their respective rating). Ranking point is based on the quality, not for volume. Actually opposite is more vulnerable - for any low score against BD/ZIM, the discount would be much higher; therefore for Ranking points, it's actually not safe to play minnow.

Appropriate could have been asking for the average, which is discussed here in many formats - with, without.

You are right but ratings don't take venues( home, away, outside Asia) in consideration. So that is not a correct parameter to make any sort of comparison.

 

[Ab Fan]

Or to come into any valid conclusion.

 

[savecricket]

For me Amla is the better batsmen and most international teams would take him over Sanga.

You've got to remember Amla has played for SA during a time where it's been tough for a non white player to cement his place in the side and especially with SA being such a conpetative team with the likes of Smith, Kallis, Gibs, AB, and various others.

Sanga through no fault of his own has not faced those challenges and has been comfortable knowing he'll never be dropped.

SA also achieved no.1 test team in the world with Amla making massive contributions.

Don't think SL have been that good in test cricket in recent times.

For me Amlas conversion rate from 50 to 100 makes him the stand out performer.

Sanga is brilliant but I think Amla has made a bigger impact on his team.

 

[sivaji]

Kohli has not played 7 tests in England.

Smith has mostly feasted on flat tracks and they can be anywhere. Almost all of his centuries have come when someone else in his team played an equal inning.

Ya exactly his 3 hundreds in the ashes 5-0 didnt come when his team needed and his hundred in SA didnt come when the team needed haha what a pathetic lame excuses you come up with.

The fact is Kohli played a long series in England and his average is garbage. Smith has got a better record than that in Asia.

 

[SL_Fan]

You don't have any case to rest here to be honest. You actually never bother to read the discussion and start putting one point 100 times. That's called trolling. Anyway, not much to add here.

You fully edited his post fgs the same way you knowingly paint just a part of the picture with your numbers. What else is there to say really? I’ve seen you do this many times especially on Sanga threads. I’ve seen you bunch Pakistan as a weak attack, knowingly using certain dates and teams etc to manipulate figures, intentionally leaving things out and so on. Now here you are at it again and editing other people’s posts as you see fit as well. Again not for the first time either.

 

[SL_Fan]

You are right but ratings don't take venues( home, away, outside Asia) in consideration. So that is not a correct parameter to make any sort of comparison.

Player ratings would have to be the most objective and thorough measurement there is when it comes to comparing players’ performance. Team ratings can be a bit off the mark sometimes but individual player ratings on the other hand are a lot more robust. It takes most factors into account (Link) and definitely a lot more accurate than just some simple comparison of averages and what not.

 

[Ab Fan]

Player ratings would have to be the most objective and thorough measurement there is when it comes to comparing players’ performance. Team ratings can be a bit off the mark sometimes but individual player ratings on the other hand are a lot more robust. It takes most factors into account (Link) and definitely a lot more accurate than just some simple comparison of averages and what not.

I rate Sanga an ATG batsmen and I rate highly even in LOI's. But I think Amla has done better than Sanga against better quality attack and is a more well rounded player and is close to become an ATG.

Amla just need longevity and perhaps 2-3 years of further career with similar performance ( an avg of 50+) would be enough to rate him over Sanga.

 

[MMHS]

I rate Sanga an ATG batsmen and I rate highly even in LOI's. But I think Amla has done better than Sanga against better quality attack and is a more well rounded player and is close to become an ATG.

Amla just need longevity and perhaps 2-3 years of further career with similar performance ( an avg of 50+) would be enough to rate him over Sanga.

Very close to my assessment. I kept Sanga as second name on same line as of today, when he had finished his career, which includes his later age decline as well.

Ranking indeed is an indication of a player's consistency as other players in that same ranking are also measured with same formula/logic (no home & away consideration). But, Amla has very good average in AUS, ENG & Asia - which indicates, he actually was an all-round player - against bounce, swing & spin. He played a wonderful innings against Aussies, has a triple in UK & played two of the best ever rear guard innings in India & Srilanka.

But, even if I don't take WK as a consideration, this guy Sanga batted at #3 even in his late 30s & dominated the game. As of today, Hashim has 4/5 years of career left at least & by the age of 35/36; if he maintains his stats intact, I'll keep my opinion same as well. If he improves, I'll take him to a line above; but the opposite is true as well - he has to maintain this from No. 3; which even Viv & Greg didn't (dropped to 4 & 5 by the age of 31-32, Greg even earlier). The signs are not good actually - he has almost halved his stats in recent India tour, and initially struggled against England as well, at home.

In ODI; Amla has far better stats both in terms of average & SR; probably in ranking as well, but he is well behind Sanga, who was a true impact player in ODI. Hashim is an accumulator of highest order - his innings often fails to make it count, unless one of his team mate plays a clutch innings or bowlers defend it on a belter.

 

[SL_Fan]

I rate Sanga an ATG batsmen and I rate highly even in LOI's. But I think Amla has done better than Sanga against better quality attack and is a more well rounded player and is close to become an ATG.

Amla just need longevity and perhaps 2-3 years of further career with similar performance ( an avg of 50+) would be enough to rate him over Sanga.

Well you are obviously entitled to your opinion so fair enough. But all this Sanga hasn't done well against quality attacks stuff is absolute nonsense tho. Just to set the record straight.

Which batsmen thrive against the best bowlers?

This was done a couple of years back for batsmen in the 10k club. Sanga has actually done very well against top attacks. A much more thorough and accurate picture of things than the misleading numbers presented earlier.

Link

 

[Dead Ball]

Can anyone please remind me of two Sangakkara back to the wall innings against ATG bowlers at their peak? I can remember around a half a dozen in the case of Lara/Tendulkar/Waugh/Gavaskar.

I am kind of baffled by the above list/analysis. Does it take into consideration of the form of the ATG bowler(s) when the batsmen faced them? Because Sanga smashed some tons against Pollock/Waqar when they were at the fag end of their careers. Pollock was a 30+ averaging bowler since 2004, and so was Waqar in his last 6-7 year, not to even mention his last 2 years when Sanga faced him. Don't recall him doing too well against McgRath, Warne, Steyn and the likes.

Sangakkara's best performance in testing conditions came in 2006/07 in New Zealand.

 

[Adijazz1706]

Can anyone please remind me of two Sangakkara back to the wall innings against ATG bowlers at their peak? I can remember around a half a dozen in the case of Lara/Tendulkar/Waugh/Gavaskar.

I am kind of baffled by the above list/analysis. Does it take into consideration of the form of the ATG bowler(s) when the batsmen faced them? Because Sanga smashed some tons against Pollock/Waqar when they were at the fag end of their careers. Pollock was a 30+ averaging bowler since 2004, and so was Waqar in his last 6-7 year, not to even mention his last 2 years when Sanga faced him. Don't recall him doing too well against McgRath, Warne, Steyn and the likes.

Sangakkara's best performance in testing conditions came in 2006/07 in New Zealand.

Who were the bowlers on that NZ tour? Can't be Boult and Southee surely.

 

[Bilal7]

From 2010 to 2014, Amla was the best test batsman in the world. He scored runs everywhere and played some iconic innings. Sangakkara was right up there but he definitely was not the best.

2015 was a awful year for Amla but he seems to be back to his best now.

 

[Statsman]

Sanga as a pure batsman is better than Amla as a wicket keeper batsman in rain curtailed test matches played in October.

 

[Haroon786]

He was still very good between 2005 and the end of 2009. It is after that, he declined and rapidly.

Averaged 30 odd in 2009.

His peak ended in 2008.

 

[Dead Ball]

Who were the bowlers on that NZ tour? Can't be Boult and Southee surely.

Bond/Vettori/Martin/Franklin/Oram.

 

[bashar345]

Both are wonderful players.

One of them is retired and an all time great batsman.

The other is still playing, we have to wait and see how his career pans out.

In Test matches alone, Hashim Amla probably just about edges it.

In ODIs, I suspect Sangakkara is ahead by a decent margin.

Overall, it is a toss up between these two very good players and one can not go wrong with picking either of them although we have to wait and see for Amla's career to finish before one can deliver a definite verdict.

 

[Cricfan4eva]

Both are wonderful players.

One of them is retired and an all time great batsman.

The other is still playing, we have to wait and see how his career pans out.

In Test matches alone, Hashim Amla probably just about edges it.

In ODIs, I suspect Sangakkara is ahead by a decent margin.

Overall, it is a toss up between these two very good players and one can not go wrong with picking either of them although we have to wait and see for Amla's career to finish before one can deliver a definite verdict.

And is that because he's played more games? Amla averages comfortably over 50 as opener playing most of his games in SA.

 

[bashar345]

Amla played in the T20 eras, where ODIs were influenced by T20s. Smaller grounds, big bats, fast outfields, free hits, and so on all favour the batsmen.

Sangakkara played mostly in an earlier era.

 

[SL_Fan]

Can anyone please remind me of two Sangakkara back to the wall innings against ATG bowlers at their peak? I can remember around a half a dozen in the case of Lara/Tendulkar/Waugh/Gavaskar.

I am kind of baffled by the above list/analysis. Does it take into consideration of the form of the ATG bowler(s) when the batsmen faced them? Because Sanga smashed some tons against Pollock/Waqar when they were at the fag end of their careers. Pollock was a 30+ averaging bowler since 2004, and so was Waqar in his last 6-7 year, not to even mention his last 2 years when Sanga faced him. Don't recall him doing too well against McgRath, Warne, Steyn and the likes.

Sangakkara's best performance in testing conditions came in 2006/07 in New Zealand.

If you are in fact serious that’s probably because you actually haven’t watched/followed most of his career. Obviously not many ATG bowlers have been around post mid 2000s where Sanga played his best cricket. Other than that pretty much most of his top knocks especially away or against decent attacks would have come knowing that if he fell cheaply that was it. Nearly half the time he actually went out to bat with less than 20 on the board.

Also not everyone gets the same opportunities now do they. For a top team a series against SL isn’t exactly a big series. For instance Sanga’s peak was probably from early 2006 to late 2010.

Link

In those 5 years he got to play just 29 Tests against the top teams all up and only 6 of them outside the SC. Even those were mostly two Test series, played on low profile grounds or during the early part of summer as in the case of Eng etc. So the road is not as easy for players outside the big teams.

As for the analysis it's about the strength of attacks these batsmen faced not about the strength of individual bowlers. Basically weighted average was used to determine the strength of the attacks these batsmen faced going through all of their innings one by one. In order to divide the attacks into stronger (below median) and weaker (above median) attacks the guy went through all the Test matches and found the median attack strength. As for form it obviously works both ways and it’s about the attack as a whole so shouldn’t really be an issue. If you follow the link it explains everything (Link).

Brief summary

The median bowling strength for a Test innings from 1877 to 2014 (including the Sydney Test of the 2013-14 Ashes) was found to be 31.54.

The bowling strength for a particular team innings is simply the weighted average of each bowler in a bowling line-up at the start of the said innings. Weights are assigned according to the share of the bowling for each bowler in this innings. Bowlers on Test debut are assigned the median figure.

Attacks with bowling strength better than the median are counted as strong attacks and the rest as weak attacks. An attack including the exact same bowlers can have two different strength measures in different Tests. For example, a South African attack playing in Sri Lanka, where Nicky Boje would bowl a lot of overs, would have a weaker strength measure than the same attack bowling in South Africa, where Boje's share of the bowling would be much smaller.

 

[The_Odd_One]

If you are in fact serious that’s probably because you actually haven’t watched/followed most of his career. Obviously not many ATG bowlers have been around post mid 2000s where Sanga played his best cricket. Other than that pretty much most of his top knocks especially away or against decent attacks would have come knowing that if he fell cheaply that was it. Nearly half the time he actually went out to bat with less than 20 on the board.

Also not everyone gets the same opportunities now do they. For a top team a series against SL isn’t exactly a big series. For instance Sanga’s peak was probably from early 2006 to late 2010.

Link

In those 5 years he got to play just 29 Tests against the top teams all up and only 6 of them outside the SC. Even those were mostly two Test series, played on low profile grounds or during the early part of summer as in the case of Eng etc. So the road is not as easy for players outside the big teams.

As for the analysis it's about the strength of attacks these batsmen faced not about the strength of individual bowlers. Basically weighted average was used to determine the strength of the attacks these batsmen faced going through all of their innings one by one. In order to divide the attacks into stronger (below median) and weaker (above median) attacks the guy went through all the Test matches and found the median attack strength. As for form it obviously works both ways and it’s about the attack as a whole so shouldn’t really be an issue. If you follow the link it explains everything (Link).

Anybody who has watched Sanga bat will know that he was as good as Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting, etc after 2006. The ease with which he played Ajmal when he was unplayable for other batsmen was incredible.

Amla's terminal decline have not even started yet. Expect his numbers to drop just like his average in India dropped after their last tour.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Ya exactly his 3 hundreds in the ashes 5-0 didnt come when his team needed and his hundred in SA didnt come when the team needed haha what a pathetic lame excuses you come up with.

The fact is Kohli played a long series in England and his average is garbage. Smith has got a better record than that in Asia.

When did Smith hit 3 centuries in 2013/14 Ashes? Lying?

He hit 2 centuries - one at Perth (3rd test) and one at Sydney (5th test).

At Perth, Warner and Watson hit centuries in the 3rd innings which took the game away from England. Smith got out on 15.

At Sydney, Rogers scored a century in the 3rd inning and Smith got out on 7.

Warner, Haddin, Rogers, Clarke, and Watson scored more runs than Smith in that Ashes.

In SA, Marsh played a better inning and outscored him.

Kohli has failed in just one country. In Australia and South Africa, he scored plethora of runs and centuries. Smith has been average at best in Asia.

 

[SL_Fan]

Anybody who has watched Sanga bat will know that he was as good as Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting, etc after 2006. The ease with which he played Ajmal when he was unplayable for other batsmen was incredible.

Amla's terminal decline have not even started yet. Expect his numbers to drop just like his average in India dropped after their last tour.

Yeah I'm in no way trying to belittle Amla's Test credentials. He's top notch. But honestly speaking he has a lot left to prove to equal Sanga let alone surpass him. As I was saying earlier on here I think his and AB's real test starts now with a not so strong SA batting line-up.

 

[Adijazz1706]

Bond/Vettori/Martin/Franklin/Oram.

So 1 good bowler and 4 not-so-good guys. I hope SL fans won't start labeling it a great attack.

 

[Adijazz1706]

Excluding minnows and Pak, Sanga's average drops more than 10 points.

 

[sivaji]

When did Smith hit 3 centuries in 2013/14 Ashes? Lying?

He hit 2 centuries - one at Perth (3rd test) and one at Sydney (5th test).

At Perth, Warner and Watson hit centuries in the 3rd innings which took the game away from England. Smith got out on 15.

At Sydney, Rogers scored a century in the 3rd inning and Smith got out on 7.

Warner, Haddin, Rogers, Clarke, and Watson scored more runs than Smith in that Ashes.

In SA, Marsh played a better inning and outscored him.

Kohli has failed in just one country. In Australia and South Africa, he scored plethora of runs and centuries. Smith has been average at best in Asia.

So you are just ignoring his hundreds and just picking his failures. Whatan argument.
What about Kohli's constant failures in India? So Kohli has failed in NZ, SL, England and India. There is a reason why he averages in the 40s.

 

[sivaji]

Yeah I'm in no way trying to belittle Amla's Test credentials. He's top notch. But honestly speaking he has a lot left to prove to equal Sanga let alone surpass him. As I was saying earlier on here I think his and AB's real test starts now with a not so strong SA batting line-up.

Nah. That is rubbish. Then we have to find out how Sachin would have faired without Dravid and how Viv would have faired without his strong team etc etc and how Gilly would have performed without Ponting and co. It is just a rubbish argument people make when there is no logical argument they can make. The fact is Amla has been better against better teams and he didnt get to play weaker teams more like Sanga did to boost his overall average into high 50s.

 

[TestMatch]

Amla has better stats.

Amla has had a much more rounded career.

Sanga's stats are heavily padded.

Sanga has very few iconic big knocks outside of Subcon.

Both mostly dodged great bowlers.

Amla played less minnows.

Amla has more good knocks in Eng and Aus.

But Sanga was still the better batsman and reached peaks few ever reach. I don't think Amla has ever conveyed the kind of intensity and assuredness that peak Sanga did. If he played more Away games, I'm certain Sanga would have done well. He was incredibly driven.

 

[The_Odd_One]

So you are just ignoring his hundreds and just picking his failures. Whatan argument.
What about Kohli's constant failures in India? So Kohli has failed in NZ, SL, England and India. There is a reason why he averages in the 40s.

That is why I rate Kohli the lowest among these batsmen in tests:

1. Williamson
2. Root
3. Smith
4. Kohli

 

[SL_Fan]

So 1 good bowler and 4 not-so-good guys. I hope SL fans won't start labeling it a great attack.

Well obviously it depends on how many of the overs were bowled by the gun bowler/s if any and how many were bowled by the rest doesn’t it. Most attacks do have weak-links. That’s what weighted average is all about. Sanga’s unbeaten ton in the first Test of that 2006 tour for example would have counted as a strong attack in the analysis since Bond bowled close to 40% of the overs that inning. However his unbeaten 150 odd in the second Test would not have counted as a strong attack.

 

[Buffet]

You fully edited his post fgs the same way you knowingly paint just a part of the picture with your numbers. What else is there to say really? I’ve seen you do this many times especially on Sanga threads. I’ve seen you bunch Pakistan as a weak attack, knowingly using certain dates and teams etc to manipulate figures, intentionally leaving things out and so on. Now here you are at it again and editing other people’s posts as you see fit as well. Again not for the first time either.

If some one write a long post and you want to reply to certain points, you will off course pick the points you want to address. It's pretty normal practice.

How it is a manipulation is beyond my imagination when I simply answered a direct request of career performance stats by a fellow poster. I wasn't even answering your post here. Pretty childish behavior here to be honest.

 

[SL_Fan]

Nah. That is rubbish. Then we have to find out how Sachin would have faired without Dravid and how Viv would have faired without his strong team etc etc and how Gilly would have performed without Ponting and co. It is just a rubbish argument people make when there is no logical argument they can make. The fact is Amla has been better against better teams and he didnt get to play weaker teams more like Sanga did to boost his overall average into high 50s.

How is that rubbish. Obviously playing in a strong team you only need to look after your own game and the rest takes care of itself. Playing in a weak team that’s not the case. You have to worry about your game and rest of the team. I’m not saying what Amla has done in the past counts for nothing of course not but if he flops when the team needs him the most then he’ll certainly lose big points for mine. Just like how I find him tough to rate in LOIs even tho his overall numbers are unreal. He scores runs for fun in bilaterals but in ICC tourneys when the team is under the pump and needs him the most he is nowhere to be found.

And nope Amla hasn’t done better. Just look at the ratings graph posted by The_Odd_One earlier. Sanga hit the 750 mark within just a couple of years and stayed around the 875 mark for over 8 years. Amla took 5 years to get to the 750 mark and has only been around the 875 mark for a bit over 3 years. So not even close. The next few years will be telling for him. If he can stay around that 875 mark for at least the next 3-4 years then he will certainly have a strong case.

 

[SL_Fan]

If some one write a long post and you want to reply to certain points, you will off course pick the points you want to address. It's pretty normal practice.

How it is a manipulation is beyond my imagination when I simply answered a direct request of career performance stats by a fellow poster. I wasn't even answering your post here. Pretty childish behavior here to be honest.

What long post? It was just a few lines. You simply removed things in there as you saw fit just like your stats. Who does that?

 

[Buffet]

You fully edited his post fgs the same way you knowingly paint just a part of the picture with your numbers. What else is there to say really?

So fellopw poster asked - "if someone can put respective stats against PAK, IND, WI, AUS, NZ & ENG - home & away;"

I fulfilled his request. And here you go with your childish tantrums ....

 

[Buffet]

What long post? It was just a few lines. You simply removed things in there as you saw fit just like your stats. Who does that?

Did you even bother to read what he asked? please go back and read again. I even made it easier for you.

 

[Buffet]

Very close to my assessment. I kept Sanga as second name on same line as of today, when he had finished his career, which includes his later age decline as well.

Ranking indeed is an indication of a player's consistency as other players in that same ranking are also measured with same formula/logic (no home & away consideration). But, Amla has very good average in AUS, ENG & Asia - which indicates, he actually was an all-round player - against bounce, swing & spin. He played a wonderful innings against Aussies, has a triple in UK & played two of the best ever rear guard innings in India & Srilanka.

But, even if I don't take WK as a consideration, this guy Sanga batted at #3 even in his late 30s & dominated the game. As of today, Hashim has 4/5 years of career left at least & by the age of 35/36; if he maintains his stats intact, I'll keep my opinion same as well. If he improves, I'll take him to a line above; but the opposite is true as well - he has to maintain this from No. 3; which even Viv & Greg didn't (dropped to 4 & 5 by the age of 31-32, Greg even earlier). The signs are not good actually - he has almost halved his stats in recent India tour, and initially struggled against England as well, at home.

In ODI; Amla has far better stats both in terms of average & SR; probably in ranking as well, but he is well behind Sanga, who was a true impact player in ODI. Hashim is an accumulator of highest order - his innings often fails to make it count, unless one of his team mate plays a clutch innings or bowlers defend it on a belter.

A fair assessment.

 

[SL_Fan]

So fellopw poster asked - "if someone can put respective stats against PAK, IND, WI, AUS, NZ & ENG - home & away;"

I fulfilled his request. And here you go with your childish tantrums ....

Yes of course let's see what parts you removed eh. In bold

In Test probably a tie (or may be Amla marginally), but in other formats Sanga.

Sanga's stats are a bit mis leading because he batted at No. 3 & kept for better balance of his team. Sanga as non WK was a far better player than Sanga as WK.

Sanga as a pure batsman was probably a better player statically & definitely aesthetically. Both players played in similar time, so if someone can put respective stats against PAK, IND, WI, AUS, NZ & ENG - home & away; we can check the numbers again. Also, the numbers for Sanga as pure batsman.

So much for the long post. Any way as I said I rest my case.

 

[Buffet]

i initially thought Sanga was a bit better in tests but you have changed my mind. Great posts.

Nope, My post was only for period starting from 2010. I have absolutely no doubt that Amla was better in that period and even performance backs that up.

Sanga's best period was in late 00s. In entire career, You can still take Sanga over Amla and I won't really argue much. I only replied to a certain post which talked about best batsman starting from 2010. That tag easily goes to Amla.

1...2...3.... Sl_fan will complain that why I only replied to one line out of a third person's entire post.

 

[Buffet]

Yes of course let's see what parts you removed eh. In bold

Did you forget to see that Sanga's number as pure batsman was already posted in the thread. I am speechless here. Why would I post the same data which was already posted?

Did you also ignore that I already said in the same post that Sanga as pure batsman is better than Amla? Seriously grow up. You don't have any case or any point here.

 

[SL_Fan]

And you removed this part because?

In Test probably a tie (or may be Amla marginally), but in other formats Sanga.

Sanga's stats are a bit mis leading because he batted at No. 3 & kept for better balance of his team. Sanga as non WK was a far better player than Sanga as WK.

Sanga as a pure batsman was probably a better player statically & definitely aesthetically. Both players played in similar time, so if someone can put respective stats against PAK, IND, WI, AUS, NZ & ENG - home & away; we can check the numbers again. Also, the numbers for Sanga as pure batsman.

Seriously just give it a rest will ya LOL!

 

[SL_Fan]

Any ways you do this sort of nonsense in pretty much every Sanga thread. Nothing new. That's it from me not worth the time.

 

[Buffet]

Any ways you do this sort of nonsense in pretty much every Sanga thread. Nothing new. That's it from me not worth the time.

I sanga's thread you do provide very good laugh even though you may not realize it. You are sensitive about why I quoted only portion of post when I was replying to portion of a post. That sounds silly to be honest.

 

[SL_Fan]

Not sensitive just don't like bs.

Anyways talking about Sangers took an unbelievable grab yesterday.

Saw him take a screamer in CPL as well just recently with the gloves. With eyes and reflexes that good and still playing pretty much non-stop competitive cricket I’m really starting to wonder if he might make a comeback now that Ford is back as coach

 

[Adijazz1706]

Well obviously it depends on how many of the overs were bowled by the gun bowler/s if any and how many were bowled by the rest doesn’t it. Most attacks do have weak-links. That’s what weighted average is all about. Sanga’s unbeaten ton in the first Test of that 2006 tour for example would have counted as a strong attack in the analysis since Bond bowled close to 40% of the overs that inning. However his unbeaten 150 odd in the second Test would not have counted as a strong attack.

An injury-prone fast bowler bowling 40% of the overs suggests the attack is even weaker than it appears and exhaustion will also take a toll as fast bowlers like Bond aren't supposed to simultaneously be workhorses.

 

[SL_Fan]

The entire SL innings lasted just over 50 overs in both digs. Sanga scored an unbeaten hundred in the second innings while the rest contributed just 61 runs. Bond took 3/43 and 4/63 so fair to say he was doing just fine.

 

[rooster]

I've seen a lot of posts about Amla performanced better against quality bowing units, can someone give me some examples?

I've went through some old matches of his but all the matches he's scored it's either a flat pitch where both teams racked up runs or Smith/Kallis/AB smashing hundreds along with him as well.

Of course Amla has some terrific hundreds as well which no one can argue about. But him performed against quality attacks is a gimmick.

 

[TestMatch]

I've went through some old matches of his but all the matches he's scored it's either a flat pitch where both teams racked up runs or Smith/Kallis/AB smashing hundreds along with him as well.

Yes. Amla pretty much only has "great knocks" vs England and in England.

He has much more rounded stats than Sanga, but not when you examine match conditions/bowling opposition.

And Sanga conveyed the feeling that he was more clutch.