Is Shivnarine Chanderpaul selfish?

[ali_ed2001]

Yes KP did play well against Mcgrath and Warne, but that doesn't mean he's the better batsman. Mcgrath and Warne are not the only good bowlers in this world. Shiv has played bowlers like Donald, Wasim, Waqar, Pollock all in their prime. He has easily been the best batsman in the past 2 years. His stats speak for him compared to KP's.

 

[aussie_ben91]

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*

 

[Dare]

Is it Chanderpauls fault that the team collapses around him and he is left with the tail. He works with what he has. He bats at 4-5 not by his choice but the coaches choice, because the team is more than likely going to fold and he does a great job at batting with the tail.

Gilchrist came in with huge scores on the board already and was not out because Australia would declare allot of the time.

And Chanderpaul doesn't score hundreds??

 

[aditya123]

Nearing the end of their careers? Shane Warne was at his absolute peak during the 2005 Ashes series and in KP's first-ever Test innings, Glenn McGrath was in the middle of arguably his greatest ever spell of bowling. KP faced Warne & McGrath when they were as good as ever. Don't be fooled because they retired not long after.

The nearing the `end of their careers` comment was used to illustrate the fact that KP only had to play a couple of test series against them while Shiv has been around for a much longer time and hence faced them for a decade or so. I never said that Warne and McGrath were past their prime in 2005. I acknowledge the fact that they were absolutely superb in Ashes 05 and 06,especially Warnie.

You cannot use the Gilchrist argument here because Gilly had an entirely different role to Shiv or KP.He had the Waugh twins(for a major part of his career),Hayden,Langer,Martyn and others(Clarke,Hussey and co.) in his side. It was Gilly who was the backup batsman for these greats and not the other way round.

In Chanderpaul`s case,he has been almost like the lone warrior for the West Indian side,especially since Lara`s exit.Gayle has never been that consistent and Sarwan has just started to realize his true potential. Chanderpaul`s not outs are not because he bats at No.7 as in case of Gilchrist. He has batted at No.4/5 for most part of the past 18 months and has mostly come to the crease with the Windies in some trouble. Remember,the West Indies do not have a stable opening combo unlike the Hayden-Langer pairing for Australia in case of Gilchrist or even the Cook-Strauss pairing for England in KP`s case. He has had to single handedly battle to keep his side in the contest a lot many times than KP.

KP surely has more talent and will end up as a great of the game but Shiv is largely underrated as a cricketer.If anything, I would call him a selfless servant of West Indian cricket.

 

[surendar]

Guys you know what, Dravid is not at all a great player... He made 66, 83, 62 in consecutive three innings with the average of 70 in last three innings. But HE IS NOT AT ALL A GREAT PLAYER BECAUSE HE DIDN't MAKE 100 Only 100 makes you great you know : All hail the Mr.Ben's policy :hpraise Ben's stats comparison is the BEST way of judging a player. :hpraise :hpraise :hpraise

Comparing a player who has not even played 5 years cricket with the player who has played around 16 years cricket.. 110% IDIOTIC! Comparing with stats from net is 200% RUBBISH! :hpraise : :cool:

 

[srikarr12]

Talking about being selfish.........Cricinfo - Blogs - The Buzz

 

[aussie_ben91]

Guys you know what, Dravid is not at all a great player... He made 66, 83, 62 in consecutive three innings with the average of 70 in last three innings. But HE IS NOT AT ALL A GREAT PLAYER BECAUSE HE DIDN't MAKE 100 Only 100 makes you great you know : All hail the Mr.Ben's policy :hpraise Ben's stats comparison is the BEST way of judging a player. :hpraise :hpraise :hpraise

Do you know anything about cricket? Do you know the mentality of a batsman? Have you ever played cricket? You make out like you know what you are talking about and then you go and completely contradict the laws of logic in cricket with a post like this.

Batsman bat to make 100's not 50's. I can only imagine how frustrated Rahul Dravid is at the moment that he can't convert these 60s & 80s into a three-figure score. That's just it, I think you that you think that Dravid is satisfyed with what his acchieving at the moment but I'm 99% sure that he isn't. Dravid is already great because he has 26 Test hundreds under his belt. The fact that he didn't convert his last 3 half-centuries isn't going to change that.

Batsman know that 100's make you great and having the ability to convert 50's into 100's on a regular basis. All of the great batsman and all batsmen aspiring to be the best know that 100's is what makes you great, not fifities. That's what makes batsman admirable and why their is so much pressure and emphasis put on the batsmen when they are in the 90's. Why do you think that batsman celebrate more when they get to 100 as opposed to when they get to 50? Or why they celebrate more when they get to 200 as opposed to 150?

The idea of being in form is to make as many runs as you can possibly get. You don't want to be getting scores of 20-99, you want to be getting hundreds. As a batsman you want to be known as an overracchiever rather then a underacchiever and by this you want to be able to make the most of your opportunities and starts.

I don't how else to put it, but if you don't get that then you'll never get anything and you'll never truly understand anything about judging a batsman. If anything, I thought a diehard Sachin Tendulkar fan would understand this because his leading the centuries scored in the history of the game, but that just isn't the case.

Comparing a player who has not even played 5 years cricket with the player who has played around 16 years cricket.. 110% IDIOTIC! Comparing with stats from net is 200% RUBBISH! :hpraise : :cool:

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!!

 

[Tanmay]

Mr Ben do you even know a Aus Cricketer Michael Bevan and his contribution(match saving innings) to Aus cricket throughout his career especially in WC 2003????

Shiv has been doing this all throughout his career.

And regarding KP he is a arrogant fool who is very very much overrated(though has great talent).He is no where to Shiv atleat at this stage of his career

 

[aussie_ben91]

ODI cricket doesn't compare to Test Cricket.

 

[srikarr12]

ODI cricket doesn't compare to Test Cricket.

Does it matter what form of the game it is? Chanderpaul does it in both forms of the game anyway, so I dont see where you are coming from.

 

[aditya123]

Guys you know what, Dravid is not at all a great player... He made 66, 83, 62 in consecutive three innings with the average of 70 in last three innings. But HE IS NOT AT ALL A GREAT PLAYER BECAUSE HE DIDN't MAKE 100 Only 100 makes you great you know : All hail the Mr.Ben's policy :hpraise Ben's stats comparison is the BEST way of judging a player. :hpraise :hpraise :hpraise

Comparing a player who has not even played 5 years cricket with the player who has played around 16 years cricket.. 110% IDIOTIC! Comparing with stats from net is 200% RUBBISH! :hpraise : :cool:

Why do you bring Dravid into this thread out of nowhere?
And please do not keep asking people `Do you even know about cricket`and stuff.Everyone in this forum loves cricket and that is the reason why they are here.If you do not like a good debate,stay away.Do not get frustrated and ask people whether they have watched enough cricket.
And before you ask,I have watched more than a decade of cricket myself.(about 15 years).

 

[aussie_ben91]

Batsman get rewarded for outside edging the ball in ODI cricket. They get 4 runs whilst in Test Cricket they'd be caught.

That is the difference between Test & ODI cricket.

Batsman also get freehits, smaller boundaries, etc in ODI cricket.

 

[srikarr12]

Batsman get rewarded for outside edging the ball in ODI cricket. They get 4 runs whilst in Test Cricket they'd be caught.

That is the difference between Test & ODI cricket.

Batsman also get freehits, smaller boundaries, etc in ODI cricket.

I wonder who utilizes it more?:

Ans I also wonder who digs deep and grinds it out?

 

[aussie_ben91]

I wonder who utilizes it more?:

Utilizes what? So you are saying that Chanderpaul is the king of the freehit & master of the outside edge for 4?

Ans I also wonder who digs deep and grinds it out?

What's that got to do with anything? Pietersen performs better against quality bowling moreso then Chanderpaul does. End of story.

 

[srikarr12]

Utilizes what? So you are saying that Chanderpaul is the king of the freehit & master of the outside edge for 4?

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.