Sangakkara & Jayawardene - overrated FTB's?

Sangakkara's record in England:

2002
10 c Flintoff b Hoggard
6 not out
16 c Stewart b Flintoff
1 LBW b Hoggard
40 c Thorpe b Hoggard
32 LBW b Tudor

2006
21 c Trescothick b Mahmood
65 c Jones b Panesar
25 c Jones b Plunkett
18 c Collingwood b Panesar
36 c Jones b Flintoff
66 c Trescothick b Flintoff

2011
11 c Prior b Anderson
14 c Strauss b Swann
26 c Prior b Tremlett
12 c Morgan b Tremlett
2 c Prior b Anderson

9 matches, 401 runs at an average of 25.06. Keeps nicking off to the keeper and slips, even when he has made a start. Even if he gets his eye in then the spinner comes on and gets him out instead. Yet he has a higher batting average than Ricky Ponting. Extrapolate his career, and he has consistently failed on any wickets with pace and bounce:

Fact is, apart from one majestic Test at Hobart he's failed in England, Australia, South Africa and the Windies. His record in India isn't too flash either:

in England, 9 Tests, 401 runs at 25.06
in South Africa, 5 Tests, 392 runs at 39.20
in West Indies, 4 Tests, 238 runs at 34.00
in Australia, 3 Tests, 391 runs at 65.16

But his record in England is the one that is egregious.

Jayawardene has a similar pattern, except that he always raises his game at Lords:

1998
9 c B Hollioake b Fraser

2001
107 c Trescothick b Flintoff
14 not out
47 c Flintoff b Caddick
59 c Thorpe b Caddick
17 c & b Tudor
28 c Hussain b Giles

2006
61 c Jones b Flintoff
119 c Jones b Flintoff
0 c Jones b Flintoff
5 LBW b Hoggard
0 c Jones b Flintoff
45 c Jones b Plunkett

2011
4 c Strauss b Anderson
15 c Strauss b Tremlett
49 c Cook b Finn
25 c Pietersen b Broad
4 c Prior b Tremlett

Again, a major tendency to nick off to slips / keeper.

In total 10 Tests, 608 runs at 35.76. Splits into 375 runs at 75.00 at Lords and 233 runs at 19.42 at other English venues.

His record outside of Asia is even more sub-standard:

in England, 10 Tests, 608 runs at 35.76
in Australia, 4 Tests, 274 runs at 34.25
in New Zealand, 4 Tests, 194 runs at 27.71
in South Africa, 5 Tests, 314 runs at 31.40
in West Indies, 5 Tests, 394 runs at 42.00

I don't think either of them likes "English conditions".

Added to which, Sanga in particular has a go-for-it approach that is generally better suited to 50 overs - where 40-50 can win a game.

There's another pattern here - one that is a real shame, and it reflects badly on the cricket administrators, but also explains why Sangakkara, Jayawardene, Samaraweera, Murali and many other Sri Lankans have such inflated averages - many teams don't want to play them. Even when they do, its not always the full strength XI.

England should be given credit for always scheduling 3 Test series - it means that Jayawardene has played us 19 times in his 119 Test career. But Australia and South Africa (the two best teams during the span of his career, 1997-2011) haven't been as generous. In a 15 year career he's played 4 Tests in Australia and 5 in South Africa. About the same number he's played at home against the Windies.

Sri Lanka, as traditional minnows, but with a much stronger team now, are still treated like lepers by some schedulers. Given the odd Test here and there - it means they schedule more Tests at home than away, and Jayawardene has played more games against Bangladesh than he has against Australia.

Jayawardene's opponants:
Eng = 16%, India = 15.1%, Pakistan = 15.1%, SA = 10%, WI = 10%, Bang = 9.2%, NZ = 9.2% Aus = 8.4%, Zim = 6.8%

Sangakkara's opponants:
Eng = 18.6%, India = 15.5%, SA = 12.4%, WI = 12.4%, Bang = 11.3%, Pakistan = 10.3%, NZ = 8.2%, Aus = 6.2%, Zim = 5.1%

Now imagine if they'd had the career of Sunil Gavaskar, skewed to face the better teams of the era (like most of the greats):
Eng = 30.4%, WI = 21.6%, Pak = 19.2%, Aus = 16%, NZ = 7.2%, SL = 5.6%

I'm too tired to do the rest of the stats properly, but I reckon that would knock a good 10 runs of both thier averages, as it would mean for example Jayawardene would have played around 47 Tests instead of 27 on the more alien pitches outside of Asia (& Zim). And bearing in mind he averages mid 30s on them (and as a consequence would have played less games in Asia where he averages 60....)

But Gaz, you are ignoring the possibility of the reverse trend: that growing experience of and greater familiarity with alien wickets and climatic conditions would have seen their performances and average IMPROVE.

As with many amateur statisticians, you are reading stats purely statically, stagnantly, and projecting retrospective figures into a future you imagine is bound to be identical.

Whereas statistics never give any safe lessons about what will happen next, or might have happened, particularly where conditions and circumstances may change (see above).

Fossils do not teach us when the world will end.

Maybe, a little - but they would not improve by much.

My point is, many English batsmen are not deemed 'great' because they don't average 50 - but what if Trescothick had played similar Tests to Sangakkara, rather than facing the best teams in the world often, and the weaker ones rarely. Would that make him a better player? No. Would it give him a higher average? Yes.

And fossils may well teach us a lot about how the world will end, you just need to know where to look.

Personally, I would also widen your perspective on pure figures as a measure of a player's worth.

I'd generally rather have paid to watch, say, Randall, Fry or Grace bat over Denness, Fletcher or Crawley.

And I daresay despite lower averages, they generally contributed a bit more to their team's performance ("on average").

Sanga had a spectacular series in NZ where just about everyone else on both sides failed miserably.

Also, I think much of Sanga's record is skewed by his WK days.

Gary 111 wrote:Maybe, a little - but they would not improve by much.

My point is, many English batsmen are not deemed 'great' because they don't average 50 - but what if Trescothick had played similar Tests to Sangakkara, rather than facing the best teams in the world often, and the weaker ones rarely. Would that make him a better player? No. Would it give him a higher average? Yes.

And fossils may well teach us a lot about how the world will end, you just need to know where to look.

1. How can you say that so categorically?

2. I quite agree. To say someone with an overall average of under 50 cannot be a "great" is arguable (i.e. bunk). Dead statistics interpreted with even greater deadness in the head, again.

3. They may, if you add a lot more information, learning, interpretation and insight to that slight fund of data.

Or, if you interpret "fossils" more widely than imprints in rocks. Which is the dynamism and imagination of intelligence I was getting at. (Or trying to.)

I rate Sanga very highly. Such a good player to watch when he's going. I'd like to put his poor record in England down as an anomaly rather than it being proof that he's an FTB.

ponting's record in india is probably poorer than sanga's in england

when sanga is not keeping he has scored 5192 runs @ 72

averages

in aus - 97
in ban - 42
in eng - 13 (this series only)
in ind - 48
in nz - 134
in pak - 60
in sa - 48
in sl - 85
in wi - 43
in zim - 141

admittedly away he has only played between 2 and 3 tests in each country

Sri Lanka must be touring South Africa soon. If Sanga has a good series there, he's still a great, imo.

Henry wrote:Sri Lanka must be touring South Africa soon. If Sanga has a good series there, he's still a great, imo.

Later this year.

They're both excellent, technically proficient batsman. They have holes in their game, obviously. Of course they're going to prefer their home pitches, which are pancakes. Most asian batsmen do. I think they both don't get mentioned in the same breath as other top batsmen, which is the punishment they receive for the most docile home pitches.

Sanga's grouse. Would have in my World XI. And Jaya's not to foul either.

Batting averages away from home since 1990

sanga's is not the worst, just a shade below ponting and lara. jaya's is quite dire though. in langer/hayden territory

The caveat is that one could say that subcontinental conditions are not too dissimilar, they would have bulked those averages out.

I certainly rate Jaya much more the FTB than Sanga. Jaya has struggled in Aus, but Sanga absolutely murdered us in Hobart on the Lankans' last tour and was set for a beautiful double ton and possibly taking SL to a famous victory (he was batting with the tail chasing 400 and plenty, and was flaying us) until Rudi gunned him on an absolute shocker of a caught behind decision.

It was Sanga's last innings in Aus. He made 192 as the Lankans chased 507 and he got 'em to within 150, after the Lankans crashed to 8-290, before his innings was rudely ended by the dozy SAffie. The Slinger and the Pinger threw the bat after the wickie departed to add an entertaining 60 for the last wicket.

Both Very good players. Without doubt uber home track bullies though.

Sanga - not an FTB. One of the best batsmen of his generation.
Jaya - FTB. But still class.

The One wrote:when sanga is not keeping he has scored 5192 runs @ 72

averages

in aus - 97
in ban - 42
in eng - 13 (this series only)
in ind - 48
in nz - 134
in pak - 60
in sa - 48
in sl - 85
in wi - 43
in zim - 141

admittedly away he has only played between 2 and 3 tests in each country

When he was keeping did someone else do the batting for him? Or was it still him?