So batting down the order for an entire decade - 35 avg with SR of 74 is good?
We are talking about 00s and not 70s. He batted number 3-4 in most games in 00s in ODI.
Sanga was a very ordinary batsman in 00s in ODI for an entire decade He was a top class in tests in the same decade.
I think you are biased because of sangas performances against Bangladesh.
He avearged 52 agasint non-monnows. Sanga was a top-tier test bat for me.
My comment had nothing to do with nationalism lol, sanga used to destroy bang all the time so it's natural for you to rate him higher because that's what you saw.
People tend to rate players who do really well against their teams on a higher pedestal, it's natural.
Well this clearly shows us the winner. Isn't it
By a mile, no way. Sanga has an average of 44 away from Asia if you exclude Mugabe's zimbooks.
How did sanga have any meaningful impact. Played more matches against bang than against aus.
So you are denying Sanga's legacy.
Nope, sanga is a bonafide atg. But not in the same league as srt, lara and ponting
Lara for me was the most gifted batsman among them.
Test isn't superior to odi, their tons of test greats like younis Khan who are complete failures in odi.
In the Umar Akmal vs Kohli thread you argued Kohli was playing with a superstar cast around him so had much less pressure of failure while Akmal was fighting a lone battle under much greater pressure. But that must not apply to Sanga.
stats.espncricinfo.com
Brother, if you're gonna quote me, please quote the whole sentence and the whole context, not just one certain line so you can strawman my argument.
The top teams in the 2000s were Australia, South Africa, India, Sri Lanka and England. Here are the output generated by both the players, Tendulkar and Sangakkara in away and neutral venues:-
Tendulkar - 5700 runs @54 avg
Sangakkara - 2324 runs @41 avg
All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com
Sanga was a top player who made Sri Lanka pretty strong especially in home conditions and Pakistan but outside in countries which mattered more like India, Australia, South Africa and England, he didn't set the stage alive. He failed to take on the likes of Steyn who had such a great battle with Tendulkar even in his late 30s.
He is also the same poster who said batting averages matter, in bowling it's number of wickets taken that matters, not average.
And Sri Lanka were strong team in mid-90s for Sanga to debut? Lol they were minnows in tests for most part in 90s.
Sri Lanka were minnow till 1994/95. Which is why them winning the 1996 WC shocked everyone. Go, ask anyone who watched cricket in the 90's.
Sangakkara was 18 years old in 1995.
.png "Kumar Sangakkara :sanga")
Sri Lanka were an absolutely terrible team in the 90s, there's a reason why eng only played a single test against them.
For the same reason why Viv Richards and Ricky Ponting didn't despite playing in the 2 greatest teams the game has ever seen.
How do you know they didn't chase personal milestone, or Tendulkar chased personal milestone? Give examples in Test cricket.Genius, there's a huge difference between tests and odis and everyone who watched cricket back then knows that lanka winning the wc was a massive shock.
This is the same poster that claimed only batting averages count, in bowling it's the number of wickets taken that count, not averages.
They did, this is a laughable statement coming from someone you didn't watch cricket back then.
So you’d admit that Sanga was better than Viv, Lara and Ponting as well since he has a better average than all 3 of them?
Tests and odis didnt have a huge diff then is such a shoking comment
Not shocking if it’s coming from someone who starred following the game after T20 took over.
Earlier you said bowling quality was much higher in 90s and declined this millennium, in the Waqar vs Steyn thread I think. That doesn't apply here? Considering Sachin played half his tests in the 90s.
Tendulkar wasn’t a big fish in a small pond. He was a genuinely good at 16 as well.
1 century in England at the age of 17, 2 centuries in Australia at the age of 18, including 1 at the lightning Perth track, 1 century in South Africa at the age of 19.
Joginder Sharma was a bigger matchwinner than Waqar. Johannesburg 2007.
have you watched matches in 90s. Sri Lanka were minnows in the 90s until a year or so back before then won WC. I won a 1 to 200 bet about them winning WC. Even I did not believe it and bet 10rs only for fun. They had some of their greatest players and they were about to break out by mid 90s. before that everyone bashed them around, like how it has been for BD all their history
you have no idea what you are talking. Please educate yourself. Some of us who saw matches in 80s and 90s know what you are saying is full of C**P. Sanga was mediocre ODI player most of his career and won't even make it to top 20. heck he is not even SL best ODI player, both Jayasurya and Dilshan were better and had more impact. Sanga was great Test player but a lot of his average is boosted by playing against forever minnows like BD. Most of his peak came in 00s when the pitches all around the world were flat, more so in SL. There is not a single expert who will pick Sanga over Tendulkar. Tendulkar, Lara and Ponting belong to elite group. Sanga is one level down with Rahul, Hayden, and others.
not just shocking, just how is cricketing pedigree. He seems to have an opinion and then find facts to defend that opinion without seeing the facts objectively for what it is.
