What do you mean when you say that "nothing backs it up"? IMO lots of things back up the considered opinion that Des Haynes was a better player than Chanderpaul. In fact I reckon that most knowledgeable persons who've watched them both play against truly high quality bowling would not only disagree with you, but retort that the only thing that supports the view that Chanderpaul is better are the same stats which would also suggest that he is a better player than Viv Richards himself, when the world and his mother know different.
If you look at Chanderpaul's two-decade Test career it is very notable that his average and ability to convert starts into centuries in the first decade or more were not at all remarkable. In fact, whilst the really good bowlers whom I hope I don't need to list here were around, he was seen as a pretty average player; his career would probably have ended halfway through with him averaging in the low 40s had he been playing for a Test team with greater playing reserves than the WI of that time. It was only once the bowlers who had caused him so much trouble retired or began to lose effectiveness in the second half of his career that he became the grim runscoring machine we know today. Coincidence? I don't think so.
Too, the question of his universally-acknowledged selfishness cannot simply be swatted away on the grounds that all batsmen are selfish. Involved in twenty two run outs, yet only three times the one given out in such situations? Those are the statistics almost of a sociopath, not of a guy whom other players would look upon with affection, or look to for leadership.
It amazes me when idiots have accused his great compatriot and contemporary Brian Lara of selfishness. I dont think I've ever seen a less selfish and more generous player, one who would quite literally shed blood, sweat and tears to help his team - and thrill the crowds while doing so. I've lost track of the number of times I've almost shed tears of joy watching Lara cut loose when batting with the tail. Each and every time the prince would be the last man out - having flayed the ball to all parts in a thrilling forty-minute coda with the tail in his inimitable calypso style -, yorked or caught on the boundary. His blood was up; his average be damned: he was playing for the team; he was playing for the game; he was playing for the crowd; he was playing for the glory!
In each and every such situation the likes of Tendulkar and Chanderpaul - players who think like accountants and who don't realize that massaging one's figures by carefully accumulating not outs has never yet deceived the public - would push and nurdle the singles and twos and wait for the tailenders to get themselves out and play for their averages. Don't believe me? Check the not out stats for Lara; compare them with those of Chanderpaul, Tendulkar and other cricketing personalities whose figures would be substantially different had they adopted a more team-oriented approach to batting with the tail, running between the wickets etc. And then ask yourself: whom do we remember with more genuine affection? Who thrilled us more?
The late great Spurs' double-winning captain Danny Blanchflower once said of another sport:
"The game is about glory. It is about doing things in style, with a flourish, about going out and beating the other lot, not waiting for them to die of boredom.” I suspect that Chanderpaul genuinely wouldn't understand those words. Which is at least in part why, for all his impressive stats, he will never be held in the same regard, or even be regarded as being as effective - when that word is comprehended in the round -, as players such as Greenidge and Haynes, whose stats he has surpassed.
