Kumar Sangakkara versus Virat Kohli in the Test format

[Rajdeep]

This thread has been an eye opener. Atleast I didnt knew Sanga was such a minnow basher and FTB. Kudos to @Buffet for exposing those with his explosive stats. Well done.

And some here were like Sanga without gloves was better than Tendulkar

 

[mominsaigol]

This thread has been an eye opener. Atleast I didnt knew Sanga was such a minnow basher and FTB. Kudos to @Buffet for exposing those with his explosive stats. Well done.

And some here were like Sanga without gloves was better than Tendulkar

He is, infact Sanga even with gloves is overall superior to tenda as a test batter.

Tenda is only more consistent.

This is why I keep brining that bradman analogy.

For example steve smith during his peak was avg 70 to 85 year by year and showcasing bradman level prowess.

For Tendulkar Indian fans have to keep utilising the whole

But but but longetivity
But but but late stage consistency
But but but cricket is a team game so individual wins like Brian lara's one wicket win doesn't count etc etc

However with Bradman that's not the case. Use whatever metric be it peak, avg, year by year etc etc, he's still 100x better then any player from his era.

Whereas with sachin, you have to implement stat pad narratives or try to debunk and downplay other batters against him.

Not the case with bradman as you can upscale any batter in his era but they are still 100x behind him.

 

[Rajdeep]

He is, infact Sanga even with gloves is overall superior to tenda as a test batter.

Tenda is only more consistent.

This is why I keep brining that bradman analogy.

For example steve smith during his peak was avg 70 to 85 year by year and showcasing bradman level prowess.

For Tendulkar Indian fans have to keep utilising the whole

But but but longetivity
But but but late stage consistency
But but but cricket is a team game so individual wins like Brian lara's one wicket win doesn't count etc etc

However with Bradman that's not the case. Use whatever metric be it peak, avg, year by year etc etc, he's still 100x better then any player from his era.

Whereas with sachin, you have to implement stat pad narratives or try to debunk and downplay other batters against him.

Not the case with bradman as you can upscale any batter in his era but they are still 100x behind him.

We have gone through this multiple times and I have no time to repeat myself again and again.

You need to consider a cricketer for his entire career and not only peak for few years or some games without wicketkeeping gloves.

The fact that these players couldnt sustain long enough and score as much runs as SRT simply bcoz they weren't good enough.

Also, its Tendulkar not Teenda. Show respect to the GOAT.

 

[mominsaigol]

We have gone through this multiple times and I have no time to repeat myself again and again.

You need to consider a cricketer for his entire career and not only peak for few years or some games without wicketkeeping gloves.

The fact that these players couldnt sustain long enough and score as much runs as SRT simply bcoz they weren't good enough.

Also, its Tendulkar not Teenda. Show respect to the GOAT.

The fact that these players couldnt sustain long enough and score as much runs as SRT simply bcoz they weren't good enough.

Thats untrue. Its a myth that Sachin has longetivity. By 2011-2012 sachin was finished. Anytime he scored their were 99% chances that India as a team would lose. The 2 centuries that he scored in wc 2011 led to one loss and one draw for india, Bangladesh 2012 was a repeat.

Sachin was playing his final years in the same way kohli is playing his final years where they'd vanish and fail 99% of the time but would occasionally score a century in the same vein as kohli recently scored a century in test deapite flunking 24/7 in tests since 2020.

Infact sachin in his final years was avg 35 while sanga was avg 59, this is in perspective that both were playing top sides.

And I don't need to consider a players entire career when the only reason sachin is ahead is due to the sheer volume of games he played.

The truth is sachin is similar to kallis, Sanga, Pointing, Steve smith and many others, His career trajectory is no different to these guys qith the exception of the fact that he played linger due to having made his debut at 16.

200 test games and 464 rums. Give sanga, Kohli, Steve smith or anyone these many games and their breaking Sachin's record.

Steve smith ain't in odi but in tests 100%.

Bradman's entire career trajectory is him being > Everyone plain and simple

Sachin's entire career trajectory is having many players score more runs year by year or having a higher avg then he did however he lasted longer due to age. No other factors.

It was dead evident that by 2011 sachin was chasing his 100-100 and was stat padding towards it.

 

[Mamoon]

We have gone through this multiple times and I have no time to repeat myself again and again.

You need to consider a cricketer for his entire career and not only peak for few years or some games without wicketkeeping gloves.

The fact that these players couldnt sustain long enough and score as much runs as SRT simply bcoz they weren't good enough.

Also, its Tendulkar not Teenda. Show respect to the GOAT.

If Tendulkar was the GOAT, he would have have the highest average, highest individual score, most runs in a calendar year, best MOM/Matches played ratio, multiple series with 500+ runs.

He holds none of those records because batting quality wise, he didn’t have anything over other 50 averaging batsmen except the fact that he played more matches.

All his records are tied to number of matches played. He is the batting version of Anderson in a lot of ways.

 

[mominsaigol]

The fact that these players couldnt sustain long enough and score as much runs as SRT simply bcoz they weren't good enough.

Thats untrue. Its a myth that Sachin has longetivity. By 2011-2012 sachin was finished. Anytime he scored their were 99% chances that India as a team would lose. The 2 centuries that he scored in wc 2011 led to one loss and one draw for india, Bangladesh 2012 was a repeat.

Sachin was playing his final years in the same way kohli is playing his final years where they'd vanish and fail 99% of the time but would occasionally score a century in the same vein as kohli recently scored a century in test deapite flunking 24/7 in tests since 2020.

Infact sachin in his final years was avg 35 while sanga was avg 59, this is in perspective that both were playing top sides.

And I don't need to consider a players entire career when the only reason sachin is ahead is due to the sheer volume of games he played.

The truth is sachin is similar to kallis, Sanga, Pointing, Steve smith and many others, His career trajectory is no different to these guys qith the exception of the fact that he played linger due to having made his debut at 16.

200 test games and 464 rums. Give sanga, Kohli, Steve smith or anyone these many games and their breaking Sachin's record.

Steve smith ain't in odi but in tests 100%.

Bradman's entire career trajectory is him being > Everyone plain and simple

Sachin's entire career trajectory is having many players score more runs year by year or having a higher avg then he did however he lasted longer due to age. No other factors.

It was dead evident that by 2011 sachin was chasing his 100-100 and was stat padding towards it.

His final century against bamgaldesh was clownworth.

Took nearly 30 overs to score a century. Amd the team lost.

Had Babar azam done this or rizwan then their would be riot on PP. Heck Indian posters make fun of Miandad non stop for such innings vut ignore when sunny played similar loser knocks.

 

[Mamoon]

Tendulkar longevity myth needs to be busted as well. He was washed up by 37-38 like most batsmen. He hung around until 40 because of the 100th century.

He made his debut at 16 because he was obviously good but also because there was a big gaping hole in the Indian batting lineup.

Gavaskar, Vishwanath, Vengsarkar, Amarnath were all retired or washed up by 88-89 and players like Tendulkar, Azharuddin and Manjrekar got their chances early.

If India had a strong batting lineup with several seasoned batsmen in their prime, Tendulkar would have made his debut at 21-22 like most batsmen, so he definitely found himself at the right place at the right time.

 

[Hellion]

Batting version of Anderson

Trundler could not get his average below 25 despite playing for so long in English conditions with a Dukes ball.

Too many cricketing illiterates opining

 

[Ab Fan]

Tendulkar longevity myth needs to be busted as well. He was washed up by 37-38 like most batsmen. He hung around until 40 because of the 100th century.

He made his debut at 16 because he was obviously good but also because there was a big gaping hole in the Indian batting lineup.

Gavaskar, Vishwanath, Vengsarkar, Amarnath were all retired or washed up by 88-89 and players like Tendulkar, Azharuddin and Manjrekar got their chances early.

If India had a strong batting lineup with several seasoned batsmen in their prime, Tendulkar would have made his debut at 21-22 like most batsmen, so he definitely found himself at the right place at the right time.

Naah, Tendulkar became beastly level at age of 19, averaging 91 in 1993. If he debuted a little later than 16 which means around 19-20, he would have still be leading run scorer all time but also retired with an average of 55 instead of 53!

He was just too good a player, if you gonna play with his longevity and remove last 2 years or first 3 years of his career, his average will jump to 55+ but he still will have 15k test runs. Refer below:-

https://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Players/PlayerYears.asp

 

[Ab Fan]

@Mamoon, In case the above link doesn’t work, refer this one:-

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

 

[Cover Drive Six]

Sangakkara is nowhere near Kohli in the limited-overs format. Even in Tests, Kohli has better stats in SENA countries and away matches compared to Sangakkara. The only edge Sangakkara has is his Test average, which is inflated by heavy thrashing against weaker teams at home, as already stated by Buffet.
On what basis is Sangakkara considered a better player?

 

[Rajdeep]

If Tendulkar was the GOAT, he would have have the highest average, highest individual score, most runs in a calendar year, best MOM/Matches played ratio, multiple series with 500+ runs.

He holds none of those records because batting quality wise, he didn’t have anything over other 50 averaging batsmen except the fact that he played more matches.

All his records are tied to number of matches played. He is the batting version of Anderson in a lot of ways.

Tendulkar has most runs and centuries in both red and white ball cricket.

He also has got most runs and man of the match awards in world cup matches.

All of these playing for 22 years and over 3.5 decades.

It is taking multiple.modern day batters to beat some of his records in installments.

Comparing him with Anderson is hilarious.

Sachin is the 2nd greatest batsman of all time after Sir Donald Bradman which has been accepted unanimously by all pundits including Bradman himself.

Nitpicking stats will not help and I refuse to buy.

Tendulkar was the institution of batting.

 

[Rajdeep]

The fact that these players couldnt sustain long enough and score as much runs as SRT simply bcoz they weren't good enough.

Thats untrue. Its a myth that Sachin has longetivity. By 2011-2012 sachin was finished. Anytime he scored their were 99% chances that India as a team would lose. The 2 centuries that he scored in wc 2011 led to one loss and one draw for india, Bangladesh 2012 was a repeat.

Sachin was playing his final years in the same way kohli is playing his final years where they'd vanish and fail 99% of the time but would occasionally score a century in the same vein as kohli recently scored a century in test deapite flunking 24/7 in tests since 2020.

Infact sachin in his final years was avg 35 while sanga was avg 59, this is in perspective that both were playing top sides.

And I don't need to consider a players entire career when the only reason sachin is ahead is due to the sheer volume of games he played.

The truth is sachin is similar to kallis, Sanga, Pointing, Steve smith and many others, His career trajectory is no different to these guys qith the exception of the fact that he played linger due to having made his debut at 16.

200 test games and 464 rums. Give sanga, Kohli, Steve smith or anyone these many games and their breaking Sachin's record.

Steve smith ain't in odi but in tests 100%.

Bradman's entire career trajectory is him being > Everyone plain and simple

Sachin's entire career trajectory is having many players score more runs year by year or having a higher avg then he did however he lasted longer due to age. No other factors.

It was dead evident that by 2011 sachin was chasing his 100-100 and was stat padding towards it.

Sachin was Indias best batsman even in 2011 world cup.

Sachin was batting like a dream till MCG test 2011-12.

He lost his form from NZ tour by aept 2012 and retire an year later.

So he didnt stick around for long just for the sake of it.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

We have gone through this multiple times and I have no time to repeat myself again and again.

You need to consider a cricketer for his entire career and not only peak for few years or some games without wicketkeeping gloves.

The fact that these players couldnt sustain long enough and score as much runs as SRT simply bcoz they weren't good enough.

Also, its Tendulkar not Teenda. Show respect to the GOAT.

For Sanga it isn't just some games without WK gloves. It is a highly relevant point. No keeper-batsman should be compared with stand alone batsman as like for like.

Remove Sanga stats with gloves and you will see what a difference keeping made.



I wonder if there is any batsman bat bradman who had a similar 86 match stats against all teams and all conditions.

 

[Romali_rotti]

All his records are tied to number of matches played. He is the batting version of Anderson in a lot of ways.

Yes Correct, we have seen how a world class players can go from being a great batsmen to a mere mortal, example being Kohli's last 3 years and how his avg dipped. Gilly at one stage avgd in the 60s and finished his career in the 40s

Yes to the Anderson point as well, both played more games only SRT consistently has 45 + avg in every country he has toured barring Pakistan 40 & Zim 40. Clouderson meanwhile looked pretty avg in a lot of countries he has toured, at least 5 from memory where his bowling is avg to poor considering you are the main strike bowler. Playing long doesn't make you great, it is playing an insane number of games and consistently performing is what makes a GOAT..

The chance of a player getting a Kohli like drop in their avg is very real, the more test matches you play the more you are vulnerable to this with age, better opposition etc, just the fact SRT was able to negate this dip shows he is the king.

Check out Brian Lara's avg in away games, considered the second best bat to SRT

in Australia	1992-2005	19			41.97
in England	1995-2004	15			48.76
in India	1994-1994	3			33.00
in New Zealand	1995-2006	7			36.90
in Pakistan	1990-2006	7			48.15
in South Africa	1998-2004	9			46.72
in Sri Lanka	1993-2001	4			100.85
in Zimbabwe	2003-2003	2			55.50

Lara didn't play the amount of games SRT played, had he played his overall batting avg could have dipped even further finishing his career with early to mid 40s, if that did happen he wouldn't even be in the conversation with SRT today. Lucky Lara didn't play as many games as SRT...

 

[Rajdeep]

Sangakkara is nowhere near Kohli in the limited-overs format. Even in Tests, Kohli has better stats in SENA countries and away matches compared to Sangakkara. The only edge Sangakkara has is his Test average, which is inflated by heavy thrashing against weaker teams at home, as already stated by Buffet.
On what basis is Sangakkara considered a better player?

Yes looks like this thread has completely exposed the myth about Sanga. I have never rated him much anyway. Stats aside but those who have seen him bat will never consider him better than Kohli. Ashwin has humiliated him in his farewell tour in 2015 just after he stacked up those runs in flat decks on Australia in the world cup.

 

[kron]

Only thing sanga is goof at, is smashing pakistan. That's it.

In tests

He is average vs all 3 top sides.

Kohli beats him and so does tiny tenda. This coming from someone who hates both.

 

[kron]

Yes looks like this thread has completely exposed the myth about Sanga. I have never rated him much anyway. Stats aside but those who have seen him bat will never consider him better than Kohli. Ashwin has humiliated him in his farewell tour in 2015 just after he stacked up those runs in flat decks on Australia in the world cup.

Stats are like miniskirts, they dont reveal everything.

 

[atreus]

Williamson vs Sanga would be closer.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Yes looks like this thread has completely exposed the myth about Sanga. I have never rated him much anyway. Stats aside but those who have seen him bat will never consider him better than Kohli. Ashwin has humiliated him in his farewell tour in 2015 just after he stacked up those runs in flat decks on Australia in the world cup.

I really like Sanga, he is very elegant, I am bit of a fan boy of his actually..lol

But yeah this thread exposed some major kinks in the armour...

 

[kron]

I really like Sanga, he is very elegant, I am bit of a fan boy of his actually..lol

But yeah this thread exposed some major kinks in the armour...

Only thing you could say goes in sanagas favour is the fact that he never had a wc pace attack to support him


Virat had an atg indian and the best Asian pace attack of all time support him in bumrah shami ishant umesh etc.

That's something sanga panga lacked.

 

[atreus]

Stats are like miniskirts, they dont reveal everything.

True, statistically Sangakkara averages higher than Viv

 

[kron]

True, statistically Sangakkara averages higher than Viv

Needs a deepdive

Sanga averages significantly lower vs top teams. Compares to his actual average

 

[Fanboy375]

True, statistically Sangakkara averages higher than Viv

Yes but Viv has a habit of playing risky shots and having higher strike rate like Sehwag and Gilchrist.

 

[Fanboy375]

Needs a deepdive

Sanga averages significantly lower vs top teams. Compares to his actual average

SL played too many matches vs weaker nations like Ban and as a result there is a big gap between Sanga vs all nations and Sanga vs minus minnows

 

[kron]

Yes but Viv has a habit of playing risky shots and having higher strike rate like Sehwag and Gilchrist.

Also you could argue by saying viv dint have to play his own goat oace attack. He had the support of Marshall holding Roberts Garner etc

That's the only thing that goes against him

 

[mominsaigol]

Sachin was Indias best batsman even in 2011 world cup.

Sachin was batting like a dream till MCG test 2011-12.

He lost his form from NZ tour by aept 2012 and retire an year later.

So he didnt stick around for long just for the sake of it.

Every game he performed in excluding pakistan, India lost lol.

 

[Fanboy375]

You can't ignore Sanga performance vs Pak since Kohli didn't play there.True Pak during 2000s didn't had powerful bowlers like 90s time but they still had good bowling power

 

[mominsaigol]

Seeing so many ignorant comments from Indians in this thread. Really dissapointed as some of these posters I respect like buffet but this is clearly his weakest Thread.

Which is surprising since he's one of the best posters here however the arguments are clearly trying to upscale Kohli and downplay sanga.

Sanga isn't a stat padder in test cricket by any means and he is one of the best players of test cricket all time.

Sanga walks into any test 11 via keeping and even makes it ahead of gilly. Gilchrist only makes it ahead of sanga in odi.

One thing to compare Sachin to sanga as while I think sanga is superior it's a hot topic of debate.

Lmao and major L to those who are comparing Kohli to Sanga in test cricket. Kohli wasn't anything special in test cricket. Even at his absolute peak steve smith was comfortably > him.

After 2020, it shouldn't even be a debate as to who's superior between the 2.

Clown posts

 

[Buffet]

I think it is vitally important. There are very few batsmen who keep wicket and have high number of centuries, runs, like a specialist batsman in the history of the game. Perhaps only 2 or 3 in the history of the game. This is a big handicap for Sanga in this discussion.

For example, in your subsequent list, where you show the comparison between Kohli and Sangka against top 3 teams of the era Sanga is at the bottom of the list with average 43 but he and AB are the only one in that list to have kept wicket during those matches.

Remove the WK era and his average shoots to the image below

I may not 100% agree about leaving out his keeping days, but it's the only fair point about Sanga in entire thread so far. Let's ignore my hesitation and see output by Sanga when he was not keeping against these teams. Many posters are still going on and on about his bashing Pakistan(6th best team) or even worst, talking about his career average. I am just going to ignore that becasue those are well known points.

We can all agree that Sanga had his best phase later in his career and it came when he was not keeping. Let's see what was output Sanga has in his best phase of his career in matches involving teams Aus, Ind, SA, Eng, NZ, WI, SL

Sample size is 55 test. Not too large but large enough.


Sanga against Aus, Ind, SA, Eng, NZ, WI in his best phase with 55 tests as non-keeper.


It's a fantastic output by Sanga. We all can agree with that.


But, we shouldn't be picking best of Sanga and compare with entire career of Kohli. Can we find 55 tests sample size for Kohli where he was at his best against these teams?

Yes, we can do better, we can find 75 tests for Kohli.



Kohli against Aus, Ind, SA, Eng, NZ, WI in his best phase with 75 tests


At their best we have,

Kohli - 75 tests avg 56 25 tons

Sanga - 55 tests avg 56 16 tons



I have seen too many people giving statement like, Virat had purple patch. Purple patch of 75 tests?

I am perfectly fine with anyone rating Sanga higher due to Virat playing ZERO tests against 6th best team of Sanga era and Sanga cashing in. But that high to start taking offense in comparison? I won't assume that Virat would have scored the same or more despite him bashing Pakistan left and right in limited overs.

I actually watched entire career of both. I was always puzzled by posters rating Sanga that high. I suspect it's due to forum having lots of Pakistani fans and it's natural to rate players who has bashed your team a lot.

Do you personally see any other reason so far?

 

[Fanboy375]

Seeing so many ignorant comments from Indians in this thread. Really dissapointed as some of these posters I respect like buffet but this is clearly his weakest Thread.

Which is surprising since he's one of the best posters here however the arguments are clearly trying to upscale Kohli and downplay sanga.

Sanga isn't a stat padder in test cricket by any means and he is one of the best players of test cricket all time.

Sanga walks into any test 11 via keeping and even makes it ahead of gilly. Gilchrist only makes it ahead of sanga in odi.

One thing to compare Sachin to sanga as while I think sanga is superior it's a hot topic of debate.

Lmao and major L to those who are comparing Kohli to Sanga in test cricket. Kohli wasn't anything special in test cricket. Even at his absolute peak steve smith was comfortably > him.

After 2020, it shouldn't even be a debate as to who's superior between the 2.

Clown posts

Well it is true that Sanga is better than Kohli unless Kohli gets in form for upcoming 2-3 years but Sanga wasn't an regular wk like Gilchris.Sanga should be compare to players who are batsman instead of wk-bats.

 

[Buffet]

Sanga walks into any test 11 via keeping and even makes it ahead of gilly. Gilchrist only makes it ahead of sanga in odi.

You got to be kidding here, right? Sanga as a keep batsman is sandwitched between Prior and Bairstow and he will replace Gilly in test XI as keeper batsman?

 

[kron]

Seeing so many ignorant comments from Indians in this thread. Really dissapointed as some of these posters I respect like buffet but this is clearly his weakest Thread.

Which is surprising since he's one of the best posters here however the arguments are clearly trying to upscale Kohli and downplay sanga.

Sanga isn't a stat padder in test cricket by any means and he is one of the best players of test cricket all time.

Sanga walks into any test 11 via keeping and even makes it ahead of gilly. Gilchrist only makes it ahead of sanga in odi.

One thing to compare Sachin to sanga as while I think sanga is superior it's a hot topic of debate.

Lmao and major L to those who are comparing Kohli to Sanga in test cricket. Kohli wasn't anything special in test cricket. Even at his absolute peak steve smith was comfortably > him.

After 2020, it shouldn't even be a debate as to who's superior between the 2.

Clown posts

Sanga would be a water boy yes

 

[kron]

I may not 100% agree about leaving out his keeping days, but it's the only fair point about Sanga in entire thread so far. Let's ignore my hesitation and see output by Sanga when he was not keeping against these teams. Many posters are still going on and on about his bashing Pakistan(6th best team) or even worst, talking about his career average. I am just going to ignore that becasue those are well known points.

We can all agree that Sanga had his best phase later in his career and it came when he was not keeping. Let's see what was output Sanga has in his best phase of his career in matches involving teams Aus, Ind, SA, Eng, NZ, WI, SL

Sample size is 55 test. Not too large but large enough.


Sanga against Aus, Ind, SA, Eng, NZ, WI in his best phase with 55 tests as non-keeper.

View attachment 148293
It's a fantastic output by Sanga. We all can agree with that.


But, we shouldn't be picking best of Sanga and compare with entire career of Kohli. Can we find 55 tests sample size for Kohli where he was at his best against these teams?

Yes, we can do better, we can find 75 tests for Kohli.



Kohli against Aus, Ind, SA, Eng, NZ, WI in his best phase with 75 tests
View attachment 148294

At their best we have,

Kohli - 75 tests avg 56 25 tons

Sanga - 55 tests avg 56 16 tons



I have seen too many people giving statement like, Virat had purple patch. Purple patch of 75 tests?

I am perfectly fine with anyone rating Sanga higher due to Virat playing ZERO tests against 6th best team of Sanga era and Sanga cashing in. But that high to start taking offense in comparison? I won't assume that Virat would have scored the same or more despite him bashing Pakistan left and right in limited overs.

I actually watched entire career of both. I was always puzzled by posters rating Sanga that high. I suspect it's due to forum having lots of Pakistani fans and it's natural to rate players who has bashed your team a lot.

Do you personally see any other reason so far?

Like I said. He only was good at bashing pakistan. That's it

He failed vs 2 top teams. One vs aus in a losing cause. He even struggled vs west indies.

 

[Rajdeep]

Every game he performed in excluding pakistan, India lost lol.

What I don't like is when you speak without knowledge.

Tendulkar score 53 in quarter finals against Aussies and India won

Tendulkar was the highest scorer in semi final and India won

In the league game, Tendulkar scored 120 and match was tied.

Only match India lost was against SA where Tendulkar scored 111. When Tendulkar got out, India score was 267/2 (39.4 overs). From there India got all out 296 in 48 overs. Pls educate the posters here from your wisdom how was that Tendulkar's fault?

Matlab kuch bhi

 

[mominsaigol]

What I don't like is when you speak without knowledge.

Tendulkar score 53 in quarter finals against Aussies and India won

Tendulkar was the highest scorer in semi final and India won

In the league game, Tendulkar scored 120 and match was tied.

Only match India lost was against SA where Tendulkar scored 111. When Tendulkar got out, India score was 267/2 (39.4 overs). From there India got all out 296 in 48 overs. Pls educate the posters here from your wisdom how was that Tendulkar's fault?

Matlab kuch bhi

No, it is you who speaks without Knowledge.

Aus 2011 was useless, Their the weakest aussie team to ever play a world cup lol. And I was referring to the games where tenda got a 100.

Anyway why don't you educate me on why only longetivity and consistency should be used as a metric?

Please explain why dueing tenda's era he

A) Was only top scorer of the year twice in 24 years.

B) Didn't have the highest avg in tests despite playing the most against any opposition INCLUDING playing against minnows more then anyone in the game including Sanga who is apprantly dubbed as a minnow basher

C) Never achieved the hallmark of scoring a 100 in a wc final despite gilly and pointing doing so

D) As captain led the indian team into ruin and had the worst possible batting experience as a captain

E) Avg only 40 in pakistan which is inflated by that 194 mainly cause he failed 8 games in a row in pakistan despite the fact that Pakistani conditons in that era were similar to india's.

F) Avg only 35 at the back end of his test career (Final 2 years) while sanga avg 59

G) Hasn't come anywhere close to ever avg 70 to 85 which steve smith did for 3 years in a row during his peak

H) Has an awful record against Mcgrath In Odi's and as a result his odi record in Australia is in shambles compared to other batters who while also sucked against mcgrath still average higher in both sr and avg against mcgrath. Sehwag is one of them.

F) And speaking of which, no batter ever dominated Mcgrath, So how come Sachin didn't dominate Mchrath? Isn't he the God of batting? Even when Larwood was chucking and spamming bodylines and wata's, Bradman still avg 56 ahainst him compared to others who didn't even avg 10?

^^ Please explain all of this.

An undisputed no 1 should be consistently topping the charts year by year, Should have the highest avg ans shouldn't have Mcgrath running circles around him in odi.

 

[Buffet]

Like I said. He only was good at bashing pakistan. That's it

That would opposite side of many hyping Sanga so much that they find it insulting to compare him with Virat. I don't think any of these extremes are true.

He actually did well as non-keeper. Yes, 55 tests against 6 countries and Virat has 75 tests, but Sanga has done well as a non-keeper. It's just that even with his best 55 tests, he does not stand out when compared to Virat's best 75 tests.

Now you can argue that batsmen record should be taken as a whole, if that's the case then yes. He had a ordinary career record aginst top teams of his era, but I can see the point of keeper vs non-keeper.

 

[Buffet]

Can we please keep SRT away from this thread?

Thread is about Sanga vs Kohli. Let's not derail the thread.

In opening post, I had this request,

-----------
I will appreciate if posters who have nothing to add to discussion don't comment and we keep this thread on topic. Usual suspects normally come and derail the threads.

----------

I am myself guilty of that some times so let's try to keep threads on track. 1-2 comments about all players including SRT is fine when discussing, but let's not start making it a big SRT's thread.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

I may not 100% agree about leaving out his keeping days, but it's the only fair point about Sanga in entire thread so far. Let's ignore my hesitation and see output by Sanga when he was not keeping against these teams. Many posters are still going on and on about his bashing Pakistan(6th best team) or even worst, talking about his career average. I am just going to ignore that becasue those are well known points.

We can all agree that Sanga had his best phase later in his career and it came when he was not keeping. Let's see what was output Sanga has in his best phase of his career in matches involving teams Aus, Ind, SA, Eng, NZ, WI, SL

Sample size is 55 test. Not too large but large enough.


Sanga against Aus, Ind, SA, Eng, NZ, WI in his best phase with 55 tests as non-keeper.

View attachment 148293
It's a fantastic output by Sanga. We all can agree with that.


But, we shouldn't be picking best of Sanga and compare with entire career of Kohli. Can we find 55 tests sample size for Kohli where he was at his best against these teams?

Yes, we can do better, we can find 75 tests for Kohli.



Kohli against Aus, Ind, SA, Eng, NZ, WI in his best phase with 75 tests
View attachment 148294

At their best we have,

Kohli - 75 tests avg 56 25 tons

Sanga - 55 tests avg 56 16 tons



I have seen too many people giving statement like, Virat had purple patch. Purple patch of 75 tests?

I am perfectly fine with anyone rating Sanga higher due to Virat playing ZERO tests against 6th best team of Sanga era and Sanga cashing in. But that high to start taking offense in comparison? I won't assume that Virat would have scored the same or more despite him bashing Pakistan left and right in limited overs.

I actually watched entire career of both. I was always puzzled by posters rating Sanga that high. I suspect it's due to forum having lots of Pakistani fans and it's natural to rate players who has bashed your team a lot.

Do you personally see any other reason so far?

The way you have outlined the outputs means there is no reason to take offence. It is a very valid argument that I believe is being misinterpreted.

Your intention doesn't seem to be to malign Sanga, rather look to raise awareness of how good a test bat Kohli was. I have no issue with this.

I dont think anything that you have presented detracts from Sanga at all he ticks against almost all of the criteria and deserves the high rating.

 

[Mobashir]

Kohli has no more than 3-4 innings to show in his test career. Scoring runs "in Australia" means nothing. What is important is to score meaningful runs.
Kohli is the king of soft runs in every format.

 

[atreus]

Kohli has no more than 3-4 innings to show in his test career. Scoring runs "in Australia" means nothing. What is important is to score meaningful runs.
Kohli is the king of soft runs in every format.

Kohli definitely has made lots of soft runs in Australia, he definitely has quality runs in England and South Africa though

 

[Fanboy375]

I may not 100% agree about leaving out his keeping days, but it's the only fair point about Sanga in entire thread so far. Let's ignore my hesitation and see output by Sanga when he was not keeping against these teams. Many posters are still going on and on about his bashing Pakistan(6th best team) or even worst, talking about his career average. I am just going to ignore that becasue those are well known points.

We can all agree that Sanga had his best phase later in his career and it came when he was not keeping. Let's see what was output Sanga has in his best phase of his career in matches involving teams Aus, Ind, SA, Eng, NZ, WI, SL

Sample size is 55 test. Not too large but large enough.


Sanga against Aus, Ind, SA, Eng, NZ, WI in his best phase with 55 tests as non-keeper.

View attachment 148293
It's a fantastic output by Sanga. We all can agree with that.


But, we shouldn't be picking best of Sanga and compare with entire career of Kohli. Can we find 55 tests sample size for Kohli where he was at his best against these teams?

Yes, we can do better, we can find 75 tests for Kohli.



Kohli against Aus, Ind, SA, Eng, NZ, WI in his best phase with 75 tests
View attachment 148294

At their best we have,

Kohli - 75 tests avg 56 25 tons

Sanga - 55 tests avg 56 16 tons



I have seen too many people giving statement like, Virat had purple patch. Purple patch of 75 tests?

I am perfectly fine with anyone rating Sanga higher due to Virat playing ZERO tests against 6th best team of Sanga era and Sanga cashing in. But that high to start taking offense in comparison? I won't assume that Virat would have scored the same or more despite him bashing Pakistan left and right in limited overs.

I actually watched entire career of both. I was always puzzled by posters rating Sanga that high. I suspect it's due to forum having lots of Pakistani fans and it's natural to rate players who has bashed your team a lot.

Do you personally see any other reason so far?

But from 2000-2008 in 18 matches when he didn't keep his average was 70+ against SENA+Ind+WI.Now it is a small sample but it could mean what type of player he is without his gloves

 

[Buffet]

The way you have outlined the outputs means there is no reason to take offence. It is a very valid argument that I believe is being misinterpreted.

Your intention doesn't seem to be to malign Sanga, rather look to raise awareness of how good a test bat Kohli was. I have no issue with this.

I dont think anything that you have presented detracts from Sanga at all he ticks against almost all of the criteria and deserves the high rating.

I rate Sanga highly. Just not high enough to rate him in a different tier than Kohli in the test format. I was just curious to find out why some posters think he is in different tier. Kohli was a top class test batsman starting 2012 till 2019 - 8 years wih 75 tests.

 

[Rajdeep]

No, it is you who speaks without Knowledge.

Aus 2011 was useless, Their the weakest aussie team to ever play a world cup lol. And I was referring to the games where tenda got a 100.

Anyway why don't you educate me on why only longetivity and consistency should be used as a metric?

Please explain why dueing tenda's era he

A) Was only top scorer of the year twice in 24 years.

B) Didn't have the highest avg in tests despite playing the most against any opposition INCLUDING playing against minnows more then anyone in the game including Sanga who is apprantly dubbed as a minnow basher

C) Never achieved the hallmark of scoring a 100 in a wc final despite gilly and pointing doing so

D) As captain led the indian team into ruin and had the worst possible batting experience as a captain

E) Avg only 40 in pakistan which is inflated by that 194 mainly cause he failed 8 games in a row in pakistan despite the fact that Pakistani conditons in that era were similar to india's.

F) Avg only 35 at the back end of his test career (Final 2 years) while sanga avg 59

G) Hasn't come anywhere close to ever avg 70 to 85 which steve smith did for 3 years in a row during his peak

H) Has an awful record against Mcgrath In Odi's and as a result his odi record in Australia is in shambles compared to other batters who while also sucked against mcgrath still average higher in both sr and avg against mcgrath. Sehwag is one of them.

F) And speaking of which, no batter ever dominated Mcgrath, So how come Sachin didn't dominate Mchrath? Isn't he the God of batting? Even when Larwood was chucking and spamming bodylines and wata's, Bradman still avg 56 ahainst him compared to others who didn't even avg 10?

^^ Please explain all of this.

An undisputed no 1 should be consistently topping the charts year by year, Should have the highest avg ans shouldn't have Mcgrath running circles around him in odi.

Also, regarding you other rants...no point of me explaining you again and again. I don't have all day to keep on typing. He don't avg 40 vs Pakistan...think you are mistaking it with Joe Root's avg vs Australia. Tendulkar avg 42.34 against Pak and that is only bcoz he never got to face them during his hey days in 90s. Even during tennis elbow era (2004-08), he was avg 52 against Pak. His overall avg was less due to the 89 series. This just proves had he played regularly against Pakistan he would have avg much more.

 

[mominsaigol]

Also, regarding you other rants...no point of me explaining you again and again. I don't have all day to keep on typing. He don't avg 40 vs Pakistan...think you are mistaking it with Joe Root's avg vs Australia. Tendulkar avg 42.34 against Pak and that is only bcoz he never got to face them during his hey days in 90s. Even during tennis elbow era (2004-08), he was avg 52 against Pak. His overall avg was less due to the 89 series. This just proves had he played regularly against Pakistan he would have avg much more.

I want you to answer my points, and you may answer in an appropriate thread.

I listed these points in A, B, C format.

Please ping me in another thread and respond to them.

Afterwards, I won't bother you about Sachin again. Have a good day kind Sir.

 

[Rajdeep]

Kohli has no more than 3-4 innings to show in his test career. Scoring runs "in Australia" means nothing. What is important is to score meaningful runs.
Kohli is the king of soft runs in every format.

From 'Does scoring runs against SL count' to 'scoring runs in Australia meand nothing', we all grew up.

I thought Kohli was favorite here and people used to consider him as genuine match winner. Looks like Pakistanis have conviniently made him king of soft runs too after Tendulkar.

 

[Buffet]

But from 2000-2008 in 18 matches when he didn't keep his average was 70+ against SENA+Ind+WI.Now it is a small sample but it could mean what type of player he is without his gloves

Problem with this approach is that

We started with,

Entire career
Then limited to non-keeping career with 55 tests [ I could see the point ]
Then you are saying let's take non-keeping career with 18 tests.

I don't think anything less than 40 tests are meaningful for batsmen when comparing. Sanga has a brilliant 55 tests sample size as a non-keeper against SENA+Ind+WI and when we step away from this comparison, he has scored heavily against Pakistan to lift his stature. That's good enough for me.

 

[mominsaigol]

I want you to answer my points, and you may answer in an appropriate thread.

I listed these points in A, B, C format.

Please ping me in another thread and respond to them.

Afterwards, I won't bother you about Sachin again. Have a good day kind Sir.

@Rajdeep

Respond in an appropriate thread and let's finish this. This is our final battle, our ultimate showdown. Our pride is on the line. Only one of us is sitting at the top of the mountain.

One flame is being extinguished.

My A,B,C points are their. I'll give you one to 2 hours to read and respond, Take your time as theirs no going back from this.

This is our death match.

 

[atreus]

@Buffet question, how exactly do you post images on the site?

 

[Rajdeep]

@Rajdeep

Respond in an appropriate thread and let's finish this. This is our final battle, our ultimate showdown. Our pride is on the line. Only one of us is sitting at the top of the mountain.

One flame is being extinguished.

My A,B,C points are their. I'll give you one to 2 hours to read and respond, Take your time as theirs no going back from this.

This is our death match.

Lets do it...its either you or me today. Aar ya paar.

Btw, what you want me to respond again?

 

[mominsaigol]

Lets do it...its either you or me today. Aar ya paar.

Btw, what you want me to respond again?

A) Was only top scorer of the year twice in 24 years.

B) Didn't have the highest avg in tests despite playing the most against any opposition INCLUDING playing against minnows more then anyone in the game including Sanga who is apprantly dubbed as a minnow basher

C) Never achieved the hallmark of scoring a 100 in a wc final despite gilly and pointing doing so

D) As captain led the indian team into ruin and had the worst possible batting experience as a captain

E) Avg only 40 in pakistan which is inflated by that 194 mainly cause he failed 8 games in a row in pakistan despite the fact that Pakistani conditons in that era were similar to india's.

F) Avg only 35 at the back end of his test career (Final 2 years) while sanga avg 59

G) Hasn't come anywhere close to ever avg 70 to 85 which steve smith did for 3 years in a row during his peak

H) Has an awful record against Mcgrath In Odi's and as a result his odi record in Australia is in shambles compared to other batters who while also sucked against mcgrath still average higher in both sr and avg against mcgrath. Sehwag is one of them.

F) And speaking of which, no batter ever dominated Mcgrath, So how come Sachin didn't dominate Mchrath? Isn't he the God of batting? Even when Larwood was chucking and spamming bodylines and wata's, Bradman still avg 56 ahainst him compared to others who didn't even avg 10?

^^ Please explain all of this.

An undisputed no 1 should be consistently topping the charts year by year, Should have the highest avg ans shouldn't have Mcgrath running circles around him in odi.

Bradman Had all these boxes ticked

highest avg, most runs, highest sr, And even owned Larwood who was the goat bowler of his era.

 

[Buffet]

Kohli definitely has made lots of soft runs in Australia, he definitely has quality runs in England and South Africa though

Leaving tough runs in Eng and SA aside, I think what Virat is done in Aus is highly under rated. You will get some hard runs and some soft runs in your entire career, but Virat has 7 away tons in Aus. Some one might say, so what it's just 7 tons. Guess what,

Not including Indian players,

Only 8 batsmen in 55 years of history have scored more than 7 away tons in SENA (SA + Aus + Eng + NZ combined). I am not talking about any one venue, but 4 venues taken together.

Why? Because it's that hard to score away tons in SENA taken together even for players from SENA.

Virat has scored 7 away tons in just one SENA country when Aus had a simply a top class bowling side.




It does not make Virat a greater player than Lara/Viv/Smith etc, but it simply shows that best of the best have 8-10 away tons taken together in 4 venues. It's hard for even best players in history. Anyone thinking that you can get soft runs when playing away too many times is mistaken. You can get 1-2 soft tons but not too many when playing away against good sides.

Otherwise we would have seen lot more batsmen with lot more away tons in SENA 55 years of history. Tons of batsmen got oppurtunity to score away tons in not just Aus, but also in SA, Eng and NZ. And yet we have so few.

That's why I rate away performance in tough tours highly and don't see logic to equate it with home even if conditions are hard. Tons of batsmen have tough runs at home, because it's their home condition. But very few in history have scored heavily away against good sides.

Virat's 7 tons in Aus is simply stand out performacne in entire histiry of cricket for any batsman. It's extremely under rated by fans.

 

[Buffet]

Guys, please take SRT discussion in appropriate thread.

 

[atreus]

Leaving tough runs in Eng and SA aside, I think what Virat is done in Aus is highly under rated. You will get some hard runs and some soft runs in your entire career, but Virat has 7 away tons in Aus. Some one might say, so what it's just 7 tons. Guess what,

Not including Indian players,

Only 8 batsmen in 55 years of history have scored more than 7 away tons in SENA (SA + Aus + Eng + NZ combined). I am not talking about any one venue, but 4 venues taken together.

Why? Because it's that hard to score away tons in SENA taken together even for players from SENA.

Virat has scored 7 away tons in just one SENA country when Aus had a simply a top class bowling side.

View attachment 148298


It does not make Virat a greater player than Lara/Viv/Smith etc, but it simply shows that best of the best have 8-10 away tons taken together in 4 venues. It's hard for even best players in history. Anyone thinking that you can get soft runs when playing away too many times is mistaken. You can get 1-2 soft tons but not too many when playing away against good sides.

Otherwise we would have seen lot more batsmen with lot more away tons in SENA 55 years of history. Tons of batsmen got oppurtunity to score away tons in not just Aus, but also in SA, Eng and NZ. And yet we have so few.

That's why I rate away performance in tough tours highly and don't see logic to equate it with home even if conditions are hard. Tons of batsmen have tough runs at home, because it's their home condition. But very few in history have scored heavily away against good sides.

Virat's 7 tons in Aus is simply stand out performacne in entire histiry of cricket for any batsman. It's extremely under rated by fans.

well my big problem is he has cashed in on the 2014 wickets where the wickets were extremely flat, basically he has toured Australia so many times but doesn't have the tough runs there.

his first BGT in 2012-13, he failed in the first two tests but did well in the second two, averaged 37.

his second BGT in 2014, he scored 700 runs and made, but it was one of the highest scoring serieses of the century, 44 average is not ideal for a 4 match series, but regardless I rate that series but very much like Kane's 2015 two centuries series in Australia, it's flat track cashing.

at the peak of his powers in 2018-19 BGT, he still averaged 40 in Australia when the bowling was better and the pitches were more adequate and he still had a great century but again, his average wasn't anywhere near the 2014 series.

I rate Kohli in Australia, but I don't really think he is one of the best visitors to Australia tbh, infact I'd rate quite a few above him as visitors to Australia, in my eyes, this series will decide Kohli's legacy in Australia

 

[Fanboy375]

Problem with this approach is that

We started with,

Entire career
Then limited to non-keeping career with 55 tests [ I could see the point ]
Then you are saying let's take non-keeping career with 18 tests.

I don't think anything less than 40 tests are meaningful for batsmen when comparing. Sanga has a brilliant 55 tests sample size as a non-keeper against SENA+Ind+WI and when we step away from this comparison, he has scored heavily against Pakistan to lift his stature. That's good enough for me.

But those are not any part of career but from 2000 to 2008.After 2008 April Sanga didn't wanted to take gloves.Now it is true that we don't know how good he would be if he never taken gloves or he never taken gloves in 2000-2008 period.But we see in 2000-2008 period Sanga without gloves play very well in that small sample.So should we be leans towards the theory that there is a noticable difference between Sanga without gloves and with gloves.Sanga performance in that 18 matches seems to create skepticism to the claim that Sanga without gloves should only be few runs above his wk-batsman career batting record

 

[Buffet]

well my big problem is he has cashed in on the 2014 wickets where the wickets were extremely flat, basically he has toured Australia so many times but doesn't have the tough runs there.

his first BGT in 2012-13, he failed in the first two tests but did well in the second two, averaged 37.

his second BGT in 2014, he scored 700 runs and made, but it was one of the highest scoring serieses of the century, 44 average is not ideal for a 4 match series, but regardless I rate that series but very much like Kane's 2015 two centuries series in Australia, it's flat track cashing.

at the peak of his powers in 2018-19 BGT, he still averaged 40 in Australia when the bowling was better and the pitches were more adequate and he still had a great century but again, his average wasn't anywhere near the 2014 series.

I rate Kohli in Australia, but I don't really think he is one of the best visitors to Australia tbh, infact I'd rate quite a few above him as visitors to Australia, in my eyes, this series will decide Kohli's legacy in Australia

Pont is, we can take out one entire series for Virat in Aus and still he has 3 tons in Aus.

Everyone has gotten so many hard and not so hard pitches in SENA while touring and yet we see best of the best in history have only 8-10 taken taken together in SENA. It's not easy to rack up tons in SENA for visitors.

At the same time, it's far more easy to rack up tons at home. Batsmen get hard and easy pitches at home also, but you will see a very long list of batsmen scoring lots of tons at home.

 

[Buffet]

.Sanga performance in that 18 matches seems to create skepticism to the claim that Sanga without gloves should only be few runs above his wk-batsman career batting record

Nah, we already saw that without keeping, he is averaging 56 against SENA+Ind+WI. That's drastically higher than his output when keeping. Any claim saying that keeper Sanga was close to non-keep Sanga has no basis. We can safely ignore those claims. Now if some one wants to take entire career when comparing then that's a different issue.

 

[atreus]

Pont is, we can take out one entire series for Virat in Aus and still he has 3 tons in Aus.

Everyone has gotten so many hard and not so hard pitches in SENA while touring and yet we see best of the best in history have only 8-10 taken taken together in SENA. It's not easy to rack up tons in SENA for visitors.

At the same time, it's far more easy to rack up tons at home. Batsmen get hard and easy pitches at home also, but you will see a very long list of batsmen scoring lots of tons at home.

I mean, I don't question Kohli's competency in Australia, I do think that he is great there but when compared to the greatest batters to visit Australia like Viv/Lloyd/Sachin that becomes a genuine caveat, I think Alasatair Cook from last 15 years has a good argument to be better in Australia than Kohli.

btw, what site/method do you use to upload images on this site?

 

[Buffet]

I mean, I don't question Kohli's competency in Australia, I do think that he is great there but when compared to the greatest batters to visit Australia like Viv/Lloyd/Sachin that becomes a genuine caveat, I think Alasatair Cook from last 15 years has a good argument to be better in Australia than Kohli.

btw, what site/method do you use to upload images on this site?

I will personally see 4 tons in one away series as a very big deal specially against a top class bowling unit.

There has been 7, just 7, instance of one batsman scoring 4 tons in away series in entire history of cricket despite having all kinds of series. I do think that you can make a case for some one else has performing better by looking more closely than just number of tons.

You can simply capture the portion of screen from any tool. Then you can either edit to highlight something or simply put it there without highlighting anything. For example, in windows you can use snap to capture portion of screen you want to share and directly paste it. I don't have any great expertise. We have some one in forum who is very good with all this, forgetting the hadle name ... Ok found him by searching, @W63L35

 

[atreus]

I will personally see 4 tons in one away series as a very big deal specially against a top class bowling unit.

There has been 7, just 7, instance of one batsman scoring 4 tons in away series in entire history of cricket despite having all kinds of series. I do think that you can make a case for some one else has performing better by looking more closely than just number of tons.

You can simply capture the portion of screen from any tool. Then you can either edit to highlight something or simply put it there without highlighting anything. For example, in windows you can use snap to capture portion of screen you want to share and directly paste it. I don't have any great expertise. We have some one in forum who is very good with all this, forgetting the hadle name ... Ok found him by searching, @W63L35

again, I'm not taking it away from him, I just think it's more "great" than it's "ATG", The runs are runs, be it soft or tough ones, be it on flat wickets or tough ones. I don't think the attack was very good tbh, Hazelwood was debuting, Starcc was pretty awful back then, Johnson and Harris on last legs.

that's why I say if Kohli wants to stand with the greats in Australia like the Hammonds and the Hobbs and the Huttons and the Vivs and the Sachins, he needs some match winning knocks on spicy wicket, this series is a perfect opportunity.

I'll try your tip, thanks.

 

[Fanboy375]

Nah, we already saw that without keeping, he is averaging 56 against SENA+Ind+WI. That's drastically higher than his output when keeping. Any claim saying that keeper Sanga was close to non-keep Sanga has no basis. We can safely ignore those claims. Now if some one wants to take entire career when comparing then that's a different issue.

Well his 2/3 of his career went with him not wearing any gloves.While the rest 1/3 part happened in period of 2000-2008.Now i think that 2000-2008 period is where he shines as pure batsman.In that period there are 18 matches where he didn't worn gloves and ave 70+.But Sanga after 2008 where he never worn any gloves ave is 47 against SENA+Ind+WI.That could mean in his early period he was very good against SENA+Ind+WI while later he wasn't much.My claim is Sanga who never worn gloves can be better than Virat since Sanga isn't popular option for a wk+batsman in test.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

Sangakkara is nowhere near Kohli in the limited-overs format. Even in Tests, Kohli has better stats in SENA countries and away matches compared to Sangakkara. The only edge Sangakkara has is his Test average, which is inflated by heavy thrashing against weaker teams at home, as already stated by Buffet.
On what basis is Sangakkara considered a better player?

Not really, if you take out Sanga's runs against minnows he still has 10K runs at an average of 52. In SENA he has a higher average than Kohli too.

Had Kohli played for any other country his career would have been over long ago. He never even would have gotten a chance to crawl to 9K test runs. Only in India can a player like him continue to play on his reputation and brand name, despite having tailenderesque numbers for the past four years.

 

[Buffet]

I don't think the attack was very good tbh, Hazelwood was debuting, Starcc was pretty awful back then, Johnson and Harris on last legs.

Johnson and Harris both were in hot form before that series would have walked into most test XI before that series started.

• Johnson - 2012 till that series - Avg 18 with 80 tests wickets.
• Harris - 2012 till that series - Avg 24 with 78 wickets.
• Hazlewood was debuting but he bowled very well in that series with avg of 29.

These 3 pacers played 3-4 tests in that series. Starc was poor but he played only 2 tests. I would way that Aus had a very good bowling in that series.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

again, I'm not taking it away from him, I just think it's more "great" than it's "ATG", The runs are runs, be it soft or tough ones, be it on flat wickets or tough ones. I don't think the attack was very good tbh, Hazelwood was debuting, Starcc was pretty awful back then, Johnson and Harris on last legs.

that's why I say if Kohli wants to stand with the greats in Australia like the Hammonds and the Hobbs and the Huttons and the Vivs and the Sachins, he needs some match winning knocks on spicy wicket, this series is a perfect opportunity.

I'll try your tip, thanks.

The pitches in that series were also pretty flat. India encountered far more challenging wickets in the 2018 series. Kohli has amazing numbers in Australia but when it comes to impact I feel Pujara and Pant have made 10x the impact that he has in Australia. Even Rahane has played more impactful knocks in Australia.

 

[Ab Fan]

The pitches in that series were also pretty flat. India encountered far more challenging wickets in the 2018 series. Kohli has amazing numbers in Australia but when it comes to impact I feel Pujara and Pant have made 10x the impact that he has in Australia. Even Rahane has played more impactful knocks in Australia.

7 tons bud. That’s too many.

 

[Buffet]

Well his 2/3 of his career went with him not wearing any gloves.While the rest 1/3 part happened in period of 2000-2008.Now i think that 2000-2008 period is where he shines as pure batsman.In that period there are 18 matches where he didn't worn gloves and ave 70+.But Sanga after 2008 where he never worn any gloves ave is 47 against SENA+Ind+WI.That could mean in his early period he was very good against SENA+Ind+WI while later he wasn't much. My claim is Sanga who never worn gloves can be better than Virat since Sanga isn't popular option for a wk+batsman in test.

Sure, you can make a case for him better than Virat when he was not batting in period of 2000-2008, but then you are going to use only 18 tests to arrive at that conclusion.

Also, I never said that no one should rate Sanga above Kohli. Looking at their career and considering all angles, I just decided to put both in the same tier based on what they have done. I held the same impression without looking at any data due to watching both bat. Only reaons I started the thread to hear points about why some one will rate him a tier above. You can see some of the reaction in this thread where posters took offense in even comparing these two as if gap was too huge. Some time gap can be huge, but it becomes very clear when you look at runs/tons/wickets/avg in home and away against top teams after players have played at least 40-50 tests.

You could be in the same tier and still come above or below than others depending on what factors specific fans rate more.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

7 tons bud. That’s too many.

Like I said, they are amazing numbers but the impact has been pretty minimal. His century in the last test is his only century out of the 7 that came in a winning cause. The rest of them all came in matches that were drawn or India lost.

 

[Ab Fan]

Like I said, they are amazing numbers but the impact has been pretty minimal. His century in the last test is his only century out of the 7 that came in a winning cause. The rest of them all came in matches that were drawn or India lost.

Sometimes it is not just about win or loss. Quality matters a lot. Sanga’s 192 at Hobart was in losing cause too.

Kohli’s knock at Adelaide 2014, Melbourne 2014 and Perth 2018 were his three best knocks in Australia. The hundred he got last game was in winning cause but nothing special.

 

[Buffet]

Only in India can a player like him continue to play on his reputation and brand name, despite having tailenderesque numbers for the past four years.

Miandad in last 4 years of his career - 23 tests - Avg 34 with 1 ton.

Kohli in the last 4 yerars so far - 33 tests - Avg 34 with 3 tons.

Both numbers are not tailenders numbers but one batsman has 3 tons vs another 1 ton.


If Miandad is too old example, here is Ponting in his last 36 tests,

Ponting in his last 36 tests - 34 tests - Avg 36 with 3 tons

 

[Katwalindian]

That has a lot to do with playing for India, where you have billions of fans running your propaganda and the media also creatives fake narratives.

This is why a bang average cricketer like Dhoni became a legendary wicket-keeper batsman and an inconsistent batsman like Laxman was romanticized as a man of crisis etc.

Swap Kohli and Sangakkara’s nationalities with the same record and personality and it will be a completely different outlook.

If Sangakkara was Indian, his stature would have been on par with Gavaskar and Tendulkar.

Yeah for me all of sangakkara, yk, dravid clears kohli in test format. Remove Australia heorics in 2014 series kohli is above average test crickter with past five years are literally mediocre.

 

[Katwalindian]

That has a lot to do with playing for India, where you have billions of fans running your propaganda and the media also creatives fake narratives.

This is why a bang average cricketer like Dhoni became a legendary wicket-keeper batsman and an inconsistent batsman like Laxman was romanticized as a man of crisis etc.

Swap Kohli and Sangakkara’s nationalities with the same record and personality and it will be a completely different outlook.

If Sangakkara was Indian, his stature would have been on par with Gavaskar and Tendulkar.

Yeah for me all of sangakkara, yk, dravid clears kohli in test format. Remove Australia heorics in 2014 series kohli is above average test crickter with past five years are literally mediocre.

 

[Katwalindian]

Miandad in last 4 years of his career - 23 tests - Avg 34 with 1 ton.

Kohli in the last 4 yerars so far - 33 tests - Avg 34 with 3 tons.

Both numbers are not tailenders numbers but one batsman has 3 tons vs another 1 ton.


If Miandad is too old example, here is Ponting in his last 36 tests,

Ponting in his last 36 tests - 34 tests - Avg 36 with 3 tons

Yk literally averages 50 plus in his last four years when he was 40 plus and scored everywhere.

 

[Mesozoic]

Sanga is clear.


Kohli had a freakish peak between that 2014/15 tour of Australia until 2019 but he has not been a "great" Test batter for the majority of his Test career.

 

[mominsaigol]

Sometimes it is not just about win or loss. Quality matters a lot. Sanga’s 192 at Hobart was in losing cause too.

Kohli’s knock at Adelaide 2014, Melbourne 2014 and Perth 2018 were his three best knocks in Australia. The hundred he got last game was in winning cause but nothing special.

Sanga's 192 is a quality knock and I was their to see it.

Australia posted a mammoth 2nd innings total of 500+ runs, furthermore besides the 1st opener, Every other batter collapsed like a house of cards.

Sanga had to bat with dealing with the tail and many other batters fall around him. He had no support.

Even then he managed to get sri lanka close enough to lose by 97 runs when in actuality they should have lost by 300-350 runs.

If he only had one or 2 more batters to offer just a bit of support he'd have taken the side home.

Kohli's 3 knocks had multiple support systems in place.

Sanga's 192 is right up their with lara's 153 against pakistan or steve Smith's 211 granted those 2 were in winning causes while sanga's 192 was in a losing cause.

Sanga is one of the best test batters of all time and it's insulting to call him a stat padder when some batters like Sachin have faced more games against minnow oppositions then sanga and Sachin couldn't replicate such dominance.

Coming back to kohli, another key metric is that sanga was avg 59 at the back end( final 2 years) of his test career while kohli is a total had been in tests for 5 years in a row now.

Sanga in tests Is 100x superior to kohli, the gulf is massive. Similarly the gulf between Sanga and kohli in odi is massive with kohli clearly being ahead.

 

[Katwalindian]

Kohli has been a mediocre Test batsman for about 75% of his career. 2011-2014 nothing special. 2020-2024 circus clown.

He had a top run from 2015-2019, and no doubt he is a world class Test batsman because of that peak, but an overall average of 48 and less then 10k runs by the age of 36 completely eliminates him from the category of legendary Test batsmen.

Kohli’s Test career is a story of one of the most brutal downfalls ever. In the space of 4-5 years, he went from a level where he was on his way to finish his career in the league of Tendulkar, Lara etc. to a level where he is more comparable to the likes of Inzamam, Yousuf, Clarke, Amla etc.

Sangakkara, after Lara, is the best left-handed batsman I have seen in Test cricket. A majestic batsman who was brilliant throughout his career with no major lean patches.

In fact, he averaged 59 in the last two years of his career and also scored 4 consecutive ODI hundreds in his last World Cup.

He could have easily played for 2 more years and remained an elite batsman. He is severely underrated because he played for Sri Lanka. I would definitely rank him above Kohli, Dravid, Miandad, Younis, Inzamam, Yousuf, Laxman, Vishwanath etc.

I would rank him slightly below Gavaskar (GOAT Asian Test batsman) and the only thing there separates him from Tendulkar is that he played 66 less Test matches.

With all due respect sangakkara did lot of bangladesh bashing which the likes of dravid, yk didn't gets to do.

 

[mominsaigol]

Miandad in last 4 years of his career - 23 tests - Avg 34 with 1 ton.

Kohli in the last 4 yerars so far - 33 tests - Avg 34 with 3 tons.

Both numbers are not tailenders numbers but one batsman has 3 tons vs another 1 ton.


If Miandad is too old example, here is Ponting in his last 36 tests,

Ponting in his last 36 tests - 34 tests - Avg 36 with 3 tons

No one considers Miandad or Kohli a goat In test. But you're comparing kohli to a guy who avg 59 at the back end of his test career lol.

Similarly no sane person would actually consider pointing > Sanga in test cricket.

In odi 100% pointing is better. In test absolutely not.

 

[Fanboy375]

Sure, you can make a case for him better than Virat when he was not batting in period of 2000-2008, but then you are going to use only 18 tests to arrive at that conclusion.

I am not saying 2000-2008 version is above Kohli.I am saying 2000-2008 shows he was better as a pure batsman than as a wk.I am just using that 18 tests vs his other 30-40 tests as a wk from that period to argue he tend to bat well when he is not wearing gloves.

I think:Non wk Sanga>Kohli>WK Sanga
I can't claim Sanga we have now is above or equal to Kohli.But a theoretical Sanga who never was a wk is.

 

[Buffet]

No one considers Miandad or Kohli a goat In test. But you're comparing kohli to a guy who avg 59 at the back end of his test career lol.

Similarly no sane person would actually consider pointing > Sanga in test cricket.

In odi 100% pointing is better. In test absolutely not.

I am confused the point you are trying to make here. I am not comparing Ponting to Sanga or debating the greatnes of Miandad.

I was responding to statement,

" Only in India can a player like him continue to play on his reputation and brand name, despite having tailenderesque numbers for the past four years."

Ponting and Miandad were examples to show posters that his assumption is not correct.

 

[Fanboy375]

Also, I never said that no one should rate Sanga above Kohli. Looking at their career and considering all angles, I just decided to put both in the same tier based on what they have done. I held the same impression without looking at any data due to watching both bat. Only reaons I started the thread to hear points about why some one will rate him a tier above. You can see some of the reaction in this thread where posters took offense in even comparing these two as if gap was too huge. Some time gap can be huge, but it becomes very clear when you look at runs/tons/wickets/avg in home and away against top teams after players have played at least 40-50 tests.

You could be in the same tier and still come above or below than others depending on what factors specific fans rate more.

Yeah.Sanga is not Lara or Sachin.But I thought it is unfair to treat test version of Sanga being like odi version of Sanga (who doesn't show poor performance while wearing gloves).Test version is not Gilchrist or more like Rahul Dravid/AB de villiers who doesn't belong to wk.If we get rid of wk part of him his batting average will go up.

 

[Buffet]

I am not saying 2000-2008 version is above Kohli. I am saying 2000-2008 shows he was better as a pure batsman than as a wk.I am just using that 18 tests vs his other 30-40 tests as a wk from that period to argue he tend to bat well when he is not wearing gloves.

I don't think anyone holds a different view. I have not come across anyone not agreeing to the bold part. Your 18 tests example, makes it even more clear.