Kumar Sangakkara is approaching the finish line of what has been a truly stunning career, with Sri Lanka’s last match of this World Cup to be his last one-day international.
Come August he says he will retire from Test cricket as well.
For anyone who loves the game that news is disheartening. And it also has many asking, “why?”
Today Sangakkara is 37 years 136 days old – certainly a veteran when it comes to international cricket. Yet, unlike many others, his feats on the field have shown no signs of dilution.
Just yesterday he wrote himself into the record books once again with his 124 against Scotland at Hobart. It was his fourth consecutive one-day century, on the back of 105* against Bangladesh, 117* against Australia and 104 against England.
It saw him become the first man to score four centuries at the one World Cup, and also made him the first batsman to score four ODI tons on the trot.
Not bad for a 37-year-old.
So far this year Sangakkara has played 13 ODIs and scored 817 runs at 90.8, with five centuries and a strike rate of 110. They are numbers that set him aside from other players who have plied their trade at such an age.
Yet come the end of Sri Lanka’s campaign in Australia and New Zealand he will hang up the pyjamas.
It is not unreasonable for batsmen to pull the pin on their limited-overs careers in an endeavour to increase their longevity in Test ranks. Sadly, post his ODI retirement Sangakkara will only remain active in the Test arena for another five months, having stated that he will “be done by the end of August”.
He will ride off into the sunset following a home three-Test series against India in August, and he will do so with some fine numbers.
His 403 ODIs to date have seen him amass 14,189 runs, second only to Sachin Tendulkar, with 25 centuries at an average of 42.0.
After 130 Tests he sits fifth on the all-time list of run-scorers with 12,203 runs at 58.7 with 38 centuries. It is an average that tops the likes of Tendulkar, Brian Lara, Ricky Ponting and Jacques Kallis.
While Sangakkara’s career has been one of continual high achievement, his performances since turning 35 have really stood out.
In the 19 Tests he has played since then he has scored 2331 runs at 68.6, an average that outdoes all the other modern-day players who have also plied their trade into their late-30s.
| Player | Tests after 35 | Average |
| Shivnarine Chanderpaul | 40 | 62.7 |
| Jacques Kallis | 26 | 57 |
| Steve Waugh | 40 | 53.2 |
| Brian Lara | 25 | 51 |
| Sachin Tendulkar | 53 | 49.9 |
| Rahul Dravid | 47 | 45.4 |
| Mahela Jayawardene | 19 | 41.6 |
| Ricky Ponting | 29 | 37.2 |
Sangakkara has amassed his runs with one of the most attractive techniques in the game, with his signature shot a cover drive of classical beauty.
Throughout his career he has shown an insatiable appetite for runs.
Only Don Bradman (12) has surpassed Sangakkara’s 11 double centuries, and had he not run out of partners on 199 against Pakistan at Galle in 2012 he would likely sit proudly alongside The Don.
One of the great imponderables is just what Sangakkara’s record would look like had he never kept wickets. In the 48 Tests in which he donned the gloves he averaged 40.5, while playing as a batsman only his average is a staggering 69.4
He is highly respected both on and off the field and has led a career that has been totally unblemished by scandal.
Teammates and opponents all speak of him in glowing terms, for he has played the game in an exemplary fashion in an era that has not always been known for such niceties.
We will only have the opportunity to witness his brilliance for a few more months which, given his recent form, just doesn’t seem fair.
He will leave the game far richer for having played it.
In an era where words like ‘legend’, ‘great’ and ‘superstar’ are mindlessly bandied about, there is no argument that all of those terms aptly describe Kumar Sangakkara.
ret
Guest
Cantab, the only Aussie here with a "chip on their shoulder" about SL cricketers would be Sheek. And he still rates Sanga alongside Greg Chappell! I don't think it is fair to remove Sanga's stats against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, and adjust his average accordingly. His batting against the best side in the world (for most of his career), in their own country, perhaps suggests he is even better than his test average of 57. See, it works both ways.
Sanga Manga
Guest
I remember that. The way Sanga was batting if he stayed at the crease for another hour he might have taken Sri Lanka to a sensational victory. Damm that umpire.
Don Freo
Guest
We all know that...but he is a very poor wicket keeper...more of a backstop. It is his ability with the bat and his captaincy that keeps him in the team, not his keeping.
Viren
Guest
Dhoni a batsman?? He's hardly a test-grade batsman. Only in ODIs is he a great, but his primary role in tests is keeping and captaincy.
Spruce moose
Guest
Boy, you have serious issues with being challenged. I'm genuinely sorry for you. Truly. I'll however choose to agree with you when you are right, and challenge you when you are wrong. If your ego can handle it of course. It never ceases to amaze that when someone brings logic in front of you, you cower in the corner and bring out the insults. I've seen you do it before to others, you're doing it to me right now, and as sure as the sun will rise, you will do it again to some other poor sod who dares challenge one of your diatribes You are a child in an old mans body sheek Time for you to grow up and accept that god forbid you do not hold the rights to being right on this website.
Axle an the Guru
Guest
I think you are right Don with Dyer.
Alex L
Roar Rookie
Kallis may not have had much in the way of X factor.. but he was a rock solid pillar that the team could build around. Such players are essential to any good side.
Bobbo7
Guest
But he had a higher batting average than Tendulkar - even without the wickets For me I'll take a guy with a better average than a x factor player
Statistic Skeptic
Guest
Wow... ok. Not sure if I should be horrified, proud or just confused.
sheek
Roar Guru
Spruce Moose, You are a fool & I can only pretend to converse with a fool for only so long. I am in utter contempt of the wildly reactionary remarks from Statistic Skeptic & yourself. I've read some moronic reactionary rubbish on this site over 8 years, but the pair of you might just take the top prize.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I don't see any chips on shoulders. Australian's can't go around with chips on their shoulders, the seagulls would just eat them.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I never said they did. I'm just trying to point out that there can be many reasons other than performance for a player deciding to retire. That it doesn't have to just come down to playing until you just can't maintain the level required to play at that level and finally have to concede. Sure, for many players it will, but there are so many different reasons players might want to retire that are all very legitimate. And if a player has been wrestling with retirement for a while, when they finally make the decision and announce it where it's not instant but after some particular series or tournament or the like, often that can take a weight off their shoulders and they feel free and can get almost a bit of a second-wind. The fact that lots of players hung on as long as they could doesn't make that less valid.
spruce moose
Guest
Chinmusick i know full bloody well what Sheek was doing. The problem is that he did it wrong from the very beginning. it is unreasonable (and ridiculous to be honest) to manipulate the stats of one but not the other. Doing so renders whatever argument he had completely and utterly invalid. Why does Chappell seem to be completely above any manipulation? If you want to manipulate, justify, seek excuses for people, then by all means do it, but do it for everyone. You can't pick and choose what you want...not with maths. Cricinfo often manipulates stats in its articles...but it applies it to everyone. Did you fall asleep during maths class? Does this make sense to you?
cantab
Guest
Mccullum at his best was as good as Gilly at his best, The difference is Gilly was almost always at his best, whilst Bmac was rarely.
cantab
Guest
Funny reading these comments, Australians (generalisation) really do seem to have chip on there shoulder against Sri Lankan cricketer, seemingly since the 96 world cup.
Johnno
Guest
Chris Cricketers do not all give up in the name of family time. Many battle on until they can't go on anymore, Gooch was 41, Border,Ponting,they all hung on. Many like the money and stay on as long as they can hold there place in the side or can physically do it, so not all cricketers quit to spend more time with family.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Playing international cricket is a tough gig, spending more time away from home than almost any other sport. Probably the only other ones up there would be tennis and possibly golf and they are individual sports which are a bit different. Most team sports are played where the club game is what you mostly do and then have some rep time playing for your country around that. So you are at home a lot of the time and travel away to away games frequently, but only for a couple of days. Many cricketers who are still really good into their late-30's will actually retire because they've had enough of the constant travel and being away from the family and just don't have the desire to do it anymore. When the end is in sight, by having made a statement to retire after the WC or after a certain series or something, often it's a bit of a relief and the player can go out there and just give it everything, with a lot of determination to go out big. It doesn't mean he shouldn't retire, because his decision is simply more likely based around it being time to be at home with the family more. Much like Mike Hussey's decision to retire was.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
The thing is, that Australian's DO put an Asterisk against Hayden's 380. We don't just rate other nations players performances against teams like Bangladesh and Zimbabwe less, but we do the same with our own players. Hey, Jason Gillespie made a double century against Bangladesh, and anyone talking about him almost being an allrounder is doing it very tongue in cheek!
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
The fact that among all these players, Gilchrist was the ONLY one int the top 6 of that list who played EVERY match as a wicket keeper. In fact, Sanga hasn't kept in test cricket for a long time, AB only did for a short period of time, and Brendan McCullum was always a dangerous attacking batsman, but quite inconsistent, and his batting really seems to have gone through the roof SINCE giving up the gloves. He's even given them up in ODI's, while, though Sanga hasn't kept in a test for a long time, he still does that in the ODI's, so rating keeper batsmen in ODI's he's 100% for that. Even Dhoni has played test matches not as the keeper, though not as many as a lot of the others listed here.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I think it comes down to the fact that people want to compare players and debate who was the best of all time, and the fact is that statistics can't be argued with to show that he was clearly among the all-time greats, but since statistics aren't on a level playing field, you can't just ever use pure stats to compare and determine greatness. You could argue that the West Indies batsmen of the '80s averages were inflated compared to all their opposition because they didn't have to face their own bowlers. There are some countries where there are a lot more high scoring pitches rolled out and things like that. It's why the ICC player rankings are a complex calculation that take into account the opposition strength as well as how many other people made good scores (ie if you scored 200 and the next best score was 50 you'll get more ranking points than if you got 200 when there were 5 other centuries scored). One look at Sanga's stats and you know he was an awesome player. He managed to score runs in all conditions against all attacks. But when it comes to directly comparing the great players against each other it's not unreasonable to look for things that could potentially inflate their stats like dining out on more matches against the weaker opposition than other great players might have had. In Sanga's case, he played well against all opposition, but does have overall averages against Australia, England and South Africa of just 43, 40 and 47 respectively while averaging 80+ against Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and Pakistan, against whom he played a lot more matches than many of the other great players might have played. Funny thing about Sanga in those stats is that he averaged 43 against Australia, but 60 in Australia. So he did a lot better against Australia over here than he did playing at home. That's an unusual stat, especially considering, that like most batsmen, he averages around 10 points higher at home than away.