It's the same thing in Tests: the hardest point in any innings is the bit where you're starting from 0. A not out means that you have to do that, rather than continuing from wherever you've got to.In tests though I suspect there is some merit in that argument.
Lara and Chanderpaul were completely different players. Lara was someone who took the game to opposition bowlers, and who had all the shots in the book in order to do so. Chanderpaul was a comparatively limited player, who found that the most reliable way for him to get runs was through a more extreme technique built around mitigating risk at the expense of power.Lara for instance has an average merely 1.5 more than Chanderpaul and yet anyone who’s watched them both would know that they’re nowhere in the same class of batters (harsh comparison admittedly as few are in the class of Lara). Their RPI also differs by ten demonstrating said difference.
Lara too was a selfish cricketer: as captain, he was prepared to keep batting well into Day Three rather than push for a win because he felt personally slighted that Matthew Hayden had recently taken his record away. This doesn't make him a less great batter - indeed, most truly great batters have to be selfish in order to succeed.
Chanderpaul did bat higher up the order in his career 73 times. In that sample, he averaged 34.25 batting at three and four, compared to 58.45 batting at five and six. This wasn't simply a case of him being selfish - the team would have gained nothing from near-halving the output of its most reliable batter.his reluctance to bat higher up the order especially when the side could have used his talents in the top order a lot more than at five. Faf for instance pushed himself higher up the order despite being a middle order batter for most of his prior test career and despite being in terminal decline because he was still one of their best batsmen on paper. Shiv would have averaged lesser by perhaps five runs (which still is an extremely good number for a batter in that WI lineup) but he’d have likely led his side to more victories with more impactful knocks at important moments and dare I say, be remembered better rather than as an enigma?
He was, although this was much more the case earlier in his career. As he got older, his technique became more extreme in a way that was very effective at making sure he didn't get out, but which made it more difficult for him to score quickly. This is reflected in a T20 strike rate of around a run a ball. Chanderpaul sacrificed power and scoring speed forThe man was capable of batting quickly if needed too as shown by his famous century against Australia with Jacobs alongside when the rest of the side collapsed.