Recent comments

Saturday, August 30, 2014 - 06:12

Better in what sense? On talent definitely Aravinda. On the basis of using your talent to impact games/level of performances Sanga is way ahead..... I have watched more of Aravinda than Sanga batting!....

Posted in: Aravinda vs Kumar - who is the better batsman? by LateCut - Reply to this comment.
Saturday, August 30, 2014 - 04:04
Posted in: Sri Lanka seamers rout Pakistan to seal series win by CoverDrive - Reply to this comment.
Saturday, August 30, 2014 - 03:56

Yes I agree most people will judge players by performances in big games and usually their Test records than other formats for it is their true test of their skills (Indians and some other Asian supporters may disagree).

It's true Mahela has played some great knocks of utter importance as already mentioned by Uppercut.

@Thivi, I don't think anyone underestimates Aravinda's role in the 96 WC. Sanath got the man of the series (decided before the final) not just for runs, but also wickets and catches too. Yes Aravinda was also did the same. But I think it was the manner or rather the impact Sanath's performances had that made the difference.
Sri Lankan fans may have known what he was capable of, but the majority of the rest of world didn't and were left stunned. The games against India early on, and the quarter final against England are probably the best examples.
In fact Azhar and India went against their usual policy of batting first in the semi because of this...fortunately for SL :-)

Back to this debate, you can point to occasions across all these players careers where they have contributed to winning a game or a series.
Likewise there a probably ones where they didn't live up to expectation and perhaps cost their team...Aravinda's moment of madness to belt McDermott down the ground again after doing so earlier and getting caught by Border probably cost SL its chance to win its first Test and series against Australia in 1991/92.

He too only really consistency in his batting by mid 1990s. Otherwise you would see a brilliant knock, followed by several dismissals were he threw it away. He never really dominated Shane Warne in Test cricket either. I don't think he read the legspin as well as say Arjuna!

Natural talent will get you to certain point, but even the greats work hard at their game to succeed and continually improve. This shouldn't be seen in a negative light.
Bradman practiced for hours with a golf ball and stump against a wall, even the great windies sides of the 70s and 80s, who were naturally gifted, trained and practiced hard (unlike the modern windies sides). That determination, and commitment should be seen as a positive attribute. And that's why such polls are best after all are retired so you can analyse and see the whole career.

I have given my answer to this poll earlier, but if I had to make the choice of paying to watch one of these 3 bat in their prime...for the entertainment factor I would pick Aravinda.
Likewise to win me a match I would probably go Aravinda, but if it was to save a Test match...not sure I would go with Aravinda, unless he had someone like Arjuna at the other end to calm him down.

Posted in: Aravinda vs Kumar - who is the better batsman? by delan82 - Reply to this comment.
Saturday, August 30, 2014 - 02:46

@Thivi, my point exactly...

Posted in: Aravinda vs Kumar - who is the better batsman? by UppercuT - Reply to this comment.
Saturday, August 30, 2014 - 02:44

I am a diehard sanga fan. But what i can say is tha Sanga as a batsman, until recently was a very limited batsman. Only someone who is not audacious will not make a mistake. Sanga is not audacious hence is very consistent. Mahela has had a greater impact on the team. Everyone knows the impact KP had in the english team. Yet he averages only 47. Consistent players like sanga are paramount for a team. They are like the foundation for a team. But it is the building tht matters. Mahela often was that building. Mahela has played innings of greater impact than sanga. That century in the semi final of the 2007 WC, the century in 2011 final can only be played by maiya. In the 1996 semifinal when both the openers were out in the fist over aravinda just walked out and played the best odi innings ever. He scored only around 64 but that really turned the tide in lankas favor. Sanga only in recent times have started playing innings of that kind. We generally measure a player by his average, no of centuries etc. But we fail to realise that even 20s and 30s can have a greater impact than 100s. Aravinda was the highest run getter for lanka in the 1996 WC. But the victory is accredited to sanath. If u luk at sanath's record in that series he scored only around 2 50s. But the impact his 20s and 30s had were immense.

Posted in: Aravinda vs Kumar - who is the better batsman? by Thivi - Reply to this comment.
Saturday, August 30, 2014 - 02:39

Aney UpperCut yako, umba danna cricket. Sanga was a star performer from early on his career. Why he was selected to World XI to play against Aussie in 2005. He was the best batsman in that team. His two centuries in NZ in 2006. He even scored 98 against SA in his first oversees test tour. Unfortunate to be given out. What about his 230 against Pakistan in test champion ship.

You seems to have lost the marbles. What are you smoking today. Stupidity at his best to say Sanga became good batsman after 2013

Posted in: Aravinda vs Kumar - who is the better batsman? by Sandy (not verified) - Reply to this comment.
Saturday, August 30, 2014 - 02:27

To close to call

Posted in: Aravinda vs Kumar - who is the better batsman? by Anonymous (not verified) - Reply to this comment.
Saturday, August 30, 2014 - 02:14

@melvodeepal... can't say Sanga scored for himself.. i can remember times he used to sacrifice several 100s for the team... it was just like @Thivi said in his comment... Sanga's range of strokes were bit limited until recently(2013) as opposed to Mahela,Aravinda :)

Posted in: Aravinda vs Kumar - who is the better batsman? by UppercuT - Reply to this comment.
Saturday, August 30, 2014 - 02:04

Uppsecut

That because Aravinda n Mahela score for the team n match winners

Sanga scores for himslef..

No doubt all three of them r legends but Sanga has very very limited match winning games

Posted in: Aravinda vs Kumar - who is the better batsman? by melvodeepal - Reply to this comment.
Saturday, August 30, 2014 - 01:44

agree with @Delan.. Mahela DID let it slip.. just like Aravinda(there was a reason he was called madmax :D )

To be honest Sanga became a complete batsman in my view only in 2013 Champions Trophy when he gave that mauling to the Poms...he didn't have much of an offensive game until then. Then we saw Sanga 2.0 which everyone fell in love with....

on the hand Mahela was ALWAYS like that... balanced offense and defense..

Posted in: Aravinda vs Kumar - who is the better batsman? by UppercuT - Reply to this comment.