He plundered everyone, everywhere. Tbh, 4 of his tests vs NZ would be 2012 onwards, where NZ had Hesson as a coach and NZC made some significant turnarounds in leaving minnow status. NZ drew in SL in 2012 thanks to Boult and Southee's bowling, KW's and Taylor's batting, and beat them here in 2014/15 despite Sanga's double century (he really looked a class above  requiring a record partnership between KW and Watling to make the game safe. NZ was 5 down for a lead of 25 when Watling walked out. It looked pretty bleak. Watling is the hidden gem in the Kiwi team people don't notice. They put on 365 runs unbroken. But conditions were doing allsorts for the first few days of that game. Sangakarra just graced his way with no support bar Chandimal.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/11497/scorecard/749779/new-zealand-vs-sri-lanka-2nd-test-sri-lanka-in-new-zealand-test-series-2014-15

Anyway - Sanga's record as a batsman only against everyone. It doesn't get much more impressive than this unless you look to Bradman, maybe Smith.

Career summary

Grouping	Span	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	BF	SR	100	50	0	4s	6s
v Australia	2004-2012	7	13	1	764	192	63.66	1604	47.63	1	7	0	96	1
v Bangladesh	2002-2014	10	15	2	1612	319	124.00	2646	60.92	7	5	0	178	15
v England	2007-2014	10	18	0	852	152	47.33	1764	48.29	3	4	2	106	0
v India	2008-2015	11	19	1	1032	219	57.33	1915	53.89	4	2	0	119	3
v New Zealand	2003-2015	10	18	3	821	203	54.73	1335	61.49	4	2	1	106	6
v Pakistan	2004-2015	19	37	5	2228	221	69.62	4224	52.74	7	11	2	212	10
v South Africa	2000-2014	11	21	0	1251	287	59.57	2160	57.91	3	6	2	166	4
v West Indies	2003-2010	6	9	1	442	150	55.25	855	51.69	1	4	0	51	1
v Zimbabwe	2004-2004	2	2	0	281	270	140.50	391	71.86	1	0	0	38	2

in Australia	2004-2012	4	8	1	541	192	77.28	1029	52.57	1	5	0	69	1
in Bangladesh	2008-2014	4	7	0	668	319	95.42	1153	57.93	2	3	0	72	10
in England	2011-2014	5	10	0	526	147	52.60	1099	47.86	2	3	0	64	0
in India	2009-2009	3	5	0	241	137	48.20	531	45.38	1	0	0	31	1
in New Zealand	2006-2015	4	8	2	483	203	80.50	734	65.80	3	0	0	53	5
in Pakistan	2004-2009	3	5	0	300	104	60.00	469	63.96	1	3	0	37	0
in South Africa	2000-2012	5	10	0	372	108	37.20	842	44.18	1	2	1	46	1
in Sri Lanka	2002-2015	47	80	9	4975	287	70.07	8759	56.79	17	18	6	579	18
in U.A.E.	2011-2014	6	12	1	682	211	62.00	1413	48.26	2	4	0	62	4
in West Indies	2003-2008	3	5	0	214	75	42.80	474	45.14	0	3	0	21	0
in Zimbabwe	2004-2004	2	2	0	281	270	140.50	391	71.86	1	0	0	38	2

home	2002-2015	47	80	9	4975	287	70.07	8759	56.79	17	18	6	579	18
away	2000-2015	33	60	3	3626	319	63.61	6722	53.94	12	19	1	431	20
neutral	2011-2014	6	12	1	682	211	62.00	1413	48.26	2	4	0	62	4

No, he didn't plunder runs "everywhere" against "everyone". I find it doubtful any batsman has ever really done this (with the term "plunder runs" being entirely subjective anyway). Maybe Bradman plundered runs wherever he travelled, but he did't travel to many places.

For example he had an average of 43.9 against the Aussies which is good without being great. But an ave of 30 in SL means he certainly didn't plunder runs there and this could support the claim that Aus wickets are quite often far too batting friendly.

He averaged 39 in SL against England, and 41 in England. Ok without being great.

He averaged 35 in SA. Mediocre.

He averaged 34 in the West Indies. Mediocre.

Regardless of what you make of this, he was obviously an extremely good batsman but the phrase "he plundered runs everywhere" is clearly hubris and rather inaccurate by any reasonable definition of the term "plundering runs". Conversely, nine centuries in 20 matches including three doubles and a triple against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh would fit any reasonable definition of "plundering runs".

As far as the "hiding away at no.4" sentiment. Clearly more hubris. While it could obviously be more difficult at 3, as you may have to see off the new ball more often, surely batsmen bat where the team requires them to? Why would Sachin (or anyone else) bat at three when you have Dravid lol? I have doubts Border and Waugh used to "hide down the order"? Or Smith. It's team game Paddles.

And what's with saying no, and then saying its subjective? I gave you his stats as a batsman only, you can try and ignore them all you like, I bet if I tried to say he was the best wicket keeper batsman you'd have issues with the fact he played so much with out the gloves. Just not in reverse huh? And while you doubt S Waugh hid down the order, S Warne and I Chappel will very much tell you he did. But that I am in no mood for these conversations with you, as you're back to using words like "hubris". I won't entertain conversations with someone who is unable not to get personal. 

When you can argue without all the personal slights, I'll converse again.

I'm not entirely driven by stats Paddles. I used them to rebut a specific claim. Generally it's not difficult to find stats to support any argument and I could also ask why you cherry picked by leaving out the ones I brought up? The argument "as a batsmen only" is interesting but excludes much of his career and overlooks that he was a keeper batsmen. It's a "if your aunty had b-lls, she'd be your uncle" type of argument.

Sangakara was a great batsman, but I don't necessarily have to refer to the stats to have a pecking order. This is because of the many things the stats never illustrate. I rate him perhaps somewhere around Kallis. Certainly below Ponting or Dravid, who were themselves certainly below Tendulkar/Lara.

Didn't cherry pick, I used his non wicket keeping stats. You kept trying to include them. Batting in the top 3 and wicket keeping, its no wonder he averaged 40 doing that role.

Yes you have your ratings - and I have mine. I blame the media marketing for yours, and you blame stats for mine. :)

Right, so who was the better wicketkeeper batsman then, Gilchrist or Sanga? Has to be Sanga right? Using your logic? Now suddenly Gilchrist is unfairly put in comparison. Why do this? It's a not a fair nor even logical comparison in my opinion. But the logic goes both ways, and not just applied willy nilly. I'd do the same with Alec Stewart (47 vs 35), in fact I do do the same.

As someone who claims to have formal training in "philosophy", surely you will notice the argumentative logical fallacy (or fallacies) in that one Paddles?

Are they really necessary?

Yeah yeah, ok. The emoticon makes it obvious, I take that back. I'll accept that it was simply a bit of a wind up. Almost worked too lol.

Well given we do have different ratings, there must be reasons for this. And given a fallacy is an error in logic, you want to claim I am factually wrong, cos the logical cause can still be valid, it's only a good argument if factually accurate. Prove I am factually wrong. :) Either way, there are some causes to blame. 

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Yes, we wouldn't want to let such a thing onto the forums, heaven forbid. Especially forums where people are invited to give their cricketing opinions based largely on personal insight. We are robots who go by statistics and therefore Adam Voges is the second greatest test batsman of all time.

Personal insight is fine by me. Personal slights are not fine by me. I don't see the connection from differing personal insights and rationale to hubris. Let's try and keep this forum at a better level than the rest. 

And for the record, Smith has actually over taken Voges by the way. But I don't think even the keenest statsman would offer Voges' name up in the top 20, 30 or 50 ever :)

*Second best retired batsman of all time*...statistically (behind Bradman). :w00t:

Right, so who was the better wicketkeeper batsman then, Gilchrist or Sanga?

Andy Flower?

Has to be Sanga right? Using your logic? Now suddenly Gilchrist is unfairly put in comparison. Why do this? It's a not a fair nor even logical comparison in my opinion. But the logic goes both ways, and not just applied willy nilly. I'd do the same with Alec Stewart (47 vs 35), in fact I do do the same.

I rarely have "black or white" thinking this way.

If I was looking for a keeper/batsman (and possibly Captain) for a weakish team, Sangakarra would be a good choice.

If I was looking for a keeper/batsman to follow a good batting order, the icing on the cake so to speak, who could simply put attacks to the sword after a start it would be Gilchrist any day.

If I was simply choosing a best batting top six line up, neither would make it.

I didn't ask for a weak team or strong team, I said the best wicket keeper batsman. You never brought in team strengths for Sanga vs Lara and Tendulkar. Why are you now? You didn't even like the batting order difference before of 3 and 4, now you want to bring in a 7 to downhill ski off the back of a good top order? Very interesting. 

I used to get sick of the sight of VVS and Dravid's massive stands against us. They hammered us at times. If VVS got stuck with tailenders that explains a bit.

Fair enough, I'll take back the hubris which was probably was uncalled for...and replace it with *hyperbole* which it most definitely was.

I actually misread the relevant post anyway, a bit carelessly, so the confusion is mine and apologies.

And given a fallacy is an error in logic, you want to claim I am factually wrong, cos the logical cause can still be valid, it's only a good argument if factually accurate. Prove I am factually wrong.  Either way, there are some causes to blame.  

You seem to be of the opinion that I'm trying to convince you of cricketing "facts". This isn't so, though I have pointed out certain data and offered another interpretation. Nor am I necessarily claiming you are wrong. Or that I must be right (no matter how much I believe it). That really would be hubris. I'm giving my opinion and no more than that.


Didn't think it was relevant. We weren't directly comparing any two particular batsmen. Not only that, but Tendulkar and Lara did carry weak teams.

If I had to go one or the other, Gilchrist. Though that could change as per the caveats mentioned previously. Otherwise I would be proposed with a what I believe to be a false dilemma. They were both pretty good.

Wow. I mean sure - they had weak seamers commonly, but a weak team? Sehwag, Gambhir, Dravid, Laxman, Ganguly, Azzra, Sidhu. Lets test this theory.

View overall figures [change view]

Start of match date between 1 Nov 1989 and 16 Nov 2013

Batting position between 1 and 7

Grouped by team

Ordered by batting average (descending)

Page 1 of 1

Showing 1 - 11 of 11

First Previous

Next  Last

Return to query menu Cleared query menu

Overall figures

Team	Players	Span	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	100	50	0
Australia	68	1989-2013	268	3174	297	124765	380	43.36	330	601	245
India	71	1989-2013	217	2496	215	95089	319	41.68	225	460	166
South Africa	55	1992-2013	207	2398	226	88811	311*	40.88	218	420	178
Sri Lanka	68	1989-2013	195	2284	191	81710	374	39.03	190	367	194
England	95	1990-2013	283	3464	273	119784	333	37.53	275	592	270
Pakistan	86	1989-2013	196	2351	175	80887	329	37.17	181	406	198
West Indies	90	1990-2013	219	2658	199	86732	400*	35.27	173	433	231
New Zealand	87	1989-2013	192	2385	162	71832	299	32.31	119	378	226
Zimbabwe	66	1992-2013	93	1203	69	32366	266	28.54	47	173	124
Bangladesh	50	2000-2013	81	1105	37	26874	200	25.16	26	132	111
ICC World XI	7	2005-2005	1	14	1	293	76	22.53	0	1	3

 

This overlooks the fact that India were a weak team in the '90s who struggled outside of the subcontinent. When discussing Tendulkar I don't think he was great from the early/mid 2000's anyway. 

Lara also carried a weak team (in the 2000's). He managed to win matches off his own bat, against some the best cricketers of his generation.

I doubt your stats disprove that they both did cary weak teams.

It also underlines why I feel purely stats driven arguments aren't very compelling. Otherwise people might marry purely because of stats. They can be a guide, they offer something to consider when forming an opinion.

As Adam Voges illustrates.

India's batting pedigree goes back to the 1980's, thanks to the likes of Vengasarakar, Gavaskar and more. But lets focus on the 1990's -

• Tests
• ODIs
• T20Is
• All Test/ODI/T20I

      - other -      Women's Tests      Women's ODIs      Women's T20Is      Youth Tests      Youth ODIs      Youth T20Is     Batting | Bowling | Fielding | All-round | Partnership | Team | Umpire and referee | Aggregate/overall

View overall figures [change view]

Start of match date between 1 Jan 1990 and 31 Dec 1999

Grouped by team

Ordered by batting average (descending)

Page 1 of 1

Showing 1 - 9 of 9

First Previous

Next  Last

Return to query menu Cleared query menu

Overall figures

Team	Players	Span	Mat	Runs	HS	Bat Av	100	Wkts	BBI	Bowl Av	5	Ct	St	Ave Diff
India	52	1990-1999	69	31519	227	33.10	71	1007	10/74	33.46	37	583	16	-0.36
Australia	56	1990-1999	108	52992	334*	33.07	110	1777	8/38	27.75	79	1138	30	5.32
South Africa	39	1992-1999	66	30249	275*	31.64	52	1043	8/64	27.05	41	658	4	4.58
Pakistan	63	1990-1999	76	33212	257*	29.03	62	1190	7/56	28.52	65	576	28	0.50
Sri Lanka	51	1990-1999	67	28700	340	28.90	50	882	9/65	35.67	37	536	28	-6.76
England	84	1990-1999	107	48549	333	27.98	81	1506	9/57	34.85	56	1005	20	-6.87
West Indies	55	1990-1999	81	34734	375	27.89	55	1245	8/45	29.23	54	821	8	-1.33
New Zealand	57	1990-1999	81	35465	299	27.44	45	1073	7/27	36.00	43	709	9	-8.55
Zimbabwe	43	1992-1999	39	15742	266	24.40	21	481	6/90	36.05	13	337	5	-11.65

Well there's a stick in the mud... Tendy was their best batsman in the 90's. Dravid took over in the 2000's.

A quick look shows this for India in away matches in the '90's. It doesn't indicate a strong team. Their only away win out of 39 attempts being in Sri Lanka. 0 wins outside of the subcontinent. Although I already had that opinion without looking for stats, I now see they offer support. Though I would posit that many of the draws wouldn't have been achieved either without Tendulkar (without looking up any stats), he also face some exceptional bowling early on in his career.

Overall figures

	Span	Mat	Won	Lost	Tied	Draw	W/L	Ave	RPO	Inns	HS	LS
unfiltered	1932-2019	535	152	165	1	217	0.921	33.86	2.93	949	759	42	Profile
filtered	1990-1999	39	1	15	0	23	0.066	32.90	2.85	65	606	66

edit.

Yeah - their seamers sucked. But Tendulkar was hardly carrying the seam attack.  And SL from the 90's had Aravinda, Jayasuriya (Jayawarene comes 1998), Tilikiratne, Ranatunga, Mohanama, Attapatu, even Gurusinghe with Vaas and Murali. They were hardly easy beats in the Murali era - cos his batsmen gave him runs.

What I find more interesting is whether SL can ever recapture that golden era, which arguably got better with Saamarewa, Sanga and Dilshan for them, of batting back again? They are only 21 million, with far too many FC teams.

Perhaps that's why India's only win was in '93 No Vaas, Murali didn't play. So you're saying by this, that Sangakara certainly didn't have to carry a weak team ( thought some of his teams were better than those in the '90's)? Fair enough, I thought they were quite weak though and always have been a bit weak.

Mohanama, Gurashinge, Rannatunga ?:laugh:  Yeah, sure Paddles... (having a lend, surely?)

Not at all have a lend, but Mohonama shouldn't be included. I don't think Sanga at all played in a weak batting line up. He was just the best, but he was surrounded by some exceptional talent for most of career until the very end, when they begged him to not retire. I think Guru and Rana would walk into the current SL, Eng and possibly SA teams, and be in the discussion for Australian selection too. ;)

View overall figures [change view]

Primary team Sri Lanka

Start of match date greater than or equal to 1 Jan 1995

Qualifications innings batted greater than or equal to 11

Ordered by batting average (descending)

Page 1 of 2

Showing 1 - 50 of 62

First Previous

Next  Last

Return to query menu Cleared query menu

Overall figures

Player	Span	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	100	50	0	4s	6s
KC Sangakkara	2000-2015	134	233	17	12400	319	57.40	38	52	11	1491	51
DPMD Jayawardene	1997-2014	149	252	15	11814	374	49.84	34	50	15	1387	61
TT Samaraweera	2001-2013	81	132	20	5462	231	48.76	14	30	11	633	7
PA de Silva	1995-2002	47	80	7	3489	206	47.79	13	10	6	433	18
HP Tillakaratne	1995-2004	55	86	18	3132	204*	46.05	10	11	5	364	1
AD Mathews	2009-2019	82	148	21	5641	160	44.41	9	34	2	607	56
LD Chandimal	2011-2019	53	97	7	3768	164	41.86	11	17	4	401	22
ST Jayasuriya	1996-2007	94	163	9	6362	340	41.31	14	27	13	822	57
TM Dilshan	1999-2013	87	145	11	5492	193	40.98	16	23	14	677	24
MS Atapattu	1997-2007	87	150	15	5501	249	40.74	16	17	17	685	4
A Ranatunga	1995-2000	39	65	7	2144	90	36.96	0	20	3	263	13
AP Gurusinha	1995-1996	10	18	0	665	143	36.94	2	2	0	63	3
FDM Karunaratne	2012-2019	62	121	4	4321	196	36.93	9	23	12	427	8
MG Vandort	2001-2008	20	33	2	1144	140	36.90	4	4	3	132	6
BKG Mendis	2015-2019	40	79	3	2754	196	36.23	6	10	6	345	26
SM Warnapura	2007-2009	14	24	1	821	120	35.69	2	7	5	98	2
ARS Silva	2017-2019	12	23	3	702	109	35.10	1	5	2	59	3
CK Kapugedera	2006-2009	8	15	3	418	96	34.83	0	4	1	48	7
LPC Silva	2006-2008	11	17	1	537	152*	33.56	1	2	3	68	1
DM de Silva	2016-2019	27	52	3	1624	173	33.14	5	5	5	201	11
NT Paranavitana	2009-2012	32	60	5	1792	111	32.58	2	11	9	206	5
WU Tharanga	2005-2017	31	58	3	1754	165	31.89	3	8	6	239	9
MDKJ Perera	2015-2019	18	33	3	934	153*	31.13	2	4	5	118	11

UC Hathurusingha	1995-1999	8	14	0	434	83	31.00	0	3	1	54	0
N Dickwella	2014-2019	33	61	4	1738	83	30.49	0	13	3	193	9
HAPW Jayawardene	2000-2015	58	83	11	2124	154*	29.50	4	5	9	223	15
JK Silva	2011-2018	39	74	0	2099	139	28.36	3	12	6	238	2
RP Arnold	1997-2004	44	69	4	1821	123	28.01	3	10	7	222	3
UDU Chandana	1999-2005	16	24	1	616	92	26.78	0	2	0	77	6
KDK Vithanage	2013-2015	10	16	2	370	103*	26.42	1	1	1	44	9
RS Mahanama	1995-1998	20	36	1	889	225	25.40	1	2	4	106	1
WPUJC Vaas	1995-2009	107	157	34	3052	100*	24.81	1	13	11	372	16
RS Kaluwitharana	1995-2004	46	74	3	1756	103	24.73	2	9	5	251	6
HDRL Thirimanne	2011-2019	35	68	6	1404	155*	22.64	1	6	9	135	3

Perera (despite THAT innings), Mendis, D de Silva, oh I am sure they'd want to improve that lot. Mathews and Karunuratne are the keys. Karunaratne is not a bad player. ICC team 2018, and halted NZ's march for a series win over there recently. But he needs to keep boosting that average. Seems to like the captaincy. Chandimal may do the team a favour if he took the gloves back, but there's no exceptional talent Dickwella is keeping out right now, given Chandimal was dropped recently altogether.

Thirimanne averages less than Vaas, he is meant to be an opening batsman!

Here is some problems with purely stats based arguments in general, but yours in particular Paddles. 

I looked it up and you're only including 68 matches out of 135 to give Sangakara an ave of 59 (against top 8 teams) as a batsman only. That excludes half of his career.

He did have a massive Hussy/Voges like peak around 16-25 matches and while it didn't fall dramatically, there is a slow but steady downward trend from there until he called quits. Unless you include all of his career, which looks like a gentler bell curve.

Why couldn't I take 68 matches for Kallis say from '05-'13 where he averaged 61 and exclude the rest, just say that was when he concentrated more on batting, as he was older and trying to bowl fast brought him down before that? 

Or take Ponting's first 100 test matches where he averaged 59, and exclude the rest. Just say Captaincy got to him after that? That's a lot of matches to have such an average. This also began in the mid '90's when scores seemed generally lower and bowlers like Wasim, Bishop, Ambrose and Walsh were still around. Not to mention he played for most of Murali's career.

After 68 matches Gilly was only a couple of runs shy on 56, while also being a full time keeper.

Or take Tendulkar's first 70 matches where he averaged 58 in tougher conditions and regularly against better bowlers than Sangakara would have ever seen and exclude the rest. Injuries, the pressure of being a demigod to over a billion people and record chasing got to him after that (he wasn't all that for his last 10 yrs, retired far too late IMO).

I won't mention Lara in this because apparently we're only interested in stats. No matter that he was a match winner and played the best innings I have ever seen, it doesn't show up in statsguru so it doesn't matter lol.

I don't think so. Even though your'e obviously not aiming very high. lol.

No - he played 48 matches as wicket keeper.  I never brought up top 8 teams thing at all. You're doing this. Which one would you exclude for Sanga, you do realize Zimbabwe were rated higher than Bang for part of his career? I mean this is no easy split to do. I wouldn't even waste my time researching the rankings for every 2 weeks of those first few years.

But if you want, I will show you Gilchrist's stats against the top teams, and ask you some serious questions. I get the feeling, however, you and the others on this forum will not enjoy Gilchrist put to nudity like this. So I spare it for now. But when you take out Gilly's minnow bashing of ZImbabwe, Bangladesh and NZ - he starts looking more ordinary. Probably cos from 2004 to 2008, he kind of undid his 1999 to 2003 spectacular introduction. Then take a closer look at the 2005 effort against a Shoiab Akhtar that broke down after 15 overs (before bowling a ball to him? or if he did it wasn't many!) leaving Pakistan a bowler short. In fact, Gilchrist himself admits that Flintoff ruined his career by bowling right arm around the wicket to him in 2005, Gilly's drop off was such he had no answers. 

Now I am not here to attack Gilly. But I suggest you start proving your numbers of Gilly vs Sanga. Show me your proof. As for peaks or careers, that's another debate altogether. I am not all that interested in having it again, or watching it play out again to be honest.  Sangakarra batted at 3, as a keeper, if you don't think coming in at 3 after keeping for 1.5 days, is a disadvantage, that's fine. I am not interested in having that debate with you. You know my views on it for Stewart batting in the top 3, and you know mine for Sanga. Heck with Jayausriya's approach to cricket, half the time Sangakarra would have been out there in the couple of overs. Jaya, de Silva, Tilikiratne presumably, I am speculating here, had no interest in letting the noobie hide down the order.

You want to create a detailed taxonomy Sangakarra v Gilchrist? I'll got there if wants must, but some people will not like it. But as a way to avoid this ugly scenario, I have an opinion on it. If you don't think its a reasonable one, cos Sangakarra is listed widely as a great batsman in and of himself, and Gilchrist is not, then the burden of proof is on you. You havn't persuaded me otherwise, yet. Sangakarra is the better batsman. You want to claim one is a minnow basher, fine, but exclude both their records against minnows.

I am not really interested in a pointless discussion. Who was the better batsman? It's Sangakarra. Its that easy. Now if you want to compare wicket keeping batting records, that's fine. And I think a fair and reasonable thing to do, and Gilly is certainly then is a better position vis a vis Sangakarra with only the batting order issue left, (pitches an opposition too), but it will be inconsistent with your earlier logic. So you're stuck with this one, or be inconsistent, or change your opinion on the earlier topic of Sanga v Lara and Tendulkar. I don't mind which one you choose. It is the exact reason I gave you this particular analogy. See I know you should know by now that wicket keeping in tests is typically detrimental to batting results,  bar a few outliers like ABdV (cause: anomaly) and Watling (cause: former opener and finds tired bowlers and older balls easier to face batting 6 and 7), Bairstow (cause: forced to bat higher: 3,4,5 without gloves) but even more so for those in the 4 which these two avoided when keeping. And you know of all the batsmen who quit keeping to improve their batting - I mean you have one in your test team right now in Wade. Tilikiratne is another. Sangakarra most notably. But even lil old Chandimal - who improved but managed to get himself dropped. Stewart is just an obvious example, tossed the gloves and then not. 

So the wicket keeper batsman is either relevant or not for Sanga vs Lara and Tendulkar as it is for Sanga vs Gilchrist. No cherry picking in logic here please. Is it relevant? See for me, of course it is. Cos it plays out like this, you either say wicket keeping did not impact on Sanga for 48 tests when comparing Sanga to Lara and Tendy,  which then if so, why would it have suddenly impacted on him for the other 86 odd tests when comparing him to Gilchrist?   

It's that simple.  Unless your assumptions are inconsistent with poor Sanga depending on whether he is being compared to Tendulkar or Gilchrist so as to compare him unfavorably with both. :)  

You may have met your match Paddles.

With my former Mod hat on, keep  discussing cricket, Flyslip and Paddles.

Nearly everything I've read in your debates has been rigorous, but there is no need to get personal, lads.

Both of you bring a wealth of credibility, knowledge and stats to the cricket forum, but keep playing the ball not the man.

A forum is simply a place to express opinions and recognise that others have different views - and move on. 

DC, I would appreciate not being lumped into the personal part with him by you. I have not been dragged down to personal comments on him with words such as hubris or his worse earlier personal slights. But I have regularly informed when he has crossed the line to being personal. But he has toned it down in the last few posts, which is good and steady progress. 

Good.

Being on the other side,  as a teacher, a  current site administrator and Mod of an  entire state FB site for teachers, and a former  IS Mod, acrimonious  disputes  can often be perceived by adjudicators as both parties being in the wrong, when one may be more in the right than the other.