What's new

Kumar Sangakkara versus Sachin Tendulkar: Sangakkara outshines Tendulkar in numbers

sweep_shot said:
Tendulkar was an opener.

Sanga batted down the order.
Click to expand...
So batting down the order for an entire decade - 35 avg with SR of 74 is good?

Did you watch games in 00s or just putting Sanga with the likes of Dhoni/Bevan. Sanga was no one in ODI in 00s.
 
Buffet said:
So batting down the order for an entire decade - 35 avg with SR of 74 is good?
Click to expand...

Average of 41.98 was good for a keeper who batted down the order.

Strike rate could've been better. But, then again, strike rates used to be lower during those days.
 
Total ODIs played by Tendulkar: 463
Tendulkar's ODI average: 44.83
Tendulkar's total ODI runs: 18,426

Total ODIs played by Sangakara: 404
Sangakara's ODI average: 41.98
Sangakara's total ODI runs: 14,234

=====================================
Total Tests played by Tendulkar: 200
Tendulkar's Test average: 53.78
Tendulkar's total ODI runs: 15,921

Total Tests played by Sangakara: 134
Sangakara's total ODI runs: 12,400
Sangakara's Test average: 57.40

======================================

From the above stats, we can conclude that Sangakara was a better overall contributor than Tendulkar. Test is superior to ODI and hence Test performance should carry more weight.

We also have to remember Sangakara had the additional burden of keeping (in ODI particularly).

So, Sangakara was better.

@Buffet
 
sweep_shot said:
Average of 41.98 was good for a keeper who batted down the order.

Strike rate could've been better. But, then again, strike rates used to be lower during those days.
Click to expand...
We are talking about 00s and not 70s. He batted number 3-4 in most games in 00s in ODI.

Here are some numbers for batsmen who batted at 3-4 for their teams with at least 1500 plus runs,

Dhoni - Avg 84, SR 103
AB - Avg 47 , SR 84
Ponting Avg 45, SR 84


So top class batsmen playing at 3-4 had good SR and good Avg.

Then you had the likes of Kallis, Moyo, Shiv, Ganguly all averaging higher than Sanga with similar SR. This is just for batsmen who played in 3-4 spots with 1500-plus runs. Sanga will appear way down the list if you include all batting positions.
 
sweep_shot said:
Total Tests played by Tendulkar: 200
Tendulkar's Test average: 53.78
Tendulkar's total ODI runs: 15,921

Total Tests played by Sangakara: 134
Sangakara's total ODI runs: 12,400
Sangakara's Test average: 57.40
Click to expand...

I meant Test.
 
sweep_shot said:
Total ODIs played by Tendulkar: 463
Tendulkar's ODI average: 44.83
Tendulkar's total ODI runs: 18,426

Total ODIs played by Sangakara: 404
Sangakara's ODI average: 41.98
Sangakara's total ODI runs: 14,234

=====================================
Total Tests played by Tendulkar: 200
Tendulkar's Test average: 53.78
Tendulkar's total ODI runs: 15,921

Total Tests played by Sangakara: 134
Sangakara's total ODI runs: 12,400
Sangakara's Test average: 57.40

======================================

From the above stats, we can conclude that Sangakara was a better overall contributor than Tendulkar. Test is superior to ODI and hence Test performance should carry more weight.

We also have to remember Sangakara had the additional burden of keeping (in ODI particularly).

So, Sangakara was better.

@Buffet
Click to expand...
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 have never heard anyone even trying to compare Sanga with any top-tier ODI batsmen in 00s let alone SRT.
 
There is no way Sanga will come in the top 15 batsmen in ODI format in 2000s. We can comfortably find many better batsmen.

He was a top-tier test batsman in his entire career. He was just an average batsman in ODI in 00s and then became very good in 2010s. I don't consider Sanga a better test bat than SRT, but the gap was not that wide in test. But you have to torture the reality to make a case for Sanga in ODI format over SRT. Gap was just too wide in ODI format.

All batsmen with 1500-plus runs in the 2000s

sanga00.png
 
sweep_shot said:
Total ODIs played by Tendulkar: 463
Tendulkar's ODI average: 44.83
Tendulkar's total ODI runs: 18,426

Total ODIs played by Sangakara: 404
Sangakara's ODI average: 41.98
Sangakara's total ODI runs: 14,234

=====================================
Total Tests played by Tendulkar: 200
Tendulkar's Test average: 53.78
Tendulkar's total ODI runs: 15,921

Total Tests played by Sangakara: 134
Sangakara's total ODI runs: 12,400
Sangakara's Test average: 57.40

======================================

From the above stats, we can conclude that Sangakara was a better overall contributor than Tendulkar. Test is superior to ODI and hence Test performance should carry more weight.

We also have to remember Sangakara had the additional burden of keeping (in ODI particularly).

So, Sangakara was better.

@Buffet
Click to expand...
I think you are biased because of sangas performances against Bangladesh.

Sanga feasted on zim/ban a lot
 
Statpadder Inc said:
I think you are biased because of sangas performances against Bangladesh.

Sanga feasted on zim/ban a lot
Click to expand...
He avearged 52 agasint non-monnows. Sanga was a top-tier test bat for me.

But anyone looking at his career average of 57-58 and extrapolating anything due to this average forgets that 20% of his career runs came against Zim/BD. No harm in scoring against them but if you have 1 out of 5 runs in your career against Zim/BD then the average is not meaningful when trying to compare.
 
Sangakkara was a terrific player and one of the all-time greats of the game. But over here, all those posters who are supporting Sanga, the main reason behind it is because this thread compares him with an Indian player, Tendulkar. :srt
 
Statpadder Inc said:
I think you are biased because of sangas performances against Bangladesh.

Sanga feasted on zim/ban a lot
Click to expand...

I am not drunk on nationalism like Indians are generally. LOL. My comment had nothing to do with Bangladesh.

After watching both live, I just felt Sanga was far more impactful.

He was a keeper too. He had two jobs (keeping and batting). Tendulkar was only a batter (who bowled part-time sometimes).
 
sweep_shot said:
I am not drunk on nationalism like Indians are generally. LOL. My comment had nothing to do with Bangladesh.

After watching both live, I just felt Sanga was far more impactful.

He was a keeper too. He had two jobs (keeping and batting). Tendulkar was only a batter (who bowled part-time sometimes).
Click to expand...
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.

Sanga averaged 40 as a keeper, ge didn't even keep wickets for the majority of his career.
 
Test Averages against SENA in SENA:

You'd have to say that Sachin outshines here. He also played more matches agaist SENA in SENA which speaks volumes about his consistency. Sanga is no mug, but sachin was just better by these metrics:

Sachin:
In Aus: 53
In England: 54
in NZ: 50
in South Africa: 46

Sangakara:
In Aus: 52
In England: 41
in NZ: 61
in South Africa: 49
 
Statpadder Inc said:
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.

Sanga averaged 40 as a keeper, ge didn't even keep wickets for the majority of his career.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "that's what I saw"? Do you think I only watch BD game? LOL.

As a matter of fact, I watch more Australian games than I watch BD games.

Sanga was a regular keeper in ODI. Dilshan sometimes kept here and there but Sanga was the main ODI keeper for SL.
 
sweep_shot said:
What do you mean by "that's what I saw"? Do you think I only watch BD game? LOL.

As a matter of fact, I watch more Australian games than I watch BD games.

Sanga was a regular keeper in ODI. Dilshan sometimes kept here and there but Sanga was the main ODI keeper for SL.
Click to expand...
People tend to rate players who do really well against their teams on a higher pedestal, it's natural.
Everyone does it.

Sanga wasn't even an odi great, jayasuriya and desilva were better odi batsmen than him.

He didn't keep wickets in tests, wasn't talking about odis lol.
 
Asad T said:
Test Averages against SENA in SENA:

You'd have to say that Sachin outshines here. He also played more matches agaist SENA in SENA which speaks volumes about his consistency. Sanga is no mug, but sachin was just better by these metrics:

Sachin:
In Aus: 53
In England: 54
in NZ: 50
in South Africa: 46

Sangakara:
In Aus: 52
In England: 41
in NZ: 61
in South Africa: 49
Click to expand...
Well this clearly shows us the winner. Isn't it
 
Statpadder Inc said:
People tend to rate players who do really well against their teams on a higher pedestal, it's natural.
Everyone does it.

Sanga wasn't even an odi great, jayasuriya and desilva were better odi batsmen than him.

He didn't keep wickets in tests, wasn't talking about odis lol.
Click to expand...

Again, you are projecting your Indian mindset onto me. I don't think like this.

Sanga was a regular keeper in ODI. So, his workload was twice. Jayasuriya and De Silva were mostly batters (who bowled once in a while).

In Test, Sanga did better than Tendulkar. If Sanga played 200 Tests like Tendulkar did, he could've surpassed Tendulkar by a mile.
 
@Hitman

Kumar Sangakkara in Test:

- Against Shane Warne: Average 49
- Against Glenn McGrath: Not mentioned (it probably means he didn't face him)

Screenshot_20240210_030232_Chrome.jpg

Screenshot_20240210_030216_Chrome.jpg

Sachin Tendulkar Test Average:

- Against Shane Warne: 39
- Against Glenn McGrath: 22.16

Screenshot_20240210_030427_Chrome.jpg

Screenshot_20240210_030357_Chrome.jpg
 
sweep_shot said:
Again, you are projecting your Indian mindset onto me. I don't think like this.

Sanga was a regular keeper in ODI. So, his workload was twice. Jayasuriya and De Silva were mostly batters (who bowled once in a while).

In Test, Sanga did better than Tendulkar. If Sanga played 200 Tests like Tendulkar did, he could've surpassed Tendulkar by a mile.
Click to expand...
By a mile, no way. Sanga has an average of 44 away from Asia if you exclude Mugabe's zimbooks.

Sachin played in the 90s, the hardest era for batting and averaged in 58 while sanga feasted on the flat roads of 2000s/ early 10s, when batting was the easiest.

If he played 200 matches, is averaged would have dropped a lot.

Not in the same class as sachin/lara/ponting.
Do you consider sanga to be better than lara or ponting?
 
sweep_shot said:
In Test, Sanga did better than Tendulkar. If Sanga played 200 Tests like Tendulkar did, he could've surpassed Tendulkar by a mile.
Click to expand...

The reason why Sachin played 200 tests is because he started playing at 16. He started playing at 16 because he was good enough form international cricket right then. He's usually considered the greatest since Bradman just because if this very reason. For a major chunk of 20 freaking years , he was considered atleast top 3 in the world.

He also won the World Cup. And was part of the No.1 ranked Test win that won the mace twice.

Only biased or those who have zero understanding of the game will consider Sanga a better player just because he averages more in much lesser tests.
 
If Sanga is better than Sachin based on stats, Ashwin and Jadeja are both better than Shane Warne, no two ways about it. It is intellectually dishonest to have different yardsticks, you follow stats, follow for all comparisons.
 
Individual batsman vs bowler stats are not available in cricket pre 2015. Statsguru founders made it very clear about this.
 
We would have to live in an altered reality to suggest Santa is a better player than Tendulkar.

No contemporary opposition player of both would place Sanga over Tendulkar — not one.
As Rob Key says, “stats are for prats”….

I’ve watched an awful lot of cricket since the early 70s — the four finest players I have seen (in person) are Sobers, Richards (Viv) , Lara and Tendulkar.

Of course one can debate the criteria that go to defining the “finest”, and I place a high (perhaps overly high) regard to the aesthetic element (why I can’t place Smith there).

But going just on numbers is foolish — using that criterion Ken Barrington would be one of England’s greatest batters (7000 runs at 58) — not even his Mum would have thought that ….
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sweep_shot said:
Again, you are projecting your Indian mindset onto me. I don't think like this.

Sanga was a regular keeper in ODI. So, his workload was twice. Jayasuriya and De Silva were mostly batters (who bowled once in a while).

In Test, Sanga did better than Tendulkar. If Sanga played 200 Tests like Tendulkar did, he could've surpassed Tendulkar by a mile.
Click to expand...

It's not a level playing field for both.

As an example, if you compare Graham Gooch with Azhar Ali, you can also say that both average same but it was not a level playing field for both, Gooch is miles better than Azhar.
 
Anyway, Sanga is superior to Tendulkar when it comes to meaningful impact. It is remarkable that Sanga managed to do that despite having two jobs (keeping and batting).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sweep_shot said:
I was highlighting the extreme nationalism Indians tend to feel. I do not have that tendency.

I believe in individualism. Nationalism is not my cup of tea.

Anyway, Sanga is superior to Tendulkar when it comes to meaningful impact. It is remarkable that Sanga managed to do that despite having two jobs (keeping and batting).
Click to expand...
How did sanga have any meaningful impact. Played more matches against bang than against aus.

Lucky to bat in roads against mediocre teams
 
Sanga is a living legend. He scored tons in Australia, South Africa, Pakistan, England etc, etc. Also served as president of the MCC. Tendulkar is nowhere near him. Just kidding!
 
Lol@ everyone jumping in to defend Tendulkar. Those who know, they know. Those who don’t, don’t matter. Those who instigate, ignore them. Tendulkar doesn’t need to be defended, he’s way beyond internet keyboard warriors who like to needlessly stir up emotions over 10 years after he has retired. Let it go!
 
sweep_shot said:
Total ODIs played by Tendulkar: 463
Tendulkar's ODI average: 44.83
Tendulkar's total ODI runs: 18,426

Total ODIs played by Sangakara: 404
Sangakara's ODI average: 41.98
Sangakara's total ODI runs: 14,234

=====================================
Total Tests played by Tendulkar: 200
Tendulkar's Test average: 53.78
Tendulkar's total ODI runs: 15,921

Total Tests played by Sangakara: 134
Sangakara's total ODI runs: 12,400
Sangakara's Test average: 57.40

======================================

From the above stats, we can conclude that Sangakara was a better overall contributor than Tendulkar. Test is superior to ODI and hence Test performance should carry more weight.

We also have to remember Sangakara had the additional burden of keeping (in ODI particularly).

So, Sangakara was better.

@Buffet
Click to expand...
Test isn't superior to odi, their tons of test greats like younis Khan who are complete failures in odi.

Their different formats altogether. Being better in one doesn't equate to being better in others.

We can clearly see that Sangakara was superior in test but Sachin is miles ahead of him in odi.
 
If you think that Sangakkara is better than Tendulkar, then by the same criteria, you must also think that Jadeja is a better all-rounder than Imran Khan.

If you don’t think so then you are a hypocrite.
 
sweep_shot said:
Again, you are projecting your Indian mindset onto me. I don't think like this.

Sanga was a regular keeper in ODI. So, his workload was twice. Jayasuriya and De Silva were mostly batters (who bowled once in a while).

In Test, Sanga did better than Tendulkar. If Sanga played 200 Tests like Tendulkar did, he could've surpassed Tendulkar by a mile.
Click to expand...

Not this fallacious argument again. I will copy paste my post from earlier in the thread:

People fail to realize that Tendulkar was able to play 200 Test matches because he was good enough to do so and others didn’t play that many matches because they were not good enough.

Tendulkar made his Test debut at 16 because he was good enough to play at the highest level at that age. Most players are barely qualified to play domestic cricket at that age.

Sangakkara made his Test debut at the age of 23. If he was good enough for Test cricket at 16, he would have made his debut 7 years earlier and come very close to the 200 Test match mark.

This applies to pretty much all the batsman who are compared with Tendulkar but made their debuts at 21/22. It is not Tendulkar’s problem that he was good enough at 16 and others weren’t.
 
Mamoon said:
Not this fallacious argument again. I will copy paste my post from earlier in the thread:

People fail to realize that Tendulkar was able to play 200 Test matches because he was good enough to do so and others didn’t play that many matches because they were not good enough.

Tendulkar made his Test debut at 16 because he was good enough to play at the highest level at that age. Most players are barely qualified to play domestic cricket at that age.

Sangakkara made his Test debut at the age of 23. If he was good enough for Test cricket at 16, he would have made his debut 7 years earlier and come very close to the 200 Test match mark.

This applies to pretty much all the batsman who are compared with Tendulkar but made their debuts at 21/22. It is not Tendulkar’s problem that he was good enough at 16 and others weren’t.
Click to expand...

Check who Tendulkar was competing against when he was 16. India were a weak team then. Tendulkar was a big fish in a small pond during his earlier days.

Sanga faced far tougher competition. When Sanga debuted, Sri Lanka were a seriously heavyweight team. He was playing in a team that had Jayasuriya, Aravinda, Atapattu, Mahela etc.

Also, Sanga probably didn't want to prolong his career for personal milestones.
 
sweep_shot said:
Check who Tendulkar was competing against when he was 16. India were a weak team then. Tendulkar was a big fish in a small pond during his earlier days.

Sanga faced far tougher competition. When Sanga debuted, Sri Lanka were a seriously heavyweight team. He was playing in a team that had Jayasuriya, Aravinda, Atapattu, Mahela etc.

Also, Sanga probably didn't want to prolong his career for personal milestones.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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

stats.espncricinfo.com

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com stats.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.
 
sweep_shot said:
LOL. What?

Test is the ultimate format. That's why associates try very hard to become Test nations. It is the most prestigious format.
Click to expand...
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.

In the context that you're speaking, you're talking about prestige, which in that case its true, test is > odi as its the oldest form of the game, has historical value and being considered a test nation holds more weight, those who aren't test nations are classified as associate nations.

In the context that I spoke off, I was talking about player performance. Aka being good in one format does not equate to being good in the other hence test isn't superior to odi as by that logic a great test player would be a god at playing odi and t20 however that isn't true if you look at players like younis Khan who's great in one format but terrible in another.
 
Ab Fan said:
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

stats.espncricinfo.com

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com stats.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.
Click to expand...

You conveniently ignored the fact Tendulkar debuted almost a decade before Sanga did. If Sanga debuted in late-80's or early-90's, he probably would've scored close to 20,000 runs.
 
charlie007 said:
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.
Click to expand...
He is also the same poster who said batting averages matter, in bowling it's number of wickets taken that matters, not average.
 
sweep_shot said:
You conveniently ignored the fact Tendulkar debuted almost a decade before Sanga did. If Sanga debuted in late-80's or early-90's, he probably would've scored close to 20,000 runs.
Click to expand...

Who stopped Sanga from debuting in early-90s? He was deemed "not good enough" which is why he didn't played for Sri Lanka in 90s. I don't know what is so hard to understand here. If he had 20k runs, who knows he would actually be rated higher than Tendulkar. But wake up and come back to reality, he doesn't have 20,000 runs, not even 15,000 runs. Hence, he can't be rated better test batter than Tendulkar.

Sanga's average is only higher because he played a lot of games vs minnow nations and cashed on heavily.

His record vs top teams is inferior to Tendulkar.

His record outside Asia is inferior to Tendulkar.

His runs tally is inferior to Tendulkar.

His runs tally vs top 8 teams away from home is inferior to Tendulkar.

I would put Sangakkara above Dravid and Miandad but he is behind Tendulkar and Gavaskar.
 
Ab Fan said:
Who stopped Sanga from debuting in early-90s? He was deemed "not good enough" which is why he didn't played for Sri Lanka in 90s. I don't know what is so hard to understand here. If he had 20k runs, who knows he would actually be rated higher than Tendulkar. But wake up and come back to reality, he doesn't have 20,000 runs, not even 15,000 runs. Hence, he can't be rated better test batter than Tendulkar.

Sanga's average is only higher because he played a lot of games vs minnow nations and cashed on heavily.

His record vs top teams is inferior to Tendulkar.

His record outside Asia is inferior to Tendulkar.

His runs tally is inferior to Tendulkar.

His runs tally vs top 8 teams away from home is inferior to Tendulkar.
Click to expand...

When Tendulkar made his Test debut, Sanga was 12-13 years old. He was a kid.

Also, was there any game which Tendulkar won decisively in Test? It seems like he mostly scored soft runs. Heavy liftings were done by likes of Laxman, Dravid etc.
 
sweep_shot said:
Dravid was a bigger matchwinner than Tendulkar. Kolkata 2001.
Click to expand...

Rishabh Pant is a bigger match winner than both. He won two test series in Australia. That doesn't make him a better bat than Tendulkar or Dravid or Sangakkara.

Dravid has poor record in Australia and South Africa and his best came during the period of 2000-2006 when India had Tendulkar, Laxman and Sehwag all performing well alongwith Kumble achieving success overseas.
 
sweep_shot said:
When Tendulkar made his Test debut, Sanga was 12-13 years old. He was a kid.

Also, was there any game which Tendulkar won decisively in Test? It seems like he mostly scored soft runs. Heavy liftings were done by likes of Laxman, Dravid etc.
Click to expand...

So, you mean Sanga was not good enough to debut even in mid-90s when he became a 16 year old? Tendulkar was good enough though and inspite of starting that early and playing so many games outside Asia, he ended with a career average of 53.78. That's phenomenal. If I was a Bangladeshi, I would wish someone from my country replicates that.

Many games. They all did heavy lifting and hence India did well. Btw, was there any game that Sanga won decisively in Tests? Seems like he mostly scored soft runs too.
 
Ab Fan said:
So, you mean Sanga was not good enough to debut even in mid-90s when he became a 16 year old? Tendulkar was good enough though and inspite of starting that early and playing so many games outside Asia, he ended with a career average of 53.78. That's phenomenal. If I was a Bangladeshi, I would wish someone from my country replicates that.

Many games. They all did heavy lifting and hence India did well. Btw, was there any game that Sanga won decisively in Tests? Seems like he mostly scored soft runs too.
Click to expand...

When Tendulkar debuted, India were a weak team. It was easier for Tendulkar to debut early.

Sanga had tougher competitions.

Despite playing 200 Tests and batting mostly in top order, Tendulkar had no triple century. How odd!
 
sweep_shot said:
When Tendulkar debuted, India were a weak team. It was easier for Tendulkar to debut early.

Sanga had tougher competitions.

Despite playing 200 Tests and batting mostly in top order, Tendulkar had no triple century. How odd!
Click to expand...

And Sri Lanka were strong team in mid-90s for Sanga to debut? Lol they were minnows in tests for most part in 90s. :yk
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ab Fan said:
And Sri Lanka were strong team in mid-90s for Sanga to debut? Lol they were minnows in tests for most part in 90s. :yk
Click to expand...

Sri Lanka were not minnows in the 90's. Minnows don't win World Cups.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sweep_shot said:
Sri Lanka were not minnows in the 90's. Minnows don't win World Cups.
Click to expand...

We were discussing test cricket. Let's not change the goal post now. Sri Lanka were minnows for most part of 90s in Tests cricket and that's the point exactly. In white ball cricket, Jayasuriya and de silva made them a formidable side and helped won the World Cup.
 
Ab Fan said:
We were discussing test cricket. Let's not change the goal post now. Sri Lanka were minnows for most part of 90s in Tests cricket and that's the point exactly. In white ball cricket, Jayasuriya and de silva made them a formidable side and helped won the World Cup.
Click to expand...

During those days, India were minnows in Test also.

SL almost scored 1000 against India. Minnows don't do that.
 
sweep_shot said:
90's don't finish at 1995. You don't get to omit 1996-1999.
Click to expand...

sweep_shot said:
During those days, India were minnows in Test also.

SL almost scored 1000 against India. Minnows don't do that.
Click to expand...

Sri Lankan cricket team in India in 1993–94 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org

What stopped Sangakkara from debuting after this whitewash by India on Sri Lanka? If India were minnows in early 90s, how come they whitewashed Sri Lanka in 1993-94 and inspite of that, Sangakkara didn't debuted or anywhere nearby, what happened to the special gift of talent that you are pretending of him?

Why didn't he scored 20,000 runs in Test cricket? If he debuted, surely he would have been sitting with 20,000 runs in Test cricket and be remembered as greatest Asian test batsman of all-time? But he didn't, how odd. :sanga
 
sweep_shot said:
During those days, India were minnows in Test also.

SL almost scored 1000 against India. Minnows don't do that.
Click to expand...
Sri Lanka were an absolutely terrible team in the 90s, there's a reason why eng only played a single test against them.

India in the 90s didn't lose a single test series at home and managed to defeat sl home and away.

An actual minnow would be bang, who are still terrible after decades and can't even win at home
 
Statpadder Inc said:
An actual minnow would be bang, who are still terrible after decades and can't even win at home
Click to expand...

BD didn't have ODI or Test status then. BD got ODI status in 1997 and Test status in 2000.

Changing topic to Bangladesh shows desperation.
 
Statpadder Inc said:
Sri Lanka were an absolutely terrible team in the 90s, there's a reason why eng only played a single test against them.

India in the 90s didn't lose a single test series at home and managed to defeat sl home and away.
Click to expand...

Okay. Terrible team scored nearly 1000 runs against your "champion" team.

Sri Lanka were a great team in the 90's. That's why they won the 96 WC.

Back to topic. Why do you think Tendulkar never scored a triple century despite playing 200 Tests and batting in top order?
 
Hitman said:
For the same reason why Viv Richards and Ricky Ponting didn't despite playing in the 2 greatest teams the game has ever seen.

P.S. Now watch him shift the goalpost.
Click to expand...

Viv and Ponting didn't play 200 Tests.
 
sweep_shot said:
Viv and Ponting didn't play 200 Tests. They didn't chase personal milestones.
Click to expand...
:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: How do you know they didn't chase personal milestone, or Tendulkar chased personal milestone? Give examples in Test cricket.

Viv played 121 Tests, yet didn't score a triple century. Ponting played 168 Tests, yet no triple century. Why?
 
sweep_shot said:
Okay. Terrible team scored nearly 1000 runs against your "champion" team.

Sri Lanka were a great team in the 90's. That's why they won the 96 WC.

Back to topic. Why do you think Tendulkar never scored a triple century despite playing 200 Tests and batting in top order?
Click to expand...
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.

And I never called india a great team in the 90s, just a better test team than lanka.

Viv, ponting, Smith, kallis and dravid have never scored 300s, it's an irrelevant statistic.

Sanga scored a 300 against a pathetic team on a flat track, wasn't a great innings by an strech of imagination
 
Statpadder Inc said:
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.

And I never called india a great team in the 90s, just a better test team than lanka.

Viv, ponting, Smith, kallis and dravid have never scored 300s, it's an irrelevant statistic.

Sanga scored a 300 against a pathetic team on a flat track, wasn't a great innings by an strech of imagination
Click to expand...
This is the same poster that claimed only batting averages count, in bowling it's the number of wickets taken that count, not averages.
 
Statpadder Inc said:
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.

And I never called india a great team in the 90s, just a better test team than lanka.

Viv, ponting, Smith, kallis and dravid have never scored 300s, it's an irrelevant statistic.

Sanga scored a 300 against a pathetic team on a flat track, wasn't a great innings by an strech of imagination
Click to expand...

Test and ODI didn't have a huge difference back then. In ODI, 250 was competitive. Looks like you are trying to judge 90's cricket through the lens of IPL (junk cricket).

Anyway, just to reiterate:

Tendulkar - 200 matches, 15921 runs, average of 53.78
Sangakara - 134 matches, 12400 runs, average of 57.40

Sanga wins clearly.
 
sweep_shot said:
Test and ODI didn't have a huge difference back then. In ODI, 250 was competitive. Looks like you are trying to judge 90's cricket through the lens of IPL (junk cricket).

Anyway, just to reiterate:

Tendulkar - 200 matches, 15921 runs, average of 53.78
Sangakara - 134 matches, 12400 runs, average of 57.40

Sanga wins clearly.
Click to expand...
They did, this is a laughable statement coming from someone you didn't watch cricket back then.

The test equivalent of winning the wc should have been lanka being the no. 1 test team in the world which they weren't by any metric, they were a much better odi team than a test one.

Raw averages in itself mean nothing, sanga was bad in ind, sa and wi will sachin was good everywhere.

Sachin also averaged 58 in the 90s, the toughest era for batting full of atg bowlers and maintained that avg for 175 tests.

Answer my question, is sanga better than lara, kallis and ponting because of his superior average
 
Tendulkar averaged 50 vs SENA

Sanga averaged 44.65

Generally , SRT was a better player of pace and movement.

Where Sanga has SRT beat was his ability against spin.

SRT was good overall but there were certain phases when he wasn't that dominant.

Sanga was poor against pace early on but improved later.

But he was a great player of spin throughout . He absolutely bullied bowlers like Ajmal .
 
sweep_shot said:
Test and ODI didn't have a huge difference back then. In ODI, 250 was competitive. Looks like you are trying to judge 90's cricket through the lens of IPL (junk cricket).

Anyway, just to reiterate:

Tendulkar - 200 matches, 15921 runs, average of 53.78
Sangakara - 134 matches, 12400 runs, average of 57.40

Sanga wins clearly.
Click to expand...
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?
 
sweep_shot said:
Test and ODI didn't have a huge difference back then. In ODI, 250 was competitive. Looks like you are trying to judge 90's cricket through the lens of IPL (junk cricket).

Anyway, just to reiterate:

Tendulkar - 200 matches, 15921 runs, average of 53.78
Sangakara - 134 matches, 12400 runs, average of 57.40

Sanga wins clearly.
Click to expand...
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.
 
sweep_shot said:
Anyway, Sanga is superior to Tendulkar when it comes to meaningful impact. It is remarkable that Sanga managed to do that despite having two jobs (keeping and batting).
Click to expand...

What is meaningful impact? And how did Sanga have it?
 
sweep_shot said:
Check who Tendulkar was competing against when he was 16. India were a weak team then. Tendulkar was a big fish in a small pond during his earlier days.

Sanga faced far tougher competition. When Sanga debuted, Sri Lanka were a seriously heavyweight team. He was playing in a team that had Jayasuriya, Aravinda, Atapattu, Mahela etc.

Also, Sanga probably didn't want to prolong his career for personal milestones.
Click to expand...
Tendulkar wasn’t a big fish in a small pond. He was a genuinely good at 16 as well.

He smashed the likes of Hadlee on a green top and scored a century in Australia too.

Sangakkara couldn’t even break into SL F/C at 16.

I know it hurts but your denial won’t change the reality. Tendulkar is a far greatest batsman than anyone in Pakistan and SL history.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mamoon said:
Tendulkar wasn’t a big fish in a small pond. He was a genuinely good at 16 as well.

He smashed the likes of Hadlee on a green top and scored a century in Australia too.

Sangakkara couldn’t even break into SL F/C at 16.

I know it hurts but your denial won’t change the reality. Tendulkar is a far greatest batsman than anyone in Pakistan and SL history.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sweep_shot said:
Sri Lanka were not minnows in the 90's. Minnows don't win World Cups.
Click to expand...
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
 
sweep_shot said:
Test and ODI didn't have a huge difference back then. In ODI, 250 was competitive. Looks like you are trying to judge 90's cricket through the lens of IPL (junk cricket).

Anyway, just to reiterate:

Tendulkar - 200 matches, 15921 runs, average of 53.78
Sangakara - 134 matches, 12400 runs, average of 57.40

Sanga wins clearly.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ab Fan
Joe Root versus Ricky Ponting versus Kumar Sangakkara in Tests
2 3
Replies
175
Views
4K
shamaan
S
MenInG
Comparison between Babar Azam, Sachin Tendulkar & Virat Kohli at the same point in their ODI careers
2 3
Replies
189
Views
12K
AMSS
A
MenInG
Sachin Tendulkar names Wasim Akram in his all-time best playing-XI
Replies
50
Views
7K
Mainul
Mainul
Unbiased-Fan
Best Asian XI to travel SENAW
Replies
46
Views
7K
SL_Fan
SL_Fan
King_Kohli
Rahul Dravid beats Sachin Tendulkar in Wisden India's poll
2 3
Replies
170
Views
121K
mominsaigol
mominsaigol
Back
Top