Thread: Sanga, the nearest to Sir Don?

Originally Posted by masters

Maybe you don't get it. ODIs are about scoring 100s and tests are about scoring big 100s, which is where Sanga proved he's well over the pack of his generation. Especially his stats as a pure batsman are staggering!!! I'm pretty sure if he was in a dominant side he would've played 150 tests by now and would've been called a Legend. A bit like Andy Flower.

Probably you don't get it. Scoring big 100s is only a part of being a complete Test batsman.

It is a given that he has a tendancy to go big once he is settled, which is fantastic. But you must note he has a couple of doubles against Bangladesh, which I don't really rate as a qualification when you talk about selecting the best of the generation.

But being a Test batsman is also about winning matches for your team, under difficult circumstances and all over the world. In my opinion, he has yet to do that, especially away from SL. He has done well in NZ, and Aus in the only change he got (which was an epic 100 btw), but he is yet to prove himself as a complete batsman in all conditions. It is fair if you say he has not got fair ammount of opportunities in Aus and SA, but then again we cant measure someone from his potential. So from what he has done, while he has a brilliant record I wouldn't go so far as to call him the best of the current lot, let alone the next best since Bradman.

Originally Posted by The One

Probably you don't get it. Scoring big 100s is only a part of being a complete Test batsman.

It is a given that he has a tendancy to go big once he is settled, which is fantastic. But you must note he has a couple of doubles against Bangladesh, which I don't really rate as a qualification when you talk about selecting the best of the generation.

But being a Test batsman is also about winning matches for your team, under difficult circumstances and all over the world. In my opinion, he has yet to do that, especially away from SL. He has done well in NZ, and Aus in the only change he got (which was an epic 100 btw), but he is yet to prove himself as a complete batsman in all conditions. It is fair if you say he has not got fair ammount of opportunities in Aus and SA, but then again we cant measure someone from his potential. So from what he has done, while he has a brilliant record I wouldn't go so far as to call him the best of the current lot, let alone the next best since Bradman.

bold part - Lol

Red part - he done well enough in the limited chance he got.SRT has not scored well in SA till he played about 12 matches.Like of sanga did not even hv to play alteast 10 test in SA.He has done well enough in the limited chances.Still he played on math winnings 100 and also a fighting 98 in his debut tour.

If you call about match winnings knocks lara would be below par,coz WI does not had the team to win.It had not made Lara a lesser Champion coz he played enough figting knocks and match saving knock.When it comes to overseas performances,it is just same with sanga.I am not saying he played as much as great innigns as Lara.But he done more than enough in the limited chances he got.

That is my opinion.that is it.

anyway that is enough,coz if i drag this along,some people will here start using sarcasm and ruin the thread.Few people who can not appreciate.