Is Shivnarine Chanderpaul selfish?

[surendar]

Why do you bring Dravid into this thread out of nowhere?

can't you find a sarcastic smiley and praises smiley in the end? Or it got disappeared? Anyways, I am tired from replying and arguing to no-sense arguments. I always thought that I should not bother to look at this thread. But Dravid's innings reminded me of Mr.Ben's policy(You are not great when you are getting 50's, Only 100 makes you great)! : :cool:

For the fact, I always hate comparison between players like the great Maestro, Tendulkar. I don't know how many of you remember this, when Sachin was asked about himself relative to Lara, Sachin replied, " Every player has their own unique ability.. No-body is better than other! ". After that I always try to refrain myself from comparisons. But due to some people's crappy statements Mr X(say, X has played a years cricket) > Mr Y (say, who has played b(a) of cricket), that is triggering me to post.

If anyone can see my history, I came/got introduced to this forums some years back with the statement, Sachin is better than Bradman and continued with some non-stop rubbish crappy arguments. It's same way like Mr. Ben favoring Hayden. But as the time went, I realized that it's just STUPID! I don't know when Mr.Ben will realize that.. Anyways, am not bothered either.

This thread should have named, Chanderpaul or Pietersen, who is better? Majority of the posts talk about that only.:cool:

 

[aussie_ben91]

In regards to our theory about small grounds and edges all around. Im pretty sure KP utilizes these things much more efficiently then Chanderpaul even though Chanderpaul still gets solid scores by playing conventional cricket.

Pietersen's a bigger and stronger bloke then Chanderpaul. He doesn't need edges & smaller boundaries to hit 4's & 6's.

 

[Neo95]

What the f*** is going on here?

Each player is unique.You can't compare players when they are totally different.
Comparison is done when both are equals.

KP and Shiv play totally different roles in their team

You can compare KP with Yuvi tho coz they have the same roles for their respective teams

 

[King Cricket]

His stats speak for themselves? A batsman that scores hundreds is better then a batsman who gets tons of not outs from batting with the tail and scores less hundreds.

If Chanderpaul is better then Pietersen then Gilchrist is better then Ponting, Tendulkar and Lara because it's the exact same scenario. Gilchrist used to average 61 in Test Cricket from getting not outs the same way that Chanderpaul gets not outs - From batting with the tail.

*Awaits King Cricket to take my sarcastic comment seriously*

Keep waiting

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Well according to Ben hundreds mean everything. Then, the fact remains the Shiv has actually scored more hundreds than KP. Contradiction, Ben?

----------------------------------------------------------------

And if we view it from a different angle, Shiv has one hundred in every sixth match (approx) and KP has one hundred in every fourth match (approx). But if we take this logic, Gautam Gambhir becomes equal to Chanderpaul as he also has a hundred in every sixth match and Phillip Hughes becomes greater than all three of them as he has a hundred in approximately every match, now some may say, how come you are comparing Hughes with these two as he has played just three tests? Well, Shiv has played more than double the tests and almost triple the ODI's played by Pietersen. So....

--------------------------------------------------------

Oh, and another thing, both these logics make Matthew Hayden (Hundred in every third match, 30 intl centuries) greater than Sir Jack Hobbs (Hundred in every fifth match (approx) with 16 intl centuries. This also makes KP equal to Sir Jack. And another thing, the second logic makes Gauti, KP, and Hughes greater than Steve Waugh and Steve Waugh equal to Sir Jack. I haven't searched cricinfo much, but if I search I bet I'll find more such weird "more century, better player" results.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Keep waiting

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Well according to Ben hundreds mean everything. Then, the fact remains the Shiv has actually scored more hundreds than KP. Contradiction, Ben?

----------------------------------------------------------------

And if we view it from a different angle, Shiv has one hundred in every sixth match (approx) and KP has one hundred in every fourth match (approx). But if we take this logic, Gautam Gambhir becomes equal to Chanderpaul as he also has a hundred in every sixth match and Phillip Hughes becomes greater than all three of them as he has a hundred in approximately every match, now some may say, how come you are comparing Hughes with these two as he has played just three tests? Well, Shiv has played more than double the tests and almost triple the ODI's played by Pietersen. So....

--------------------------------------------------------

Oh, and another thing, both these logics make Matthew Hayden (Hundred in every third match, 30 intl centuries) greater than Sir Jack Hobbs (Hundred in every fifth match (approx) with 16 intl centuries. This also makes KP equal to Sir Jack. And another thing, the second logic makes Gauti, KP, and Hughes greater than Steve Waugh and Steve Waugh equal to Sir Jack. I haven't searched cricinfo much, but if I search I bet I'll find more such weird "more century, better player" results.

http://www.planetcricket.org/forums/1366964-post97.html

Read that.

 

[Sureshot]

What's with the dotted lines? You seperate a point by starting a new paragraph, which you've already done.

 

[Gunner786]

of all the people it might come from,
coming from kevin pieterson says it all

hes just making excuses to divert the attention from his own recent mental fatigue rubbish lately

 

[m_vaughan]

And were they really at their best, when KP so called "destroyed" them? Nah man, we will go with Shiv over KP any day. I think though we cannot really and adequately compare these two batsmen. They are completely 2 different styles altogether. Lack of comparison for sure if you ask me.

Totally agree with the last part. Completely different players and if it was indeed test matches you are talking about, would pick Shiv over KP anyday. In the end its about consistency against all other teams, and Shiv has been far more. On the day, KP will probably be better, but over a period of time, Shiv easily goes ahead.

A goodteam would need both kinds of players. Match-winners like KP and consistent performers like Shiv.

Also had to say that when KP did destroy SA and Aus (Ashes 2005), both those sides were well below their best.

m_vaughan added 1 Minutes and 57 Seconds later...

Pietersen's a bigger and stronger bloke then Chanderpaul. He doesn't need edges & smaller boundaries to hit 4's & 6's.

Thats a ridiculous statement to make. Cricket is not wrestling. Size does not matter.

m_vaughan added 8 Minutes and 2 Seconds later...

Pietersen's never played with another batsman who has averaged over 50 in Test Cricket.

Is it not harder to score runs yourself if others in the team are doing the same?

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

right, OK aussie ben. lets take not outs, out of the equation.

chanderpauls average score per innings in the last two years.

runs 1766 in 29 innings = 60.9

KP

2358 in 47 innings = 50.2


so, what now? he's still scored more per innings than KP has disregarding not outs.

 

[Ollie_H]

KP has a better top score.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

100s per inning.

chander, 1 every 4.1

Kp, 1 every 4.7.

so, even skewing the stats KPs way (because chanders not outs means he has been denied runs in a run per innings average.) chanders comes out on top.

 

[Leicester Fox]

Chanderpaul is the better bowler in tests but KP is the better bowler in ODI's.

 

[McLOVIN]

they were talking about it during 4th ODI today, when Shiv dived and saved a four. they showed KP sitting down looking all "grumpy "

 

[playkid12]

Mate, you want players that can score 100's for you. Batsmen that score hundreds are MUCH better then players who bat with the tail and finish not out because the tailenders can't defend themselves. Not out half centuries don't make you great - Hundreds make you great.

Imo, match winning efforts make you great

 

[King Cricket]

Yeah, let's not compare anything anymore. I mean this is just a forum and we should only compare players that are born on the exact same date and make their debuts in the exact same Test and play the same amount of Tests with the exact same runs scored & average. Even if they did play in the same era and against eachother, they are still not comparable otherwise it is 110% IDIOTIC AND RUBBISH!!

Alright, we can compare anyone from any era. But you are forgetting that Shiv is 34 already and will at best play till the 2011 WC. Whereas KP is still in his early years, how old is he in test cricket? 4.5 years. How old is Shiv? 15 years. That is the point Suren is trying to make. If KP can be compared with Shiv, let us compare Gauti with Bradman. Why not? Gauti had a pretty decent average last year, and has made 2000+ runs in just 43 tests. He is looking like Bradman, so let us compare him with Bradman. I don't know what you think but I think saying KP is better than a player who has maintained an average of 100+ in two consecutive years is not logical, at least right now .