Is Shivnarine Chanderpaul selfish?

[shravi]

I'm not saying he is selfish but who cares if he is? He gets the job done. I wouldn't complain even if he was selfish (if I was a West Indian). He performs with such consistency that it hardly matters.

 

[aussie_ben91]

I give up on stats because some people twist everything I say into something it's not and use my methods in a dislogical manner. I've seen both of them bat and there is no doubt in my mind that Pietersen is the better batsman. His more likely going to win a match for you then Chanderpaul is and his more likely score a 100 which is good enough in my mind to suggest that Pietersen is the better batsman.

Chanderpaul is probably more likely to draw a game for you or save a match but if you want to successful then you want to be winning games, not drawing 'em, in whichcase a match-winner in Kevin Pietersen is better then Shivnarine Chanderpaul.

Pietersen has performed better against better bowlers then what Chanderpaul has aswell. The way how he just marched into World Cricket, absolutely blowing a hostile South African crowd out of the water with 3 astonishing centuries was simply amazing. Not only that but he dug England out from the dead in his very first innings of Test Cricket whilst McGrath was in the middle of his greatest spell of fast-bowling. I've never seen a batsman dominate Glenn McGrath like Kevin Pietersen did. Not even Tendulkar or Lara was as good as Pietersen in this aspect.

Regardless of their contrasting styles, both of them actually do play similar roles within' their team and despite what the law of averages may suggest, the English batting lineup is feeble, much like the West Indies' batting lineup. Pietersen controls the English batting lineup much like Chanderpaul controls the West Indies batting lineup currently. Against good opposition, if Chanderpaul or Pietersen don't make runs then you can rest assure that their respective teams are going to get murdered.

 

[jordox]

Pietersen isn't the be-all-and-end-all for England Ben. In the series against the West Indies both in the Test and ODI, Andrew Strauss has been absolutely amazing and has scored hundreds left, right and center. I think we are putting too much weight on Pietersen in the English side.

At this present moment, Strauss is more important to England than Pietersen.

I don't really know why we are comparing the two of them though, the bottom line of this thread is that Pietersen is a knob (NEWSFLASH) and had no place to say what he did.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Pietersen isn't the be-all-and-end-all for England Ben. In the series against the West Indies both in the Test and ODI, Andrew Strauss has been absolutely amazing and has scored hundreds left, right and center. I think we are putting too much weight on Pietersen in the English side.

At this present moment, Strauss is more important to England than Pietersen.

I don't really know why we are comparing the two of them though, the bottom line of this thread is that Pietersen is a knob (NEWSFLASH) and had no place to say what he did.

You could say the same thing about Ramnaresh Sarwan.

 

[Shane Bond 007]

i think pietersen is wrong here.

 

[m_vaughan]

I give up on stats because some people twist everything I say into something it's not and use my methods in a dislogical manner. I've seen both of them bat and there is no doubt in my mind that Pietersen is the better batsman. His more likely going to win a match for you then Chanderpaul is and his more likely score a 100 which is good enough in my mind to suggest that Pietersen is the better batsman.

Chanderpaul is probably more likely to draw a game for you or save a match but if you want to successful then you want to be winning games, not drawing 'em, in whichcase a match-winner in Kevin Pietersen is better then Shivnarine Chanderpaul.

Pietersen has performed better against better bowlers then what Chanderpaul has aswell. The way how he just marched into World Cricket, absolutely blowing a hostile South African crowd out of the water with 3 astonishing centuries was simply amazing. Not only that but he dug England out from the dead in his very first innings of Test Cricket whilst McGrath was in the middle of his greatest spell of fast-bowling. I've never seen a batsman dominate Glenn McGrath like Kevin Pietersen did. Not even Tendulkar or Lara was as good as Pietersen in this aspect.

Regardless of their contrasting styles, both of them actually do play similar roles within' their team and despite what the law of averages may suggest, the English batting lineup is feeble, much like the West Indies' batting lineup. Pietersen controls the English batting lineup much like Chanderpaul controls the West Indies batting lineup currently. Against good opposition, if Chanderpaul or Pietersen don't make runs then you can rest assure that their respective teams are going to get murdered.

Pietersen will win one game yes but totally disappear in the rest, while Shiv besides winning the odd game will also save the remaining ones. Like I said a good team needs both kind of players.

 

[King Pietersen]

Not only that but he dug England out from the dead in his very first innings of Test Cricket whilst McGrath was in the middle of his greatest spell of fast-bowling. I've never seen a batsman dominate Glenn McGrath like Kevin Pietersen did.

Pietersen didn't dominate McGrath during that spell. He hit as many boundaries as Geraint Jones in that spell. McGrath's 5 wicket spell ended soon after KP came in, and it wasn't until the 2nd Morning when KP really got going, hitting that massive six. McGrath was still bowling well, but he was nowhere near as dangerous on the 2nd morning, and that's when KP took to him.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

I give up on stats because some people twist everything I say into something it's not and use my methods in a dislogical manner. I've seen both of them bat and there is no doubt in my mind that Pietersen is the better batsman. His more likely going to win a match for you then Chanderpaul is and his more likely score a 100 which is good enough in my mind to suggest that Pietersen is the better batsman.

Chanderpaul is probably more likely to draw a game for you or save a match but if you want to successful then you want to be winning games, not drawing 'em, in whichcase a match-winner in Kevin Pietersen is better then Shivnarine Chanderpaul.

Pietersen has performed better against better bowlers then what Chanderpaul has aswell. The way how he just marched into World Cricket, absolutely blowing a hostile South African crowd out of the water with 3 astonishing centuries was simply amazing. Not only that but he dug England out from the dead in his very first innings of Test Cricket whilst McGrath was in the middle of his greatest spell of fast-bowling. I've never seen a batsman dominate Glenn McGrath like Kevin Pietersen did. Not even Tendulkar or Lara was as good as Pietersen in this aspect.

Regardless of their contrasting styles, both of them actually do play similar roles within' their team and despite what the law of averages may suggest, the English batting lineup is feeble, much like the West Indies' batting lineup. Pietersen controls the English batting lineup much like Chanderpaul controls the West Indies batting lineup currently. Against good opposition, if Chanderpaul or Pietersen don't make runs then you can rest assure that their respective teams are going to get murdered.

but in the period most people are talking about england haven't played australia. It's dricetly after then coinciding with the retirement of Lara at the WC. and shiv has scored a 100 against australia and south africa so it's not as if he's minnow bashing in this period.

I think pietersen will certainly end up with a better record than shiv, and being 6, 7 years younger most teams would probably pick him as he's long term.

what I think most people are saying though is, right now and over the last 2 years shiv has been playing better than pietersen.

and in that period it's worth remembering the only teams england has beaten in series in this time is new zealand twice and the windies at home.(and the only test win england managed in a series loss was the south african dead rubber) And when the windies toured way back in 2007 chanderpaul was the best player by far and won player of series, despite being on the end of a 3-0 loss. So it's not as if pietersen has being doing much match winning himself. (he can probably take part cred for 3 of those games)

plus the more likely to score a 100 thing can be statisically proven, and it's false. 4.7 innings, pietersen will make 100. 4.1 times chander will (and this of course is putting him at the disadvantage having ended innings not out in the 80s)

 

[Sureshot]

Given some of the test wickets we've seen in the WIndies I know where'd I'd rather play my home games as a batsman.

 

[surendar]

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

The one best post of this entire thread :laugh :rtfl :rtfl :rtfl :rtfl

I've seen both of them bat and there is no doubt in my mind that Pietersen is the better batsman. His more likely going to win a match for you then Chanderpaul is and his more likely score a 100 which is good enough in my mind to suggest that Pietersen is the better batsman.

I am not at all willing to argue on this topic anymore, but out of curiosity I want to know,

• How many match winning/saving innings KP has produced/total matches he played.
• How many match winning/saving innings Chanderpaul has produced/total matches he played.

If you can get this stats(since you are pro in searching for stats ), I would like to know.

Chanderpaul is probably more likely to draw a game for you or save a match but if you want to successful then you want to be winning games

Well, to win the match you need the team to play well. Its a utter waste to support/against a argument on Windies team with limited knowlege on Windies team. You know what, None of the teams I have seen in my cricket seeing life, to collapse in a professional way faster than a pack of cards like Windies do(ofcourse except low profile teams). In such a pathetic situation only Windies have been travelling for many many years. No one will deny this fact. Because of some brave warriors only, Windies are able to get some success.

Being in such a team, match saving innings is worth more than a match winning innings. You should see a player how he adjusts and play as per the situation rather than seeing the stats(after matches) and comparing it. Former gives you to realize the dynamic flexibility a player has while the latter just gives you a static picture.

Again, I am not just bothered about who is better.. But Ben, if you do have time, just try finding the matches Hooper/Chanderpaul or Lara/Chanderpaul.. You will know how these guys have given more than themseleves to make Windies rise to certain extent atleast from the burnt ashes.

For instance, take Lara's one of the 200 vs Aus. If you see the stats, you can only know that he has got 200 against Aussies. But if you had seen it, you would have realized that how Lara fought like a lonely warrior getting 70% of the runs and won by 1 wicket. These dynamics, flexibility, rescuers are what these people like Lara, Hooper, Chanderpaul have been made of. Sarwan and Samuels joined this list lately though Samuels got corrupted in middle. You can't get this picture only by stats or those numerical figures which the net page pops you up. :onpc

 

[Aditya]

No he is not selfish he is great sportsmen.

 

[Dare]

Given some of the test wickets we've seen in the WIndies I know where'd I'd rather play my home games as a batsman.

yea but do you remember his lat performance in England and South Africa.

talking about Shiv.

 

[King Pietersen]

He averagd 14.50 in Australia last time he toured there =/ 148.66 in England, but he didn't perform well in Australia. He did well against Australia in West Indies, but not in Australia. They had Symonds playing as 3rd Seamer in that series as well, and his top score was 38. He didn't perform well there against Warne and McGrath.

 

[Dare]

He averagd 14.50 in Australia last time he toured there =/ 148.66 in England, but he didn't perform well in Australia. He did well against Australia in West Indies, but not in Australia. They had Symonds playing as 3rd Seamer in that series as well, and his top score was 38. He didn't perform well there against Warne and McGrath.

actually that was sopostu say South Africa.

He has a chance to improve that record if he is still around the next time WI go to Australia.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Every batsman has a chance to improve their records in Australia the next time they tour. Doesn't make them a greater player anymore because there's no Warne or McGrath there anymore.

Pietersen averaged 50+ whilst Chanderpaul averaged only 30.