Who is a better batsman Martyn or Chanderpaul?

[Pratters]

How can it be bad technique if it allows him to score runs against quality bowlers? Unorthodox does not equate poor.

And yet Smith is criticised for poor technique on the forum ironically.

 

[Pratters]

What that Martyn is comfortably a better player than SRT?

Is there any doubt about it?

As I said, you got issues with Tendulkar.

 

[Pratters]

Martyn is a better batsman than Chanderpaul easily for me if we look at the career over all.

Martyn scores the runs faster for one. Chanderpaul for a long period in his career had a thing of not making the big scores, taking time even to reach a first or second hundred till very late in his career if I am not wrong.

Martyn has maintained his own throughout his career mostly. Would Chanderpaul be able to make his way into the Australian test side? 2 years ago he wasnt good enough to break in over the likes of Steve Waugh. Currently, he wouldnt considering Australia has confidence in Clarke and have omitted Lehmann. Realistically Chanderpaul is a better batsman than say Clarke at the moment but the fact that he scores runs slower is a detriment versus Martyn.

Clarke scores runs at a strike rate of 51.72 compared with a 43.26 of Chanders.

Also the over all career average being higher for Clarke shows he has been the more consistent run maker over all which is why Martyn has been able to maintain a spot in the Australian XI since making a come back.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

And yet Smith is criticised for poor technique on the forum ironically.

Umm... because Smith's technical faults get him out when bowlers are good enough to exploit them. Chanderpaul doesn't have such a glaring technical fault.

 

[Pratters]

Umm... because Smith's technical faults get him out when bowlers are good enough to exploit them. Chanderpaul doesn't have such a glaring technical fault.

Ofcourse the technical flaws are so glaring that the Australians couldnt exploit them when he bashed them for Somerset(?) with Jayasuriya and usually bowlers are so stupid they want to keep on giving Smith runs and not get him out.

 

[vic_orthdox]

And Chanderpaul doesn't have a technical glitch, from what I've seen (admittedly not huge amounts).

Despite all of his movements, he is still relatively still at the point of release, and his foot movement is generally excellent. Just because it looks weird doesn't mean that it is therefore poor.

 

[Pratters]

And Chanderpaul doesn't have a technical glitch, from what I've seen (admittedly not huge amounts).

Despite all of his movements, he is still relatively still at the point of release, and his foot movement is generally excellent. Just because it looks weird doesn't mean that it is therefore poor.

When did I ever say Chanderpaul has a lot of technical glithces or any thing on that term.

He is indeed one of the more proficiant batsmen technically I have seen.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Ofcourse the technical flaws are so glaring that the Australians couldnt exploit them when he bashed them for Somerset(?) with Jayasuriya and usually bowlers are so stupid they want to keep on giving Smith runs and not get him out.

At that stage of the tour, I don't think the Australians could even have exploited Neil's technical deficiencies! (sp)

 

[vic_orthdox]

When did I ever say Chanderpaul has a lot of technical glithces or any thing on that term.

He is indeed one of the more proficiant batsmen technically I have seen.

I was just making the point referring to Liam's rebuttal on an earlier page, which you reminded me of when you quoted it. That's why I didn't quote you.

 

[Pratters]

At that stage of the tour, I don't think the Australians could even have exploited Neil's technical deficiencies! (sp)

Or we could say that if the flaws were indeed so glaring even the Australians in their poor run should have been able to exploit it

 

[Sanz]

Erm, by definition it does.

Err by that definition it would also mean that every batsman in the aussie team including Gillespie, Mcgrath etc is better than SRT.

I am sure you would agree with that definition and conclusion.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Ofcourse the technical flaws are so glaring that the Australians couldnt exploit them when he bashed them for Somerset(?) with Jayasuriya and usually bowlers are so stupid they want to keep on giving Smith runs and not get him out.

Simply because a technical flaw exists doesn't mean that it will always be exploited. Cricket is not run by formulae. It's a game played between teams comprising of flesh and blood. Some terrible players have scored runs at international level before, so I fail to see the relevance of your point besides being a fanboy.

Smith is a good batsman, but not one of the best in the world.

 

[Sanz]

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.

Err How come Australia were facing certain defeat, it was just the first day and first innings of the test match ??

 

[Pratters]

Simply because a technical flaw exists doesn't mean that it will always be exploited. Cricket is not run by formulae. It's a game played between teams comprising of flesh and blood. Some terrible players have scored runs at international level before, so I fail to see the relevance of your point besides being a fanboy.

Smith is a good batsman, but not one of the best in the world.

The fact is Smith keeps scoring the runs and its not a one off which happened there. People took a LOT of time to come to terms with Sehwag and he was earlier discounted as a slogger. Plus I never did say Smith is one of the best in the world.

I know your opinion on this wont change any time soon so we end it there for the time being unless some one brings it up.

 

[marc71178]

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.

But if your team loses, you have no way of playing a "match-winning" innings - the word "win" sort of gives it away.

 

[marc71178]

You have issues with Tendulkar.

What, just because I don't think he's as good as he once was that means I have issues with him?

Because I'd pick someone else ahead of him without a thought I have issues with him?

 

[marc71178]

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

If you'd been around at the time you'd have noticed all the talk was about Tests, but no, you just have a go at me for daring to think Tendulkar isn't as good as he used to be.

 

[marc71178]

Err by that definition it would also mean that every batsman in the aussie team including Gillespie, Mcgrath etc is better than SRT.

You what?

Based on what?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

A match-winning (or match-saving) innings is one which takes a situation in which a team would almost certainly have lost or failed to win the game, and turns it around. It does not have to come in the 4th innings.

Examples of match-winning innings which did not come in the 4th innings are Laxman's 281 against Australia in 2001, and Trescothick's 180 against South Africa earlier this year. An example of a recent match-saving innings which did not come in the 4th innings is Martyn's 104 at Chennai.

It's also perfectly possible to play a match-winning role in the first innings, simply by making a massive score which takes the opposition out of the equation... by any stretch, Hayden's 380 against Zimbabwe was clearly match-winning, even if it wasn't made under pressure. He scored a heap of runs very quickly making it impossible for Zimbabwe to win and giving the bowlers plenty of time to dismiss them... meaning it put Australia into a winning position and was hence match-winning.

 

[Pratters]

What, just because I don't think he's as good as he once was that means I have issues with him?

Because I'd pick someone else ahead of him without a thought I have issues with him?

No it is you ropinion to feel whatever on Tendulkar. But you keep jumping on the mention of his name and try to keep arguing on that, bringing it up which is why I feel that you have issues with him or people who dont share the same view.