Is Shivnarine Chanderpaul selfish?

[manee]

Yeah because he bats so low down the order. He generally bats at 5 and sometimes at 6 when a nightwatchmen comes in.

If that was the case then why doesn't Chanderpaul move up the batting order like Pietersen did?

He obviously likes facing the older ball because if he comes in when the ball is still new & he hasn't gotten his eye in then his technique will be exposed. Hence why he averages in the low 30's batting at 3 & 4. Middle-order batsman that rely on not outs can't be considered one of the best.

Chanderpaul is evidently not comfortable higher up the order, possibly because he does not like to start his innings against the new ball, possibly not. We don't know, but it is a valid point. However, it is not as if Pietersen comes in at 3, he comes in at four, which taking into account the relative top order strengths, means they come in at approximately the same point in an innings on average. I do think so, but never began to argue that Chanderpaul was better than Pietersen and you appear to think I do. I am merely saying that he is not selfish in the slightest; he comes in where he is strongest and it is where he can help the team most. Why should he come in at four merely to address his critics if it leads to the possible detriment of the team?

You talk about 'rely on not outs' as if batsman highly care about their averages as some sort of trophy - a ludicrous notion. I'm sure he'd rather a more competant batting line up to allow him to play a long full innings each time he goes out to bat, but unfortunately, it is not the case!

 

[aussie_ben91]

Now you are too reliant on centuries

Mind if I post another stat? (Partly calculated by me)
In ODI's Shiv has remained not out in approximately 16 percent of the matches whereas KP has remained not out in approximately 19 percent of the matches.

In tests, however, Shiv has remained not outs in 15 percent of the matches, whereas KP has remained not out in approximately 5 percent of the matches
Now my question to Ben, what about the remaining 84% of the matches in tests and 85% of the matches in ODI's?

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.

Test Matches are way more important then ODI's. Why are you bringing ODI's into it anyway? Of course batsman are going to end up with more not outs in ODI's because it is a limited overs match?

 

[King Cricket]

Since that date, Chanderpaul has scored 7 Test centuries whilst Pietersen has scored 16.

Centuries mean everything?!!!!

 

[aussie_ben91]

Chanderpaul is evidently not comfortable higher up the order, possibly because he does not like to start his innings against the new ball, possibly not. We don't know, but it is a valid point. However, it is not as if Pietersen comes in at 3, he comes in at four, which taking into account the relative top order strengths, means they come in at approximately the same point in an innings on average. I do think so, but never began to argue that Chanderpaul was better than Pietersen and you appear to think I do. I am merely saying that he is not selfish in the slightest; he comes in where he is strongest and it is where he can help the team most. Why should he come in at four merely to address his critics if it leads to the possible detriment of the team?

You talk about 'rely on not outs' as if batsman highly care about their averages as some sort of trophy - a ludicrous notion. I'm sure he'd rather a more competant batting line up to allow him to play a long full innings each time he goes out to bat, but unfortunately, it is not the case!

I don't particulary think his selfish but I think it's ridiculous to call him one of the best in the world because statistics back him up, when that's only the case because he bats lower-middle order with the tail and generally finishes not out.

If he was batting top 4 and making scores of 150+ not out all of the time then yeah he'd definately be the best but he doesn't make enough 100's and he struggles up the top of the order.

 

[surendar]

Pietersen destroyed the best bowling attack of the past 15 years with ease whilst Chanderpaul was a sitting duck against McGrath & Warne.

Chanderpaul's average against Australia was beefed up from the last series where he faced a deteriating Brett Lee, out of form Mitchell Johnson & Stuart Clark, Stuart MacGil when his body was able to collaspe on him and a joke of a selection - Beau Casson. Chanderpaul averaged only 34 against Australia before McGrath & Warne retired.

Pietersen > Daylight > Chanderpaul

I have few questions too you,

1. From when did you start watching cricket?
2. Do you watch cricket when Australia is not playing in that match?
3. Do you watch only Australian cricket and come up with loads of rubbish stats when comes to other countries?
4. Or you never watch cricket and always believe cric info stats?
5. How long do you know Chanderpaul or have you watched him LIVE other than in photos or have you ever watched chanderpaul's batting?

:

I have been watching Chanderpaul from 1996. He is the wall of Windies cricket till now. I remember many of the series where Hooper/Chanderpaul or Lara/Chanderpaul or Sarwan/chanderpaul struggle to save Windies and end up in getting most of the Windies runs where other batsmen would fall like pack of cards.

Don't end up in producing the loads of rubbish statements biased on cric-info. Pity that there are not much Windies supporters here in forum!

I don't believe Google or cric-info or net for cricket.. I only believe what i watch in cricket... For around 15 years of watching Chanderpaul playing, he is one of the warriors of West Indies. Stuart Campbell, Hooper, Lara, Richie Richardson, Chanderpaul, Simmons, Walsh, Ambrose are some of the warriors I have watched playing(not googling or some rubbish internet stats) for Windies team.

If you don't know anything, better don't poke your nose as if you have watched!

Not out half centuries don't make you great - Hundreds make you great.

Just, the best rubbish statement I have ever seen! Then rule Mr.Bevan from the hall of fame/most remember-able cricket from Australian book of history! :cool: Go and speak about Bevan like this, " Not out half centuries doesn't make you great ", even Aussies can't tolerate your statement!

 

[King Pietersen]

I'm convinced he's joking. Reading the article, and having watched alot of KP interviews, it's the sort of thing he'd say with a cheeky grin on his face, I'm pretty sure it's not serious. Same with the stuff about him wanting to go home to see his missus, taken completely out of context, again looking worse when written down.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

In the last 12 months, Pietersen has scored 5 Test centuries and Chanderpaul has scored 4 Test centuries, which clearly indicates how much Chanderpaul's statistics are reliant on not outs because Chanderpaul is averaging 95 but yet has scored less 100's then Pietersen who is averaging 55.

Pietersen > Chanderpaul

nothing to do with chanderpaul having played 5 less innings? KP played 22 innings for his, chanders 17. which works at a ton just over every 4, he also managed only a 120 more or so runs in that period.

 

[Skater]

Same with the stuff about him wanting to go home to see his missus, taken completely out of context, again looking worse when written down.

Tbh if it was my wife I'd say exactly the same thing.

 

[manee]

I don't particulary think his selfish but I think it's ridiculous to call him one of the best in the world because statistics back him up, when that's only the case because he bats lower-middle order with the tail and generally finishes not out.

If he was batting top 4 and making scores of 150+ not out all of the time then yeah he'd definately be the best but he doesn't make enough 100's and he struggles up the top of the order.

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.

 

[King Cricket]

Not out half centuries don't make you great - Hundreds make you great.

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



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.

 

[King Pietersen]

Ben, you're fighting a losing battle mate. KP is going to end his career held in higher esteem than Chanderpaul I reckon, but contesting that KP's been better than Chanderpaul in the last few years is laughable. Chanderpaul's been the best batsman in the world for the past few years, he's class. KP's massively underachieved, he needs to step his game up and make the most of his talent.

 

[aussie_ben91]

I have few questions too you,

1. From when did you start watching cricket?
2. Do you watch cricket when Australia is not playing in that match?
3. Do you watch only Australian cricket and come up with loads of rubbish stats when comes to other countries?
4. Or you never watch cricket and always believe cric info stats?
5. How long do you know Chanderpaul or have you watched him LIVE other than in photos or have you ever watched chanderpaul's batting?

:

I have been watching Chanderpaul from 1996. He is the wall of Windies cricket till now. I remember many of the series where Hooper/Chanderpaul or Lara/Chanderpaul or Sarwan/chanderpaul struggle to save Windies and end up in getting most of the Windies runs where other batsmen would fall like pack of cards.

Don't end up in producing the loads of rubbish statements biased on cric-info. Pity that there are not much Windies supporters here in forum!

I don't believe Google or cric-info or net for cricket.. I only believe what i watch in cricket... For around 15 years of watching Chanderpaul playing, he is one of the warriors of West Indies. Stuart Campbell, Hooper, Lara, Richie Richardson, Chanderpaul, Simmons, Walsh, Ambrose are some of the warriors I have watched playing(not googling or some rubbish internet stats) for Windies team.

If you don't know anything, better don't poke your nose as if you have watched!

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.

Just, the best rubbish statement I have ever seen! Then rule Mr.Bevan from the hall of fame/most remember-able cricket from Australian book of history! :cool: Go and speak about Bevan like this, " Not out half centuries doesn't make you great ", even Aussies can't tolerate your statement!

In ODI cricket they play limited overs. Test matches they play 5 days. There is a difference mate. Only a muppet would hold ODI cricket in the same regard as Test Cricket and bring ODI cricket into an arguement about Test Cricket.

 

[King Cricket]

Only a muppet

Yeah right, I'm a muppet. Thank you very much.

And anyway, reply to my post.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

ben, bashing someone for failing to respond to certain comments seems a little rich when you've ignored Manee's perfectly true point abuot conversion rates and my point about their hundreds per innings stat being identical despite pietersen scoring one more.

 

[King Cricket]

In ODI cricket they play limited overs. Test matches they play 5 days. There is a difference mate.

Nobody's denying there is a difference. But saying KP has been a better test player than Shiv in the recent years is an absolute LOL.

King Cricket added 4 Minutes and 34 Seconds later...

Look's like a big "Beng" reply is coming.....