Shivnarine Chanderpaul

[aussie]

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

I know but i wanted to cut it off when most of the 1950s greats left, so around 65 both Trueman & Statham retired/dropped..

 

[aussie]

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...

Ponting poor record againts quality spin has been one of the greatest exaggeration of a players weakness. You can't make runs againts Murali in his backyard when all your batsmen struggle & be so poor againts a type of bowling.He just had a shocker in India 01.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

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

Your team would lose a lot of matches. But then you're comparing two West Indian cricketers.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

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.

T20 isn't anything to judge. Neither is an ODI when West Indies were chasing over 10 per over by the time he came in, IIRC.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

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

Cricket is entertainment, but it's also a competition. It's not a beauty contest. You aren't awarded wins based on how good you look. At no point was Carl Hooper a better batsman than Shivnarine Chanderpaul.

 

[Beleg]

:

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.

Of course. However, that is certainly neither the original point of contention or my point. Judging Chanderpaul's career at this point in time puts him clearly above pretty much all names you mentioned there (even though it's not exactly a fair comparison in many cases - but that's besides the point) in terms of performance. Performance on the cricket field is the only measure of how good a cricketer is at their particular function.
The passage of time can often elevate a cricketer's achivement to a higher level - the result of hearsay and myth-making. For example, the way some people rave about the likes of Javed Barki and Intikhab Alam in Pakistan you'd think they were the second coming of Bradman and Sobers. However, their performance, in comparison to their contemporaries, is the best measure of their actual ability.

Reading through cricket books and old cricketing articles, one finds that the writers often wax lyrical about the flair of this and the stroke-making abilities of that. There's a significant tendency to overlook performance in favour of panache. The players who are clinical and 'ugly' in their approach seldom get the recognisation they deserve.

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.

Umm okay.

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.

Well it might not make him a better batsman for you but that doesn't make you right either.

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.

Oh it certainly doesn't make him a better or worse batsman then anybody. It's his on-field exploits which accomplish that, as we already determined previously.

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.

There can be a lot of reasons for that, part of which might be explained because of the public procivility towards dashing batsmen which I mentioned earlier. However, without further information/analysis I can't really comment.

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

You have every right to judge and like somebody based on their aesthetics. However, you should understand that will always be a person preference, and wouldn't make your choice the better batsman, merely the batsmen you prefer to watch.

 

[whitedazzler]

should double up as the windies batting coach reali

 

[Dasa]

aussie having a bit of trouble differentiating between who he'd like to watch and who is better, it seems. I'd rather watch Shaun Marsh bat than Ricky Ponting, but I know who is better by a long way. Hooper looked great when making runs, but he just didn't make enough of them. Chanderpaul easily > Hooper imo.

 

[JBH001]

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...

Boycott is talking rubbish. Barrington averages over 60 against Australia and close to 50 against South Africa, while averaging close to 35 against West Indies. In any case, I know of very few batsmen who are good players of genuine pace, and Barrington's figures suggest he did more than adequately against the better attacks of his time - especially away from home. Hardly a case of a super-successful FTB.

 

[Spinksy]

I think that Shivnarine Chanderpaul is an excellent batsman.

 

[JBH001]

Oh and yes, Chanders >>> Hooper.

Hooper was a stylish bat, but is over-rated, especially in comparison to Shiv.

 

[roseboy64]

T20 isn't anything to judge. Neither is an ODI when West Indies were chasing over 10 per over by the time he came in, IIRC.

He's right about Pollard though TBF.

 

[roseboy64]

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.

Ganga is done. Smith too ATM. Chattergoon, Marshall and Barath ahead of Smith right now unless he comes up with something good in this Test. Morton too. Nash, Hinds(if he can get fit) and Samuels(if he can overcome the ban) are ahead unless he does something good the rest of this series.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

He's right about Pollard though TBF.

Disagree. Pollard does try to hit the ball too hard most times, but he has sense too. Quick hands, a good eye and good wrists (not in a naughty way) are a good foundation for a quality batsman. Technically he's not perfect, but he's not flawed enough to be consider a plain slogger. At this stage he already looks a better batsman than Ricardo Powell and Dwayne Smith were.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Ganga is done. Smith too ATM. Chattergoon, Marshall and Barath ahead of Smith right now unless he comes up with something good in this Test. Morton too. Nash, Hinds(if he can get fit) and Samuels(if he can overcome the ban) are ahead unless he does something good the rest of this series.

Barath is definitely not ahead of Smith. Barath has played 2 domestic seasons. He did very well in one and okay in the other. Devon Smith has been, relatively, piling on runs for several seasons now and overall is more prepared for Test cricket. I'm a Devon Smith fan, but his shot selection in Tests frustrates me no end. I'm a bigger Barath fan and I'd hate to see him ruined by being picked anytime soon.

Regarding Xavier Marshall, we can't read too much into one half century. In the past (on occasion) Devon Smith has looked as good as Marshall did in that innings. And that's with an impressive domestic record under his belt, which is something Marshall can't claim to have. Marshall isn't suddenly better than Smith because of one innings. Chattergoon looks the stuff though.

And regarding Morton, I really hope he's dropped after this Test. The man is utterly useless at Test level. As if his indiscipline in the first Test wasn't bad enough, the shot he played on day two of this one was unforgivable.

 

[aussie]

Boycott is talking rubbish. Barrington averages over 60 against Australia and close to 50 against South Africa, while averaging close to 35 against West Indies. In any case, I know of very few batsmen who are good players of genuine pace, and Barrington's figures suggest he did more than adequately against the better attacks of his time - especially away from home. Hardly a case of a super-successful FTB.

All true, but Boycott can't be that off given that popps & gramps who saw the man bat said the said thing.

 

[Ikki]

Ponting poor record againts quality spin has been one of the greatest exaggeration of a players weakness. You can't make runs againts Murali in his backyard when all your batsmen struggle & be so poor againts a type of bowling.He just had a shocker in India 01.

He also scored runs for fun off India at home. Ponting has only done poorly in India. That's pretty much it. Doesn't mean he is poor on spinning pitches or against spinners as he is a great player against both and even both combined. It's just that he hasn't scored in India. I can't think of a technical flaw why that's been so, TBH.

 

[aussie]

aussie having a bit of trouble differentiating between who he'd like to watch and who is better, it seems. I'd rather watch Shaun Marsh bat than Ricky Ponting, but I know who is better by a long way. Hooper looked great when making runs, but he just didn't make enough of them. Chanderpaul easily > Hooper imo.

Nah i've got my position pretty clear & i'll clarify myself even more finally to Beleg & Mr.that guy from Trini (aint able to type out your username son).

My position on Chanderpaul is simply that even though his current form has been outstanding & stacks up arguably better than the other Guyanese batsmen to have represented the West Indies, it IMO doesn't make him better than them given well it must be said he has played in the easiest batting era in comparison to them all & i see no reason why if batsmen just as naturally talented Chanders could have been as prolific in this era.

But that doesn't mean they would be able to top Chanderpaul's performances since he became a test-class batsman vs IND 2002, since that right up there i would think with the Ponting's, Kallis etc of this era. But lets say a Guyanese All-time middle-order had to be chosen between Kanhai, Lloyd, Butcher, Hooper, Chanderpaul in a top 6 unfortunately i think Chanders would be made 12th man.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

FACT: Chanderpaul has scored a lot of runs in very difficult situations. More than Hooper, certainly. You cannot argue with his performance. He has outperformed Hooper by so far, it's ridiculous. Regardless of the state of pitches. In fact, Hooper played, for the most part, in a stronger West Indies team. There's no serious argument that can justify Chanderpaul as inferior to Carl Hooper.

 

[JBH001]

AWTA.

There really is no grounds for comparison tbph. Hooper always was a little soft.