Is Shivnarine Chanderpaul selfish?

[surendar]

I've seen enough to form an opinion. The fact that you completely ignored everything I've said clearly broadcasts your frustration because you disagree with what I am saying and you don't know how to respond to it. It's pretty rich that you are having ago at me for not watching enough cricket and basing my arguements on statistics.

Those are not answers to my questions to which I asked! :cool: It's not only me, any person who knows cricket will surely disagree for sure.

Come Ben, next compare

Phillip Hughes is better than Lara or start a thread on it, who is better - Hughes or Lara?

Hughes have average 60+.. Google or search in cric info.. Compare it theoretically by stats and lets start an argument like you saying Hughes is better with cric-info stats while everyone denying that? :

Whooooooooooofffffffffffffff... ( I don't know how to write that.. It was my expression in front of my system ), some craziness have no-limits!

 

[aussie_ben91]

Batting at four and batting at five are not tremendously different when you are playing for the West Indies. The fact that he struggles at the top of the order will stop him from qualifying as an all-time great batsman but not when comparing him to someone who has only batted at four, five and six.

Talking about Chanderpaul not being able to convert starts is highly dangerous territory, indeed. If we look at the last 12 months, here are Chanderpaul's scores over 50.

86*
118
107*
77*
79*
50
76
126*
55
70
147*

It is unreasonable to say that many of these would not have been converted to far higher scores, had he had more capable support.

Moreover, I don't think many calll him the best in the world because stats back him up but because of his staggering consistency, playing for such a weak side. Stats merely back up such a judgement.

Had he been batting higher in the order then those not out 70s & 80s then Chanderpaul wouldn't of had that problem. But whether he would've gotten to those scores batting up the order to begin with if a totally different question because then he would've had to of encountered the new ball, which he might've struggled against with his technique and all.

This is one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard.

I think it's hilarious how Indians like you & surendar in particular are saying that it is the most ridiculous statement that they've ever heard because I heard it off Sunil Gavaskar during Australia's tour of India last year. He didn't say not out 50's but he said 50's don't make players great but 100's do. I thought about it and it's 100% true. I bet if you asked any International batsman then they'd say that 100's do make you great. I even bet if you asked Chanderpaul then he would agree that 100's make players great. Batsman go out to bat to make 100's, not 50's.

KP is better than him just because he bats a bit up the order and has more hundred plus scores than him!!!
Adam Gilchrist also used to bat at no 7- yet he is regarded as the best wicket-keeper batsman to have ever graced cricket. Is it Shiv's fault that he does not bat up the order? And fifties don't make you great, only international hundreds show how great you are!! Then KP a better batsman than Herbert Sutcliffe and Allan Border is almost equal to Sir Don and Steve Waugh and Matt Hayden are better than Sir Don.

Gilchrist isn't the best batsman to have kept wicket - Andy Flower is. Gilchrist is the best overall wicketkeeper-batsman though because Flower couldn't catch a cold on a wet night.

You take some things completely out of context. Obviously when it comes to Sir Donald Bradman and batsman like Sutclife & Border then you'd calculate their percentage 100 per innings. Although TBH, Border was very much similar to Chanderpaul.

 

[King Cricket]

I think it's hilarious how Indians like you & surendar in particular are saying that it is the most ridiculous statement that they've ever heard because I heard it off Sunil Gavaskar during Australia's tour of India last year.

Then Gavaskar was wrong, plain and simple

King Cricket added 0 Minutes and 34 Seconds later...

Gilchrist isn't the best batsman to have kept wicket - Andy Flower is

Talk about over-rating people.

 

[surendar]

Gilchrist isn't the best batsman to have kept wicket - Andy Flower is. Gilchrist is the best overall wicketkeeper-batsman though because Flower couldn't catch a cold on a wet night.

wowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.. Reps to you, Ben! One best statement you have done which is not biased.. I will also agree that Flower was great but when compared to Gilchrist and Flower, I would say, " No comments! Both were great servants to their teams! ".

First best post I have seen from you! :hpraise :hpraise :hpraise Keep it up

 

[aussie_ben91]

Then Gavaskar was wrong, plain and simple

I'd take Gavaskar's opinion over yours anyday of the week. I think allot of people would aswell.

Talk about over-rating people.

Considering he played the majority of his career in the 1990's where only 3 other batsman averaged over 50 (Tendulkar, Lara & Waugh). Not only that but he was a wicketkeeper, batted top-order and played in one of the weakest sides in the world.

 

[King Cricket]

I'd take Gavaskar's opinion over yours anyday of the week. I think allot of people would aswell.

The same Gavaskar whom you were bashing even some days ago?

 

[surendar]

I think it's hilarious how Indians like you & surendar in particular are saying that it is the most ridiculous statement that they've ever heard because I heard it off Sunil Gavaskar during Australia's tour of India last year. He didn't say not out 50's but he said 50's don't make players great but 100's do. I thought about it and it's 100% true. I bet if you asked any International batsman then they'd say that 100's do make you great. I even bet if you asked Chanderpaul then he would agree that 100's make players great. Batsman go out to bat to make 100's, not 50's.

If I get authority Ben, don't worry.. I will speak to statisticians to take that 50 column off.. Why waste of efforts in tracking how many 90's and 50's.. We will ask just to record 100's. They only make any meaning! Also when selecting a player into the team from domestic, we will also put a rule that a person has to get only 100's. That only will make him great. If he is great in domestic only, he can be a performer in national side. Don't worry Ben, we will implement this in future.

 

[aussie_ben91]

The same Gavaskar whom you were bashing even some days ago?

So I bashed him because I said he had "22 hundreds in drawn matches" and I'm bashing him because I believe Hayden was a better batsman then Gavaskar? Despite the fact that I've always had Gavaskar in my alltime World XI, I'm bashing him though, right?

aussie_ben91 added 2 Minutes and 20 Seconds later...

If I get authority Ben, don't worry.. I will speak to statisticians to take that 50 column off.. Why waste of efforts in tracking how many 90's and 50's.. We will ask just to record 100's. They only make any meaning! Also when selecting a player into the team from domestic, we will also put a rule that a person has to get only 100's. That only will make him great. If he is great in domestic only, he can be a performer in national side. Don't worry Ben, we will implement this in future.

So you think 50's are a greater reflection on how good a player is more so then how many 100's they've scored?

 

[srikarr12]

So you think 50's are a greater reflection on how good a player is more so then how many 100's they've scored?

Mate, I rather have a player who gets out on 60-80's day in and day out rather then a player who gets centuries once in a blue moon!!:

 

[aussie_ben91]

Mate, I rather have a player who gets out on 60-80's day in and day out rather then a player who gets centuries once in a blue moon!!:

So getting a hundred every 3 Tests is once in a blue moon is it?

 

[srikarr12]

So getting a hundred every 3 Tests is once in a blue moon is it?

Whatever may it be.....End of the day I would have a player like Chanderpaul then KP. And much of Chanderpaul's work goes unrecognised and is treated as average whereas KP is boasted for a making a performance once in awhile....

 

[banjo6]

Shiv is better than KP.

Shiv has reguarly saved matches as well as won matches for West Indies.

Shiv can play however he wants and has much better temperament.

Just because KP goes out and tries to smash the ball all the time doesn't mean he his better.

KP is an arrogant idiot who is selfish. He never thinks of the team and goes to hit a six when his team need to grind out a result.

In the same team Shiv would do better than KP.

Shiv may not have as many hundreds but what matters more.

You need to bat out the day to draw the match. KP gets a hundred off 120 balls then gets out slogging and England lose. OR. Shiv gets 70 of 200 balls and saves the test.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Who is more likely to make runs against quality bowling? KP is.

 

[manee]

Had he been batting higher in the order then those not out 70s & 80s then Chanderpaul wouldn't of had that problem. But whether he would've gotten to those scores batting up the order to begin with if a totally different question because then he would've had to of encountered the new ball, which he might've struggled against with his technique and all.

I am talking about quality of support, I have addressed your point previously about quality against the new ball.

 

[aussie_ben91]

I am talking about quality of support, I have addressed your point previously about quality against the new ball.

So now we are comparing how the bowlers bat?