Who is a better batsman Martyn or Chanderpaul?

[Pratters]

Chanderpaul often faces a quite different set of circumstances.

Agreed and it may well have had a detrimental effect on his strike rate. But the point is some people may go for attack rather than defense in pressure situations. If Gilchrist was faced with a similar situation as Chanderpaul, would he play defensively? Not really.

 

[Pratters]

Pratyush, why bring scoring rate into it? It isn't something that matters a great deal in Tests. Martyn scores quicker than Dravid, does that mean he is better?

If there were almost equal batsmen, you would want to rather have a person who scores faster.

 

[tooextracool]

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..

and i said that it was linked to mumbai where exactly?
for someone who tells others to learn to read, you cant seem to read yourself.

And you are wrong on that.

doubt it

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

or rather i provided statistics about how many wickets fell, which you rubbished, because it didnt suit your point.
not to mention that you were the one who decided to argue against me,and you didnt even have the facts to back yourself up.

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...

too bad you havent realised that i wasnt referring to my knowledge on the game, just pointing out how poor yours was.

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

no it involved 20 & 18 people getting out. like it or not, its not specific when 2 teams off 11 players each all manage to somehow play poorly on the same day.

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 i said that its not a fact where exactly? i was merely talking about how so many of your posts are all about racism. well done in the brilliant reading there sherlock.

And show me where i held the entire white race accountable for that stuff..

a) i didnt say that you did hold the entire white race accountable for it
b) you said "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."
id guess from that you are talking about whites in general rather than whites in a particular country.

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.

really? so my insults have been anywhere as severe as saying that you have half a brain, or that you would stuff it up my butthole if you ever saw me or even STFU?
i'd recommend that you tone down, because if you cant have a decent argument without insulting the other person as severely as you have, then its perhaps better that i start calling you names and what not instead of actually talking about cricket.

 

[tooextracool]

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+

err as has been said a million times bangladesh and zimbabwe dont count. if you look at it from the series against australia till the series against the WI in 2002 he averages 44, which again is a fair bit worse than what he usually does. certainly a bit foolish to claim that he had just hit his prime at the time.

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

2 things:
1) just because they won 1 test, it doesnt make a side test class
2) zimbabwe was test class in 98, they werent in 00-01, because they lost quality players like goodwin(who i can assure you would have been one of the best players in the world today) and neil johnson.

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 ?

good god, how many times do i have to say that im not comparing the abilities of martyn and lara?
ive merely been saying that even great players go through poor periods.

 

[tooextracool]

First, his argument about Dravid was false and he continues to defend Dravid's poor form during 2000-2001 (such a Dravid Fan) when the fact is that 2000-2001 season is Dravid's best season so far..

and you claim that i've been using false facts. i guess you missed the 03/04 season then?
and if you could take off your "everyone is biased against india" glasses off, you'd realise that i said that from the end of 00 till mid 02 dravid had a poor period. look at his performances against all test class teams in that period, its not nearly as good as the rest of his career.

As for Lara, He had proved his consistency by then and dven during the lean patch his avg. hardly went below 50 unlike Martyb whose avg. was down by almost 10.

err lara's average dropped from 60-47 during a period of about 5-6 years.
and while martyn has also had a poor period(which was significantly shorter), hes still averaged over 40 for every year since his return.

 

[Sanz]

err as has been said a million times bangladesh and zimbabwe dont count.

That's why you quoted zimbabwe stats in this post of yours :-

http://forum.cricketweb.net/showpost.php?p=511470&postcount=283

Let me guess, you can quote stats of whichever country you want when you want but the moment I quote the stats you start questioning their test status..

if you look at it from the series against australia till the series against the WI in 2002 he averages 44, which again is a fair bit worse than what he usually does. certainly a bit foolish to claim that he had just hit his prime at the time.

Once again, what was Dravid's avg. in 2000-2001 season ?? Has he performed better in any other season ?

2 things:
1) just because they won 1 test, it doesnt make a side test class
2) zimbabwe was test class in 98, they werent in 00-01, because they lost quality players like goodwin(who i can assure you would have been one of the best players in the world today) and neil johnson.

Okay so if today Australia lose Ponting and Warne, they wont remain test class ?? And who says they were not test class ?? Care to look at their home record against India ?

good god, how many times do i have to say that im not comparing the abilities of martyn and lara?
ive merely been saying that even great players go through poor periods.

And how many times I have to say that Great players have already proved their greatness and even though they dont score a century, they score well enough to keep their avg. respectable. Martyn's hasn't done that during his lean patch and that's why I dont consider him at par with Dravid, Kallis, Lara, SRT etc.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

And how many times I have to say that Great players have already proved their greatness and even though they dont score a century, they score well enough to keep their avg. respectable. Martyn's hasn't done that during his lean patch and that's why I dont consider him at par with Dravid, Kallis, Lara, SRT etc.

Martyn did score enough to keep his average respectable. And, for about the 400th time in this thread NOBODY is saying Martyn is "on par" with Dravid, Kallis, Lara, SRT etc... the only one in that group Martyn is close to is Kallis, and I still consider Kallis a better player. However, CURRENTLY, based on performances in RECENT times, Martyn is in the top 5 or 6 batsmen in the world, and Tendulkar is not.

That doesn't belittle any of Tendulkar's previous achievements, simply says that he is a shadow of what he was in the 90s. Maybe he will return to his former brilliance and maybe be will not, but either way he is an all-time great and Martyn at this point in time is not. It is the same as Steve Waugh vs, say Kallis in 2001-02 period. Steve Waugh was at that time an all-time great who was not performing as he once did, and Kallis was a player that was not worthy of the all-time great status at that time, but was clearly playing much better than Steve Waugh was.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I dont think its lame at all. Gilchrist faces pressure situations with little time in hand as very few wickets are left. Chanders faces the same. Gilly responds with agression. Chanders with safety and more importance to protection of wicket.

Gilchrist not only has a powerhouse batting lineup around him that can redeem the team if he happens to fail in the first innings, but he can look forward to 'keeping to an outstanding bowling attack, which can bowl his team back into a game if he fails. Chanderpaul wishes he had such comfort. No comparison.

 

[Sanz]

and you claim that i've been using false facts. i guess you missed the 03/04 season then?

err, I dont need to because I never questioned Dravid's performance beyond 2000-01 season.

and if you could take off your "everyone is biased against india" glasses off, you'd realise that i said that from the end of 00 till mid 02 dravid had a poor period. look at his performances against all test class teams in that period, its not nearly as good as the rest of his career.

Test Class team ?? If you play test cricket, you are test class.Anyways here is Dravid's performance between 2000 end till Mid 2002 :-

Vs. Zim - 432.00,
Vs. Aus - 56.00
Vs. zim - 69.00
Vs. SL - 47.00
Vs. SA - 25.50
Vs. Eng. - 40.66
Vs. Zim - 24.00
Vs. WI - 57.71

Even if you exclude his performance against zim, he still ends up with 48.04 . I expect you to come up with '...WI series can't be included as it doesn't come under mid 2002...and offer an explanation for it...' Btw for everyone else, India toured WI in April/May 2002.

err lara's average dropped from 60-47 during a period of about 5-6 years.
and while martyn has also had a poor period(which was significantly shorter), hes still averaged over 40 for every year since his return.

Errr, this is what I expected from you. You will go to any extent to prove your point, no matter how illogical it is. Are you suggesting that Lara was out of form for 5-6 years especially when you say that Martyn's poor period was 'significantly shorter' ?? Can you tell us how many centuries Lara scored during this period and how many Martyn scored during his lean patch ? And not to forget the quality of attack Lara faced as compared to Martyn's ?

 

[Sanz]

However, CURRENTLY, based on performances in RECENT times, Martyn is in the top 5 or 6 batsmen in the world, and Tendulkar is not.

Last 5 tests SRT outscores Martyn. That is how good Martyn's current form is.

 

[Pratters]

Gilchrist not only has a powerhouse batting lineup around him that can redeem the team if he happens to fail in the first innings, but he can look forward to 'keeping to an outstanding bowling attack, which can bowl his team back into a game if he fails. Chanderpaul wishes he had such comfort. No comparison.

So according to you Chanderpaul could not go for attack as an option even though it is indeed a rare option one goes for like Chris Cairns.

To each his own.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

So according to you Chanderpaul could not go for attack as an option even though it is indeed a rare option one goes for like Chris Cairns.

To each his own.

When did I say that Chanderpaul can't use attack as an option? The point is that many times that's simply not the best option and I don't see how you can convince me otherwise. The man has scored buckets of runs playing the way he does.

 

[Pratters]

When did I say that Chanderpaul can't use attack as an option? The point is that many times that's simply not the best option and I don't see how you can convince me otherwise.

I never said Chanderpaul should go for more agression. It suits most players and it wouldnt suit him.

The man has scored buckets of runs playing the way he does.

Yes and I dont think he would start scoring so much more faster if there was less pressure though there could be a slight improvement in his strike rate.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Liam, was there any particular reasoning behind the strike rate of this Chanderpaul knock?

 

[marc71178]

Last 5 tests SRT outscores Martyn. That is how good Martyn's current form is.

Yes, until you see that that includes 2 Tests against Bangladesh, and Martyn hasn't been able to bat a 2nd time in any of the 5.

 

[marc71178]

Liam, was there any particular reasoning behind the strike rate of this Chanderpaul knock?

A bowling attack of Lee, Macgill, Hogg and Bichel?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Liam, was there any particular reasoning behind the strike rate of this Chanderpaul knock?

Probably frustration tbh. As I said, attack in the face of danger is highly situational. Even then, he could have failed miserably and would have been criticized heavily for it. Cricket does entail a measure of "luck" (dare I say). It was his day, so he cashed in.

 

[tooextracool]

That's why you quoted zimbabwe stats in this post of yours :-

http://forum.cricketweb.net/showpost.php?p=511470&postcount=283

Let me guess, you can quote stats of whichever country you want when you want but the moment I quote the stats you start questioning their test status.. .

i quoted it yes, but i didnt use it to calculate his average, which without all performances against zimbabwe & b'desh still stands at 44ish.

Once again, what was Dravid's avg. in 2000-2001 season ?? Has he performed better in any other season ?

the only series he played against test class teams in 00-01 was against australia where he averaged 56, and looked completely out of sorts for the first half of the series. i'd say that hes had a few better seasons than that even if you look at it statistically.

Okay so if today Australia lose Ponting and Warne, they wont remain test class ??.

err what? thats the stupidest argument i've ever heard. do you seriously believe that langer, hayden, martyn,mcgrath, gillespie, gilchrist etc is comparable to whitall, carlisle, flower,watambwa, murphy olonga etc?
you must be out of your mind.

And who says they were not test class ?? Care to look at their home record against India ? .

because that proves so much
they won one test after those 2 left, wow what an achievement.

And how many times I have to say that Great players have already proved their greatness and even though they dont score a century, they score well enough to keep their avg. respectable. Martyn's hasn't done that during his lean patch and that's why I dont consider him at par with Dravid, Kallis, Lara, SRT etc.

martyn's average is currently over 50. if that isnt 'respectable' then i wonder what is.
its strange that you say, great players prove their greatness even when they dont score a century, yet when martyn doesnt score a century and averages more than 50 you claim that he isnt any good because he didnt score a century for 2 years.
and for the last time, I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT MARTYN IS ON PAR WITH DRAVID, LARA ETC

 

[tooextracool]

err, I dont need to because I never questioned Dravid's performance beyond 2000-01 season..

im sorry what?
you said that 00-01 is dravid's best season so far. i have pointed out that its not.

Test Class team ?? If you play test cricket, you are test class.

rubbish. so basically every player to play the game is 'test class' then? simply because he played test cricket?
just because the ICC makes someone a test side, it does not make them test class.

Anyways here is Dravid's performance between 2000 end till Mid 2002 :-

Vs. Zim - 432.00,
Vs. Aus - 56.00
Vs. zim - 69.00
Vs. SL - 47.00
Vs. SA - 25.50
Vs. Eng. - 40.66
Vs. Zim - 24.00
Vs. WI - 57.71

Even if you exclude his performance against zim, he still ends up with 48.04 . I expect you to come up with '...WI series can't be included as it doesn't come under mid 2002...and offer an explanation for it...' Btw for everyone else, India toured WI in April/May 2002..

you really are annoying, time and time again in this thread i've been saying that dravid's prime started from the series in the WI in 02 and i even went on to quote all the series during the time period i was referring to. and yet you quote that series
i've already stated his averaging excluding zimbabwe, until the series in the WI, which stands at around 44, nowhere near as good as he usually is and certainly not hitting his prime as you have indicated.

Errr, this is what I expected from you. You will go to any extent to prove your point, no matter how illogical it is. Are you suggesting that Lara was out of form for 5-6 years especially when you say that Martyn's poor period was 'significantly shorter' ?? Can you tell us how many centuries Lara scored during this period and how many Martyn scored during his lean patch ? And not to forget the quality of attack Lara faced as compared to Martyn's ?

2 things:
1) i was actually referring to this lara patch:
http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...edhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype
which included 27 innings without a century at an average of 35.

martyns poor period:
http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...edhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype
was 25 innings at an average of 33.
so in terms of innings, which is a fairer method for looking at it, laras patch was longer.

2) lara's overall bad patch was from 96-00, and i think its glaringly obvious that you dont expect someone as good as lara(or even martyn) to go through 4 years without scoring a century.

 

[C_C]

and i said that it was linked to mumbai where exactly?
for someone who tells others to learn to read, you cant seem to read yourself.

Then you have no reason to bring this up when Mumbai is in question.

doubt it

doubt all you want, but i think you are wrong on this and i've said so.
Your chain of thought ( pitches play pretty similar on day1 and 2 or day 2 and 3 but are worse than day1 on day4) is not logically consistent.
A pitch deteriorates, which automatically means that unless it is a bouncy/seaming top, first day is easier to play than 2nd, 2nd is easier than 3rd and so forth- since with each passing day the pitch has deteriorated some more

too bad you havent realised that i wasnt referring to my knowledge on the game, just pointing out how poor yours was.

Which, you idiot, is an indirect reference to your knowledge of the game. If you didnt consider yourself very knowledgable in cricket, you wouldnt be passing off a statement about my alleged lack of knowledge in this matter.

no it involved 20 & 18 people getting out. like it or not, its not specific when 2 teams off 11 players each all manage to somehow play poorly on the same day.

Irrelevant to the central argument - that day3 pitch in Mumbai was worse than day2 pitch.

and i said that its not a fact where exactly? i was merely talking about how so many of your posts are all about racism. well done in the brilliant reading there sherlock.

Then, you dumb shyte, can you explain what is so 'racist' about noting a fact ?

a) i didnt say that you did hold the entire white race accountable for it
b) you said "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."
id guess from that you are talking about whites in general rather than whites in a particular country.

If you are not saying that i am 'apparently' holding an entire race responsible, then you have no basis on claiming racism pertaining to that comment, because the fundamental nexus of racism is application over an entire race.
As per part (b) of your quote- i noted another fact- that most colored folks dont particularly trust white folks. I've travelled the world enough to know that. And again, that is an observation. Care to point out whats racist about an observation ?

really? so my insults have been anywhere as severe as saying that you have half a brain, or that you would stuff it up my butthole if you ever saw me or even STFU?

And who the feck are you to judge on who's insults are severe enough or who's arnt ?
You are a class-A hypocrite because you resorted to insluting and hten claimed that it was lame to insult.
Either that, or you are a class-A idiot to put your foot in your mouth in such a fashion.