Shivnarine Chanderpaul

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

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.

The thing is, an anti-stats argument does not hold any water here. Two players cannot be similarly effective if one of them is outperforming the other statistically. At the end of the day it's about who puts more runs on the board. That's a statistical fact. No two ways about it. Carl Hooper never consistently put runs on the board like Chanderpaul. I don't care how good he looked.

Chanderpaul, particularly presently, is far more effective than Carl Hooper was at any stage in his career. An average of 55 smokes an average of 45. And an average of 45 throughout the 90s would have left Hooper averaging at least 3 runs less than Chanderpaul presently does. Your argument holds no water, logically.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

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.

Agreed again.

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

Adrian Barath, Kieron Pollard, Leon Johnson, Steve Jacobs, Sharmarh Brooks, Darren Bravo, Kieran Powell. Then a couple of more experienced, but still promising players: Ryan Hinds and Sewnarine Chattergoon. I'm sure I've missed out a few names here, but these are the main ones that come to mind.

 

[oitoitoi]

Of the young players you mentioned only Barath has shown the potential and inclination to become what other countries would deem is a test class batsmen. Pollard and co. just seem interested in trying to belt the ball as hard as physically possible.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Out of interest, how much of those players have you seen? Because that's a pretty big generalization.

 

[oitoitoi]

I've seen Barath, Pollard, Powell, Brooks and Bravo play. Pollard and Powell are clearly very talented strikers of the ball but far too much emphasis is on 20/20 now as there is far more encouragement from the Stanford league than there is from first class cricket, as a result players in the WI are often working on there game to benefit their limited overs skill over first class. I have friends who were at the U19 world cup in Malaysia and they tell me (reliably) that the WI players all looked talented but were underdeveloped technically, even at that level. Barath is the only one of those who to me, looks a 'proper batsman'. Apparently the U19 SA and IND teams were quite some distance ahead of the others in terms of overall strength of squads.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Where would you have seen Pollard? If it's just Stanford Twenty20, that's not a fair assessment. He is a bit over-aggressive sometimes, but he's not by any means brainless.

 

[aussie]

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.

:

His career doesn't have to finished for one to be able to judge in comparison to other top-class batsmen from his home land.

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.

:

I am not one to rate players better than others i.e bowlers who bowl 90 mph + & excite the crowd, batsmen who can take an attack to the cleaners over bowlers less eccentric but very reliable or batsmen who work hard for there runs.

I judge them based on how i see them. So Chanderpaul having a better record than Hooper for me doesn't make him a bettter batsman than him for me because of what i saw of Hooper during his career especially during the 2001-2003 period.

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.

Yes i stand corrected it was unfair for me to say the Chanderpaul isn't naturally as his predecessors he just lacked the flair in his game given than he record matches up with pretty well. But again that doesn't make him a better batsman than them based on what i've seen on tapes & what i've heard from those who have seen them play.

Look at Ken Barrington has best average for any England batsman than has a completed test career similar type batsman to Chanderpaul & in a great era for the England he was never rated higher than May, Dexter, Compton etc.

I rate Chanderpaul very highly but overall judging all the qualities & aesthetics of batsman of his fellow Guyanese batting greats i don't rate him ahead of them from what i gather. But of them all i probably have him bat for my life

 

[aussie]

The thing is, an anti-stats argument does not hold any water here. Two players cannot be similarly effective if one of them is outperforming the other statistically. At the end of the day it's about who puts more runs on the board. That's a statistical fact. No two ways about it. Carl Hooper never consistently put runs on the board like Chanderpaul. I don't care how good he looked.

Chanderpaul, particularly presently, is far more effective than Carl Hooper was at any stage in his career. An average of 55 smokes an average of 45. And an average of 45 throughout the 90s would have left Hooper averaging at least 3 runs less than Chanderpaul presently does. Your argument holds no water, logically.

Regardless of how good Chanderpaul is now (although it has been superb) i would take Hooper at his free-flowing best over Chanderpaul anytime.

 

[oitoitoi]

Well I admit I've only seen Pollard in T20 and the one ODI he played in the world cup. He just doesn't seem to have very solid technique at all. It's all fast hands and hand eye coordination. He looked totally out of his depth in that one ODI but he's very young, I hear he's already a local favourite though.

 

[oitoitoi]

Regardless of how good Chanderpaul is now (although it has been superb) i would take Hooper at his free-flowing best over Chanderpaul anytime.

Definitely have to disagree with you there mate. Chanderpaul in 'everything must go' mode is fantastic to watch. The shots he plays are so carribbean. The thing I love about watching Chanderpaul is that it always seems like he's (and he often is) against the odds. Even that crazy hundred against the Aussies had something of the last-ditch about it. If I was a West Indian watching Chanderpaul bat would give me pride in the same way that watching Dravid does. Watching Lara would fll me with wonder in the same way Tendulkar does, but something about Chanders' reliability is very endearing.

 

[Richard]

Regardless of how good Chanderpaul is now (although it has been superb) i would take Hooper at his free-flowing best over Chanderpaul anytime.

To do what? Look good or actually score runs?

You know what? I'd take Shahid Afridi at his free-flowing best over Rahul Dravid too. Not because he looks better, but because a good Afridi innings will probably be better for the team than a good Dravid innings. Guess who's the better batsman by several million miles though? Yes, Dravid, because he produces them about fifty times more often than Afridi does.

How good someone is when they're scoring is not important. What matters is how regularly they produce this.

 

[aussie]

Matter of opinion really on who you would rather watch bat..

 

[Richard]

Look at Ken Barrington has best average for any England batsman than has a completed test career similar type batsman to Chanderpaul & in a great era for the England he was never rated higher than May, Dexter, Compton etc.

He was never rated higher than May because those doing the rating were Surrey fans, and for Surrey May was inestimably better than Barrington. Compton was before Barrington's time, quite a bit in fact.

Barrington is massively under-appreciated as a Test batsman though. He's quite often simply forgotten.

 

[Richard]

Matter of opinion really on who you would rather watch bat..

Who you'd rather watch bat isn't relevant to who's better. I'd far rather watch Nasser Hussain than Stephen Waugh, doesn't mean Hussain was anywhere near as good as Waugh.

I didn't mention that at all other than in passing in my previous post.

 

[aussie]

To do what? Look good or actually score runs?

You know what? I'd take Shahid Afridi at his free-flowing best over Rahul Dravid too. Guess who's the better batsman by several million miles there?

How good someone is when they're scoring is not important. What matters is how regularly they produce this.

Ha, no dawg not what i meant mate.

Hooper during 2001-03 was pretty damn reliable in case you didn't realise he finally overcame his demons of the 90s where he looked good for a quick 30 then got himself out. He basically finally fullfilled his potential, he probably wouldn't have bettered Chanderpaul's current run of form which has been very exceptional but i see no reason why he wouldn't have been prolific plus look more pleasing at it.

 

[Richard]

Indeed Hooper did do such a thing. But he did it for a whole 3 years. This, really, is nothing compared to what Chanderpaul has done.

Indeed if Hooper had done this at an earlier date he would have a decent case for being as good as Chanderpaul. But for a fair while early in his career he was woeful, and later on he was no more than decent. This has to count for plenty to me. It's not as if he was awful for a short time then excellent for a much longer one.

 

[aussie]

He was never rated higher than May because those doing the rating were Surrey fans, and for Surrey May was inestimably better than Barrington. Compton was before Barrington's time, quite a bit in fact.

Compton retired in 57, Barrington debuted in 55 not sure if they played a test together. But i was bascially refering to the entire period of let say from the 1951 to 1965 where England enjoyed its most successful period in test history & produced some of our best players ever.

Barrington is massively under-appreciated as a Test batsman though. He's quite often simply forgotten.

and in 20 years time the same will happen to Chanderpaul unfortunately & it could be worse than Barrington given that he played in the worst West Indies since before the war.

 

[Richard]

Compton retired in 57, Barrington debuted in 55 not sure if they played a test together. But i was bascially refering to the entire period of let say from the 1951 to 1965 where England enjoyed its most successful period in test history & produced some of our best players ever.

That's a bit rich. In any case England were hardly all that successful 1958/59-1964/65.

and in 20 years time the same will happen to Chanderpaul unfortunately & it could be worse than Barrington given that he played in the worst West Indies since before the war.

Yeah - because they're not obvious to the casual eye, shouldn't mean the learned historian forgets them.

 

[oitoitoi]

Boycott was recently asked why no one ever speaks about Barrington as one of the greats of the game. He responded that while Barrington was a very fine player he plundered a lot of runs in the subcontinent against spin attacks and was not a good player of genuine pace. I was pretty suprised but there you are I suppose. May be worth closer inspection as I can't imagine that someone who hit as many runs as Barrington did was very weak against any particular bowling. That said Ponting and quality spin...

 

[Richard]

Ponting isn't purely a case of quality spin, though, although he's not as accomplished against it as some would claim.

I've heard Everton Weeks was apparently slightly iffy against short-pitched bowling at high speed, hence him not being considered as worthy of Vivian Richards, despite Weekes outperforming Richards for the vast majority of their careers.

Seems a bit odd that two people with such high averages (58 in both cases) would have this weakness, but I guess it's possible. I'll be doing some more looking into before I start taking it too seriously though.