Who is a better batsman Martyn or Chanderpaul?

[Pratters]

280th post on the topic now. I think we should ask Martyn and Chanders too on the subject.

 

[Mister Wright]

i will but its so disappointing that such a wondefully poised final day was spoiled by rain.

That's life mate - move on. No point speculating, it could have been a tie for all we know.

 

[tooextracool]

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

read carefully, i mentioned that he carried in the poor form from that season, he certainly didnt look anywhere near as comfortable at any point in the 00-01 season as he has from 02 onwards.

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

or rather lets look at his series by series average before 02...

2000-2001 IND v AUS 338 56.33
2000-2001 ZIM v IND 138 69.00
2001-2002 SRL v IND 235 47.00
2001-2002 SAF v IND 102 25.50
2001-2002 IND v ENG 122 40.67
2001-2002 IND v ZIM 72 24.00

overall average 43.78, which is significantly poorer than his career average(57) and his average since 2002 which stands at 70. not to mention of course that after the 180 he didnt score a single century until the WI.

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 ?

zimbabwe a 'pretty good side' in 2000? are you out of your mind? zimbabwe were an extremely ordinary side, that relied exclusively on andy flower. bar streak their bowlers consisted of watambwa, olonga, strangs, murphy,nkala, viljoen etc, all of whom are rubbish.
and i dont see what martyn scoring against zimbabwe has anything to do with the argument, especially considering how you conveniently ignored the fact that lara went through a longer period without scoring a century. i guess we can now assume that lara isnt in the same class as dravid.

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).

err again, what is your point?
ive not once said that martyn is anywhere near as good a player as dravid, i merely stated that all players go through a bad patch occasionally. dravid did, after the series against zimbabwe to the series in the WI as has been shown above.

 

[tooextracool]

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..

and of course i claimed that theres no disentegration in the wicket from days 1-4 didnt i ?
i clearly stated that as the days progress the pitch disentegrates steadily, but from days 2-3 the general trend is that the disentegration barely affects how the wicket plays, much like from day 1 to day 2.
its day 4 and 5 when the cracks & footholes really start to become prominent and the deterioration process appears to speed up a little.

Furthermore, i said that in THIS SPECIFIC EXAMPLE, the pitch did deteriorate rapidly in day #3 compared to day #2...

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

oh yes, and what fabulous argument you came up with...the pitch was worse because i say so.

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.....

neither is what YOU see, given that you know as much about cricket as my index finger.
fact is that how many wickets fall is about as reliable as the 'average'. its not always right, but its right fairly often.
its very very rare that you see 18 & 20 wickets fall in a day all due to inept batting or good bowling. because 2 teams generally very very rarely bat poorly on the same day.

hey dolt, i would like you to quote ONE message where i said that the whites are completely racist and biassed ( agianst me). .

so what exactly were you trying to indicate in what is now scallywag's signature?

You got no idea how easily i can blow away this pathetic comment originating from that dead-as-dodo brain of yours.

ahh the insults, as usual the 'when in doubt go for the insults' bit. i couldnt bother going on about the size of your brain, because anyone who reads your posts on this forum would have concluded by now that its not even worth the time.

 

[roseboy64]

Please clarify. I mentioned it in no way to discredit Chanders.

You said that Australia preferred Clarke to Lehmann and then you mentioned that Clarke scored faster than Chanderpaul and also that Chanderpaul couldn't break in when Steve Waugh was there.

The period which he has played like Chanders. Just because Chanders has played a longer period of cricket should not be held against Martyn who has been as consistent.

Yes but Chanderpaul has been more consistent for a longer period with some dry periods included but he's managed to keep a good average.

If you look at the proportion of uncompleted innings, its 20/145(13.7%) for Chanders and 12/89(13.48%) for Martyn.Not a huge difference is it. There is the middle order which is much stronger for Australia.

But really how would it make Chanderpaul stronger than Martyn would be a legitimate question. The fact that Martyn scores faster definitely puts him at an advantage on the other hand.

Yes it is an advantage that Martyn scores faster.If Australia's middle order is stronger than the West Indies' then that provides Martyn with support which Chanderpaul doesn't have. He doesn't have to worry about wickets falling at the other end and can just play free.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Yes it is an advantage that Martyn scores faster.If Australia's middle order is stronger than the West Indies' then that provides Martyn with support which Chanderpaul doesn't have. He doesn't have to worry about wickets falling at the other end and can just play free.

I will eternally agree with this point. This is one of my bread/butter points.

Chanderpaul has shown that he can score very quickly against quality bowling (3rd fastest Test hundred), but there are very few situations when Chanderpaul is allowed to play in such a way. Yes, Gayle and Sarwan are decent batsmen, but there is really only one other batsmen in that lineup who can be relied upon - Charles. In the Australian game, there are 50+ averages up and down. In the West Indian game, one man stands that tall.

Chanderpaul can't truly be stated a lesser batsman than Martyn because he must perform in such drastically different circumstance. In the same, he can't actually be called better. Hence I posted stats and reasoning, but never firmly suggested either batsman as superior.

 

[C_C]

and of course i claimed that theres no disentegration in the wicket from days 1-4 didnt i ?

Then learn to read properly- because thats what i said happens in general to a pitch. That comment was not directly linked to the particular pitch in Mumbai, as you claimed.

but from days 2-3 the general trend is that the disentegration barely affects how the wicket plays, much like from day 1 to day 2.

And you are wrong on that.

oh yes, and what fabulous argument you came up with...the pitch was worse because i say so.

Equally faboulous as you come up with - that the pitch wasnt worse because you say so.
So, in short, STFU.

neither is what YOU see, given that you know as much about cricket as my index finger.

Singing praises of oneself is the first sign of being a classic narcissistic loser.
Keep at it- nothing new there.
I will take your childish insults and stuff it up yer butthole if i ever get to see ya, sucker.

fact is that how many wickets fall is about as reliable as the 'average'. its not always right, but its right fairly often.

it isnt. Becaus how many wickets fell is governed in a much more specific circumstancial basis than the average.

so what exactly were you trying to indicate in what is now scallywag's signature?

Well if you had half a brain(which you dont), you'd realise that i am quoting a FACT- a FACT about the history of his country and the general perception of colored folks- i neither supported it or criticised it, but noted a categoric fact.
And show me where i held the entire white race accountable for that stuff.

ahh the insults, as usual the 'when in doubt go for the insults' bit. i couldnt bother going on about the size of your brain, because anyone who reads your posts on this forum would have concluded by now that its not even worth the time.

Gotta love a hypocrite.
Criticise the fact that insults are for 'when in doubt' actions, then do it themselves.
Like i said, you do not wish to go down that road. I can pull out several posts from various websites where i post where i can comprehensively show you where i've defended whites against unfair racist attacks and blow yer stupid lil comment to smithereens.
Now, BEGONE !
I have little time to bother with annoying termites like yerself.

 

[Scallywag]

Well if you had half a brain(which you dont), you'd realise that i am quoting a FACT- a FACT about the history of his country and the general perception of colored folks- i neither supported it or criticised it, but noted a categoric fact.
And show me where i held the entire white race accountable for that stuff.



.

Show him how Ponting gets let off for not bowling their overs while Ganguly gets banned.

Remember how you said Ponting broke the rules and gets let off while Ganguly gets banned.

phew.
So now that is out of the way, we are back to where we were a few pages ago- Gimme a few days- i am working on it.

 

[C_C]

Show him how Ponting gets let off for not bowling their overs while Ganguly gets banned.

Remember how you said Ponting broke the rules and gets let off while Ganguly gets banned.

And what has that gotto do with my abovementioned post ?
As per your query- dont worry, i am working on it.....it shall be presented.

 

[Scallywag]

And what has that gotto do with my abovementioned post ?
As per your query- dont worry, i am working on it.....it shall be presented.

Because of the reasons you believe that Ponting gets treated differently to Ganguly.

 

[C_C]

Because of the reasons you believe that Ponting gets treated differently to Ganguly.

Again, what has that gotto do with this:

so what exactly were you trying to indicate in what is now scallywag's signature?

and your subsequent signature:

Given what the white have done in the past 300 years(look at yer country. You robbed and butchered the original inhabitants), i would say it would be a while till the colored world trusts the white again.

Where does Ponting, Ganguly, etc. come into the history of Australia ?

 

[Scallywag]

Again, what has that gotto do with this:

Because of the reasons you believe Ponting gets away with breaking the rules and the reasons you believe Ganguly gets bans and fines.

 

[C_C]

Because of the reasons you believe Ponting gets away with breaking the rules and the reasons you believe Ganguly gets bans and fines.

Umm....learn to read properly.
I believe that Punter and several aussies get away with it because of a pro-aussie presence in the executive levels of the ICC.
Not because of racism...which is why i dont start it as 'punter gets away because he is white'....

 

[Scallywag]

Umm....learn to read properly.
I believe that Punter and several aussies get away with it because of a pro-aussie presence in the executive levels of the ICC.
Not because of racism...which is why i dont start it as 'punter gets away because he is white'....

That doesnt explain why they are so willing to ban Ganguly.

I suppose your evidence will explain how the Australian ICC executives influence the non Australian match referees.

 

[Sanz]

read carefully, i mentioned that he carried in the poor form from that season, he certainly didnt look anywhere near as comfortable at any point in the 00-01 season as he has from 02 onwards.



or rather lets look at his series by series average before 02...

2000-2001 IND v AUS 338 56.33
2000-2001 ZIM v IND 138 69.00
2001-2002 SRL v IND 235 47.00
2001-2002 SAF v IND 102 25.50
2001-2002 IND v ENG 122 40.67
2001-2002 IND v ZIM 72 24.00

overall average 43.78, which is significantly poorer than his career average(57) and his average since 2002 which stands at 70. not to mention of course that after the 180 he didnt score a single century until the WI.

And you so conveniently ignored Dravid's avg in the zimbabwe & BD test series against Zimbabwe(That was part of 2000-01 season). To prove that Rahul's avg was below 50 you didn't even quote stats for entire 2000-01 season. Rahul Dravid is so better without fans like you. Very Good Job of Defending him.

After the above post of lies you have no credibility left. If Dravid scored at an avg. of 43.78 in 2000-2001 season then please explain how did his avg. went up from 46.70 to 50+

zimbabwe a 'pretty good side' in 2000? are you out of your mind? zimbabwe were an extremely ordinary side, that relied exclusively on andy flower. bar streak their bowlers consisted of watambwa, olonga, strangs, murphy,nkala, viljoen etc, all of whom are rubbish.

And the same Zimbabwe team won a series against Pakistan in Pakistan. I am sure it was a poor team as poor as today's zimbabwe team and didn't deserve their test status

... you conveniently ignored the fact that lara went through a longer period without scoring a century.

Lara had proved his consistency for almost 7-8 years before hitting a lean patch yet he was always pretty close to 50 through out all this, what has martyn done to be considered next to Lara ? How many double Hundreds has he scored ?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Lara had proved his consistency for almost 7-8 years before hitting a lean patch yet he was always pretty close to 50 through out all this, what has martyn done to be considered next to Lara ? How many double Hundreds has he scored ?

Nobody... is... comparing... Martyn... to... Lara...

 

[aussie]

took the words right out of my mouth faaip

 

[C_C]

That doesnt explain why they are so willing to ban Ganguly.

I suppose your evidence will explain how the Australian ICC executives influence the non Australian match referees.

Yes it does.
And how does the australian ICC exec. influence the non-OZ match referees ?
The same way the boss influence an employee.

For a recent example on this matter, check how Youhana was fined for his altercation with Hall(something Hall provoked) but Hayden escaped scot-free with the recent altercation with the ENG team.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

For a recent example on this matter, check how Youhana was fined for his altercation with Hall(something Hall provoked) but Hayden escaped scot-free with the recent altercation with the ENG team.

Mate, Hayden got hit with a ball. No match referee in his right mind would punish a player who yelled at someone who threw the ball at them and hit them.

 

[C_C]

Mate, Hayden got hit with a ball. No match referee in his right mind would punish a player who yelled at someone who threw the ball at them and hit them.

Why not ?
That is bringing the game into disrepute.