Who is a better batsman Martyn or Chanderpaul?

[tooextracool]

No, Not if he is fav. player. And anyone who has followed Dravid's career remotely will be able to tell you that Dravid hit peak at around 2000-2001 season and since then has been in tremndous form. Besides how can a cricket fan forget the 2001 epic series with Australia with Lax 281 and Dravid 180.
Yes, It was so apparent in your post. So how many years Dravid went without a century (Without looking into statsguru).

it was from the series against zim till the 1st test in the WI. of course because howstat listed the ind-zim series as 2000-2001, i took it as being end of 2000.
and dravid didnt hit peak in 00-01. he had an awful tour of australia in early 00, struggled against SA in 01, he did score runs against b'desh and zimbabwe but looked completely out of it against australia during that series, until the 2nd inning at eden gardens. and he didnt do that much after that did he?

 

[tooextracool]

because a pitch DOES get significantly worse with passage of play..it might ease out on day 2 but on the last few days, it definately is harder to bat on and more uneven- which in no small part is due to the footholes left by the bowlers..

err well done in describing a stereotypical pitch.
and only a fool would suggest that a general pitch actually gets significantly worse from day 2 to day 3, when in fact a pitch only really gets considerably worse only on days 4 and 5

Falling wickets used as a guage to how the pitch is playing is almost as idiotic as evaluating how good a wicketkeeper is by looking at their catches/match ratio.

yes of course, and your way of looking at it, "but pitches generally get worse, therefore every wicket must get worse from day 2 to day 3" is the most intelligent way of doing it.
brilliant sherlock.
and falling wickets does generally provide a more than inaccurate indication of how well a pitch played, because its quite unlikely that a team can lose 7-8 wickets on one day and then 20 wickets on the next unless the pitch has gotten worse.

 

[Sanz]

Well for one they are different sorts of batsmen... but at a pinch no, I would rate Martyn marginally ahead of Sehwag currently, primarily because Martyn's significant scores in recent times have largely been match-winners in difficult circumstances.

This is as ridiculous as you can be. Just because Sehwag ended up on a losing side doesn't mean his innings was not match winning. In Cricket there are 10 other players as well who help you decide the fate of the match. Are you saying that Verru's 192 in MCG was not as good as Martyn's 114 in Chennai. Australia have won recently because of their bowler not because Martyn has started scoring centuries.Australia were winning before as well(when martyn was not scoring). As for second innings scoring, I dont understand this fixation with this ? How many of Martyn's centuries have been in 4th innings chasing a target ? Just because he was batting in the second innings doesn't automatically make it a pressure situation.

Okay... do you see the difference between averaging 50 with 7 centuries and a bunch of 50s and so on, and averaging 50 with 3 exceptionally big centuries, one of which was against Bangladesh and the others in massively high scoring games where many other players scored a heap of runs as well, and a whole bunch of failures?

The fact is SRT has batted in 29 innings as compared to Martyn's 37 in last 2 years. If we remove their century scores, Martyn's avg. falls to 38, SRT 29 (approx in both cases)- that means their centuries do inflate their scores in big way. For SRT it is more but I give him credit for making those high scores.

The pitch in Sydney was very flat, anyone who watched the game will tell you that.

And how much Martyn scored on such a flat track ?

 

[Sanz]

and dravid didnt hit peak in 00-01. he had an awful tour of australia in early 00, struggled against SA in 01

Do you even know when does a season start. Early 2000 will be counted as 1999-2000 season. I said Dravid started peaking in 2000-2001 season. He was peaking doesn't mean he had to succeed in every series he played in. Before the Zimbabwe series his avg. was 47 and at the end of the SA series he was averaging 52.

 

[Sanz]

Yes, I'm aware of that, but that was over a year ago, and if you've seen him bat since then you will know that he hit a terrible patch of form and couldn't score a run, and then he had an injury and was dropped.

That is the whole point. just because a batsman has hit purple patch doesn't make him at par with the best of this world. If I were to use your logic, Lehman would be my top batsman after SL tour. To be considered among the best, one has to do it continously over a period of 5-10 years which SRT, SRW, BLC have done so well.

On Lehman, I personally feel that he wasn't that aweful one poor series against Pak doesn't prove anything. IMO even today, he is much better test batsman than Clark/Katich/Symonds etc.

 

[tooextracool]

Do you even know when does a season start. Early 2000 will be counted as 1999-2000 season. I said Dravid started peaking in 2000-2001 season.

err yes i know, i was pointing out that his form into the 00-01 season was poor and it showed because he didnt play anywhere near the way he can all the way until the series in the WI in 2002. anyone whos watched dravid play would tell you that he only hit peak in 2002.

He was peaking doesn't mean he had to succeed in every series he played in. Before the Zimbabwe series his avg. was 47 and at the end of the SA series he was averaging 52.

and of course scoring runs against bangladesh and zimbabwe is such an achievement isnt it?
after the 180 vs australia he didnt score a single 100 till the tour of WI, and considering that you claimed that martyn was poor because he didnt score a 100 for 2 years, where he averaged over 40 in 3 series, i dont see how you can say that dravid peaked during that time.

 

[C_C]

err well done in describing a stereotypical pitch.
and only a fool would suggest that a general pitch actually gets significantly worse from day 2 to day 3, when in fact a pitch only really gets considerably worse only on days 4 and 5

Only a fool would suggest that a general pitch doesnt get worse from day 2 to day 3 and only a fool (who obviously didnt see the match or understand it) would suggest that the specific pitch in concern(****hede) didnt deteriorate rapidly in day3.

yes of course, and your way of looking at it, "but pitches generally get worse, therefore every wicket must get worse from day 2 to day 3" is the most intelligent way of doing it.

That is a fact- and a fairly logical one at that.
In this specific match in question, the 2nd day to 3rd day deterioration WAS pretty huge and rapid.
That third day pitch played worse than a 5th day pitch.

brilliant sherlock.

Thank you, watson, but your sarcasm is off the mark. Go back to making banal observations and let sherlock do his job.
Shoo!

 

[tooextracool]

Only a fool would suggest that a general pitch doesnt get worse from day 2 to day 3 !

you really do try too hard....
you dont watch cricket do you? because the fact is that anyone will tell you that on a general wicket, days 2 and 3 are the best for batting(not referring to the wicket in mumbai), and any one will tell you that there is very little if any disintegration in the pitch from days 2 -3. only someone like you would claim that wickets gets significantly worse from days 2 to 3.

and only a fool! (who obviously didnt see the match or understand it) would suggest that the specific pitch in concern(****hede) didnt deteriorate rapidly in day3.

so much so in fact that a similar number of wickets fell, and that too because australia batted like jokers. like it or not the pitch didnt disintegrate much at all, it was already a very poor wicket to bat on, and it was still poor to bat on on day 3.

That is a fact- and a fairly logical one at that.
In this specific match in question, the 2nd day to 3rd day deterioration WAS pretty huge and rapid.
That third day pitch played worse than a 5th day pitch.

incase you didnt realise,as did the 2nd day.

Thank you, watson, but your sarcasm is off the mark. Go back to making banal observations and let sherlock do his job.
Shoo!

and you can come up with your trademark comments about how the whites are completely racist & biased against you.

 

[Sanz]

err yes i know, i was pointing out that his form into the 00-01 season was poor and it showed because he didnt play anywhere near the way he can all the way until the series in the WI in 2002. anyone whos watched dravid play would tell you that he only hit peak in 2002.

That's why you gave the example of 1999-2000 Aussie series, to convey that Dravid's form was poor in 2000-2001 season, You are some Dravid fan, aren't you
Let me show you some stats from 2000-2001 season onwards :-
2000-01 - avg. 104.87,
2001 - avg. 53.28
2001-02 - avg. 41.17
2002 - avg. 100.33
2002-03 - avg. 39.85
2003-04 - avg. 95.46

and of course scoring runs against bangladesh and zimbabwe is such an achievement isnt it?

What nonsense, Dravid played only one test against BD and didn't even cross 50 in either innings. And Zimbabwe was a pretty good side back in 2000 so I dont know why it is not an achievement. If it isn't how many double centuries Damien Martyn has cracked against Zimbabwe ?

after the 180 vs australia he didnt score a single 100 till the tour of WI, and considering that you claimed that martyn was poor because he didnt score a 100 for 2 years, where he averaged over 40 in 3 series, i dont see how you can say that dravid peaked during that time.

Whatever you may claim, the fact remains that during all this Dravid maintained an avg. of 50+(from the 2000 zimbabwe series ) whereas Martyn felled to 45.7 from 57.25 (when he score his last 100 before the lean patch).

 

[C_C]

you really do try too hard....
you dont watch cricket do you? because the fact is that anyone will tell you that on a general wicket, days 2 and 3 are the best for batting(not referring to the wicket in mumbai), and any one will tell you that there is very little if any disintegration in the pitch from days 2 -3. only someone like you would claim that wickets gets significantly worse from days 2 to 3.

Learn to read properly.
I said that the GENERAL TREND for pitches is that its harder to bat on day #3 than day #2.
The footholes are more distinct and the cracks in the pitches have widened more.
A pitch deteriorates gradually...it doesnt hold perfectly pristine and then suddenly at the stroke of 3pm on 4th day it magically reveals cracks.
Furthermore, i said that in THIS SPECIFIC EXAMPLE, the pitch did deteriorate rapidly in day #3 compared to day #2.

so much so in fact that a similar number of wickets fell, and that too because australia batted like jokers. like it or not the pitch didnt disintegrate much at all, it was already a very poor wicket to bat on, and it was still poor to bat on on day 3.

how many wickets fell is irrelevant.
Sometimes wickets fall due to inept batting or good bowling or a bit of both.
That is not the governing factor in determining the pitch condition.

incase you didnt realise,as did the 2nd day.

The second day pitch was bad but the third day one was considerably worse.

and you can come up with your trademark comments about how the whites are completely racist & biased against you.

hey dolt, i would like you to quote ONE message where i said that the whites are completely racist and biassed ( agianst me).
You got no idea how easily i can blow away this pathetic comment originating from that dead-as-dodo brain of yours.
And next time, try a response that isnt even half as lame.

 

[aussie]

How so? The fact that the West Indies has gone on to lose so many Tests with Chanderpaul being such a solid figure in batting collapses makes me wonder. Are you saying that Chanderpaul's runs don't come at crucial stages?

Damien Martyn resides in a powerhouse team. Chanderpaul is in a team where monstrous individual efforts can't inspire victory and yet there is a constant desire for victory. If that's not a difficult circumstance, then what is? Practically everytime Chanderpaul walks to the crease he goes with the mentality that "I can't fail". Simple as that really. He can't go out thinking, "well if I do fail, the bowlers will take us back into the match" or "Gilly'll pick us up". Chanderpaul plays for an entirely different team. A team that is constantly under pressure. He's scores runs.

well i cant disagree with you on this liam, i particularly like how you analysed the contrasting mentalities that both Martyn & Chanderpaul have when they go out to bat.

 

[aussie]

That's the key right there. As unfair as people may say it is, the fact remains that Ponting plays his cricket in an era where Australia has been the only team with a GREAT bowling attack. Though England is putting something together now, the fact is that bowling attacks around the world have been mediocre to say the least. Ponting has never had to face the Australian attack, thus being unable to prove his worth against it. Lara, Dravid and Tendulkar, however, have scored massively against said bowlers.

Lara & Tendulkar has scored masively againts the aussie's full strenght attack not Dravid. He failed in 99 & last year when Pigeon & Hollywood where playing and bowling well. He made runs againts an aussie attack in 2003/04 that was understrenght & also had injury problems.

 

[C_C]

Dravid hasnt succeeded like Lara or Tendulkar agaisnt the Aussies- but no one has really.
Taking away the last series in Australia, Dravid averages 35.87 against McGrath/Warne.
That is not in the statospheric 50+ ave. zone of Lara or Tendy but better than any other batsman playing the game currently i think.

 

[marc71178]

This is as ridiculous as you can be. Just because Sehwag ended up on a losing side doesn't mean his innings was not match winning.

Erm, by definition it does.

 

[aussie]

Are you saying that Verru's 192 in MCG was not as good as Martyn's 114 in Chennai.

It certainly was Sehwag 195 if you may be corrected was a very attacking innings that helped India get off to a superb start in that MCG test, while Martyn 114 was on of the better innings i have seen under pressure since Australia were facing certain defeat.

 

[aussie]

That is the whole point. just because a batsman has hit purple patch doesn't make him at par with the best of this world.

for that period the player would, how do you think players are rated on PWC, like when Harmison was ranked the best fast bowler in the world last year it was due to his purple patch.

 

[Dasa]

Erm, by definition it does.

No it doesn't. Very rarely in Test cricket can a batsman play a "match-winning" innings that will single-handedly win the match. The only one I can think of without doing any research is Lara's 153*. Bowlers allow a team to win, batsmen can just ensure that they will not lose.

 

[Pratters]

Comfortably.

You have issues with Tendulkar.

 

[vic_orthdox]

No it doesn't. Very rarely in Test cricket can a batsman play a "match-winning" innings that will single-handedly win the match. The only one I can think of without doing any research is Lara's 153*. Bowlers allow a team to win, batsmen can just ensure that they will not lose.

True. It's nigh impossible to play a "match winning" knock unless you do so in the 4th innings of a Test match.

 

[Pratters]

An interesting comment.

India have won 12 matches with Sehwag in the side.

In that time he's played at the most 2 innings that could be deemed match winning.

Did he specify tests or odis that you leapt onto tests knowing India havent won that many tests