Shivnarine Chanderpaul

[aussie]

I remember the Shiv vs. Damien Martyn thread around 2-3 years ago, one of the best cricket chat discussions I've ever read here.

I think if we were to do that now, Shiv would take it out, whereas I believe the concensus was that Martyn was the better player in 2005 (following his awesome 2004).

Word, i started the thread of course & well i'd be inclined to rate Chanderpaul just ahead because if one had to bat for my life i think i would back the gritty Guyanese to do it.

 

[aussie]

chanders > kallicharan

In the long list of Guyanese batsmen to represent WI from what i gather i reckon Chanderpaul would be behind Kanhai, Lloyd, Kallicharran, Butcher, Hooper, Fredericks on natural ability at least.

 

[Richard]

Basil Butcher you could make some small element of a case for, but Chanderpaul is so far ahead of Hooper, even later on in Hooper's career, it's untrue.

 

[aussie]

I would personally take Hooper of 2001-2003 over the current Chanderpaul, scoring runs just as effective & looking better too.

 

[Beleg]

In the long list of Guyanese batsmen to represent WI from what i gather i reckon Chanderpaul would be behind Kanhai, Lloyd, Kallicharran, Butcher, Hooper, Fredericks on natural ability at least.

Natural ability means jack squat if you can't transform it into performance on the pitch. You are judging most of those names based on reputation than actual performance.

Edit: I have seen enough of Hooper and Chanderpaul to know that I'd pick Chanderpaul ahead of Hooper for any given occasion.


Chanderpaul and Lara have been in a class of their own after the retirement of Viv Richards and the decline of Richie in the West Indian team.

 

[aussie]

Nah, i'm judging them from people who saw them all bat & all of those batsmen all had solid performances just as Chanderpaul's current prolific run during their careers.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I would personally take Hooper of 2001-2003 over the current Chanderpaul, scoring runs just as effective & looking better too.

Hooper always looked comfortable at the crease but he was never as effective as Chanderpaul is now. Between 01-03 Hooper averaged 10 runs less than Chanderpaul has between 2003 and today. It's pretty poor judgment to say that Hooper was as effective. Carl Hooper was the master of the classy start. Chanderpaul is the master of the hard-fought hundred. I'd take a hundred over a mere start, thanks.

 

[Beleg]

Nah, i'm judging them from people who saw them all bat & all of those batsmen all had solid performances just as Chanderpaul's current prolific run during their careers.

Let me finish watching the West Indian innings and I'll tell ya why Chanderpaul's 'current prolific run' (which, by the way, is longer than the whole careers of some of the guys you mentioned) puts him above them.


Edit:

Chanderpaul, during the last 10 years, averages over 40 against ALL test nations with the exception of Zimbabwe and New Zealand. That's a span of 81 tests and is about as consistent as you can get. That alone, in my opinion, propells him above most of the names you listed.

For what it's worth, he also averages 47 during the first five years of his career, so he's been pretty consistent all through-out his career except for a brief slump in 99-01. (the humilating defeats in England and Australia)

The consistency, the longevity, the effectiveness - they speak for themselves. And as a batsmen, as many other people have said too, you feel no bowler can get him out unless he makes an error himself. That, to me, is the hallmark of a truly good batsman.

 

[aussie]

Hooper always looked comfortable at the crease but he was never as effective as Chanderpaul is now. Between 01-03 Hooper averaged 10 runs less than Chanderpaul has between 2003 and today. It's pretty poor judgment to say that Hooper was as effective. Carl Hooper was the master of the classy start. Chanderpaul is the master of the hard-fought hundred. I'd take a hundred over a mere start, thanks.

Oh the stats, look i remember what i saw of Hooper from 01-03 his transformed period & he was scoring runs just a freely & looking better. Now if he had batted like that during the 90s his record would have been just as good as Chanderpaul.

Let me finish watching the West Indian innings and I'll tell ya why Chanderpaul's 'current prolific run' (which, by the way, is longer than the whole careers of some of the guys you mentioned) puts him above them.

Regardless Chanderpaul when mentioned in the long line of great Guyanese batsmen is not rated higher than those blokes.

Its like with Allan Border when rating an All-time Australian batting line-up just a gritty as Chanderpaul making tons of runs in the most difficult period in AUS cricket history but yet the likes of Chappell, Harvey, Ponting, S Waugh (hell even Norman O'Neil by some old heads) would be rated ahead of him just because of natural ability even though Border played in an era where some of the best bowlers ever where present.

Stats aint everything & don't tell the full truth about Hooper in comparison to a man who at his best at times was even better to watch than Lara.

 

[Beleg]

Oh the stats, look i remember what i saw of Hooper from 01-03 his transformed period & he was scoring runs just a freely & looking better. Now if he had batted like that during the 90s his record would have been just as good as Chanderpaul.

Regardless Chanderpaul when mentioned in the long line of great Guyanese batsmen is not rated higher than those blokes.

a) His test career isn't finished yet. The other guys have the advantage of historical infamy - a mention of their name accompanies a wishful sigh and a grumble about the good 'ol days more often than not.

b) Because his batting style isn't glamourous or dashing. For the majority of public (including yourself, I presume), they aren't as aesthetically pleasing as a Ponting or a Martyn. However, that's a subject judgement and it doesn't translate into performance which can be measured, more or less, empricially.

Its like with Allan Border when rating an All-time Australian batting line-up just a gritty as Chanderpaul making tons of runs in the most difficult period in AUS cricket history but yet the likes of Chappell, Harvey, Ponting, S Waugh (hell even Norman O'Neil by some old heads) would be rated ahead of him just because of natural ability even though Border played in an era where some of the best bowlers ever where present.

You talk about 'would be' and mention 'natural ability' again. How do you define natural ability? What is natural ability? is it the ability to negotiate good deliveries and to play strokes that get ya runs? or is it the tendency to look pretty while scoring and getting out?

Think about what you are writing for a second and you'll feel the dissonance in your own words.

Stats aint everything & don't tell the full truth about Hooper in comparison to a man who at his best at times was even better to watch than Lara.

 

[Langeveldt]

One of the best batsmen going around at the moment.. I'd only have him below Ponting and Kallis in my thoughts.. Despise watching him bat though, horrible technique that makes me want to change channels..

 

[Prince EWS]

One of the best batsmen going around at the moment.. I'd only have him below Ponting and Kallis in my thoughts.. Despise watching him bat though, horrible technique that makes me want to change channels..

Above Sangakkara? ITSTL. I wouldn't argue it, but it wouldn't be a popular opinion.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Despise watching him bat though, horrible technique that makes me want to change channels..

Have never seen what's wrong with Chanderpaul's technique tbh, it looks perfectly orthodox.

 

[Jono]

Batting like you're going to receive the delivery from the square leg umpire is orthodox?

 

[Pup Clarke]

Yeah, that's before the ball has actually arrived at him...

 

[oitoitoi]

Even when the ball arrives at him he has a very strange stance, very very open.

Nice in a way as all the variety is being 'professionalised' out of test cricket.

 

[Isura]

Always thought West Indies could still have a decent batting-line-up if a few pieces fell into place TBH...

Gayle
Smith
Chanderpaul
Sarwan
Ganga
Bravo
Ramdin
Sammy
Taylor
Decent batting down to nine there. Trouble is that requires Smith actually performing as he should be, Ganga batting in the middle which he hasn't done for years, and a few other things.

I agree with this. But the Ganga spot is wide open. If Morton/Marshall/other random batsmen ever develop they could have a very solid top 6.

 

[Richard]

Daren Ganga's a far better batsman than Runako Morton will ever be, and probably Xavier Marshall too. He's just batted out of position for near enough his entire Test career.

 

[Richard]

Stats aint everything & don't tell the full truth about Hooper in comparison to a man who at his best at times was even better to watch than Lara.

Stats tell everything about how effective a batsman is, if you look properly, and how good you look when scoring your runs really doesn't matter very much. It's merely a bonus.

Someone who looks ugly scoring difficult runs is a better batsman than someone who looks good scoring easy runs.

 

[Isura]

Daren Ganga's a far better batsman than Runako Morton will ever be, and probably Xavier Marshall too. He's just batted out of position for near enough his entire Test career.

Fair point. I don't know enough about the West Indian FC game or anything. Do they have any other promising batsmen?