Who is a better batsman Martyn or Chanderpaul?

[Sanz]

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

In 2000-2001 season Dravid Scored at an avg. of 104+, Tell me one season where he scored at an higher average. I expect you to pick and chose stats now.

just because the ICC makes someone a test side, it does not make them test class.

YES, it does. Besides Zimbabwe of 2000 had proved that they could compete. Just because they were losing doesn't mean they were not test class.

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

Shutup How many more lies you are going to make, you said end of 2000 till mid 2002. I have already quoted your post. Go and read it.

and i even went on to quote all the series during the time period i was referring to. and yet you quote that series

You even quoted Zimbabwe series despite the fact that believe they are not test class. You say end of 2000 till mid 2002. I dont care what you quote, you have no credibility left after your selective quoting.

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.

So ?? Lara had proved that he was already great, Martyn has not.

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.

So Lara bad patch was from 96-00, And what was his avg. in 1998-99 ?? Let me guess it was 53.5 with 3 100s and 4 50s in 9 tests, really so out of form.

 

[Sanz]

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.

You quoted it and I dont care how you calculated your avg.

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.

Hahahahahahahahaha, now that you are proved wrong, you are going to quote it test by test, inning by inning.
What next, Dravid was out of form for first 20 balls and then again for last 50 balls.

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.

No they are not, but to say that Flower, Streak, Carlisle, Cambell etc are not test class is utterly ridiculous.

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

That proves that they beat India without those two.

martyn's average is currently over 50. if that isnt 'respectable' then i wonder what is.

Dude Martyn's avg. fell to 45.8 (from 57.2) after his last century before hitting the lean patch. And I dont think 45.8 can be considered great.

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

Martyn wasn't averaging in 50s when he was going century less, Lara was for the most part. See the difference.

you claim that he isnt any good because he didnt score a century for 2 years.

Where have I said that ?? I say that he isn't in the same class as Kallis, Lara, SRT SRW etc. He is not yet great, just good.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Where have I said that ?? I say that he isn't in the same class as Kallis, Lara, SRT SRW etc. He is not yet great, just good.

Just a query, Sanz...

Is ANYONE saying that he in the same class as those players?

 

[Sanz]

Just a query, Sanz...

Is ANYONE saying that he in the same class as those players?

Then why bring them into this discussion. This discussion was about Chanders and Martyn not about Lara, SRT.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

Actually, in his last 11 tests, Sachin averages above 63, and this is excluding matches against Bangladesh. He had two BIG not out innings and it obviously inflates his averages, but he was still reasonably consistent against Pakistan recently and was the victim of a couple of dubious umpiring decisions as well.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Then why bring them into this discussion. This discussion was about Chanders and Martyn not about Lara, SRT.

They were brought into the discussion as points of reference when discussing specific things about chanderpaul and Martyn. Eg: I said, on form, Martyn was in the top 5 batsmen in the world, along with Dravid, Ponting, Kallis and Lara, and then explained why I thought he was performing better recently than SRT. TEC countered your argument about Martyn having a slump by pointing out that batsmen who are widely recongised as brilliant also have slumps, such as Dravid and Lara. And I brought Waugh in, when citing an example in the discussion about Tendulkar of another player who was unquestionably a great, but had a period at the end of his career where he was not as good as he once was.

Nobody at any time said that Martyn was a better batsman, or on par overall, than Sachin, Lara, Waugh or Dravid.

 

[marc71178]

Actually, in his last 11 tests, Sachin averages above 63, and this is excluding matches against Bangladesh.

Martyn's last 11 are 1024 runs @ 73.14.

He's only been able to play 16 innings in that time (one of which is a 6 not out) but has 5 tons and 4 fifties in those innings.

 

[roseboy64]

I dont know what you had a problem with in regards to the word arrangement. Lets not go into the irrelevent then.

Ok. Let's not.

Just because Chanderpaul has had a longer career doesnt make him better IMO

True, but he's had a chance to face more international standard bowlers and as such having survived that and still having a healthy average he has thus proved that he is a very potent batsman. Martyn has not had such a long career and as such bowlers who may be facing him the second time around would probably have figured out a way to get him out now if they're any good. Having been around as long as Chanderpaul as when the bowlers were all aorund of a higher standard gives him the chance to improve and so stake his claim.

I would say players usually play their natural game in most circumstances. Would Martyn score slower if he was in West Indies or Chanderpaul score faster if he was in Australia? Really dont think so.

Chanders is a slower batsman as is evident from the stats and thats just the way he plays.

I've seen Chanderpaul play some quick innings which tells you tha he does have the capacity to do it. Those occurences were at the top of the order when he didn't have to worry about batting with the tail and sheperding knowing that a certain player was following him so he could just be aggressive. You can see he enjoys it which tells that he has an aggressive mindset. Also, notable is that the Aussie tail is a bit better at sticking around and as such Gilchrist wouldn't have to worry as much as Chanderpaul when batting with them.

 

[honestbharani]

Martyn's last 11 are 1024 runs @ 73.14.

He's only been able to play 16 innings in that time (one of which is a 6 not out) but has 5 tons and 4 fifties in those innings.

I agree that Martyn has been better over the last couple of years or so, but I was just suggesting that Sachin was not 'as' out of it as some people seem to think he is.

 

[Sanz]

Martyn's last 11 are 1024 runs @ 73.14.

He's only been able to play 16 innings in that time (one of which is a 6 not out) but has 5 tons and 4 fifties in those innings.

Last 15 tests :-

Martyn - 58.81
SRT - 65.89 ( + 9 wickets )

 

[Sanz]

I said, on form, Martyn was in the top 5 batsmen in the world, along with Dravid, Ponting, Kallis and Lara, and then explained why I thought he was performing better recently than SRT.

Martyn isn't top 5 batsman. Does he average better than Sehwag ?

TEC countered your argument about Martyn having a slump by pointing out that batsmen who are widely recongised as brilliant also have slumps, such as Dravid and Lara.

TEC's stats about Dravid are all lies and figment of his imagination. Lara yes he was out of form, yet he was either maintaining his centuries or was able to maintain his average.

 

[vic_orthdox]

...

 

[Jono]

LOL Vic.

 

[aussie]

Martyn isn't top 5 batsman. Does he average better than Sehwag ?

show me some stats....

 

[social]

Last 15 tests :-

Martyn - 58.81
SRT - 65.89 ( + 9 wickets )

Im a big fan of Sachins but not delusional.

Whilst his stats are good, they are misleading.

The fact is that he hasnt been a factor performance-wise in any series for more than 2.5 years.

Take 2 of the most important series of recent times as examples.

1. vs Pakistan in 2004/2005 - 255 runs @ 51.00

Good result you say. Not really.

India was playing against a below strength opponent on flat wickets.

Sachin threw away many promising starts and failed when truly needed.

2. vs Aus in 2003/2004 - 383 runs @ 76.60

Great result you say. Again, not so.

240 odd runs came in one innings on the flattest wicket imaginable against a team with only 2 fit bowlers.

Sachin has maintained his average by punctuating strings of failures with large scores.

At present, he is well behind Martyn and has only been selected in the World X1 vs Aus because of his marquee value.

 

[tooextracool]

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

gotta love the genius who brings it up himself, and accuses me of bringing it up.

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.

yes a pitch deteriorates, and as ive already said that between from days 1 and 2, the deterioration is minor and actually makes the pitch better to bat on because any moisture thats in the pitch goes and thus theres less bounce and less seam movement.
day 3 the pitch deteriorates marginally and it still remains good for batting. few small cracks develop without troubling the batsmen.
day 4 the cracks & footholes become more pronounced, few balls keep low pitch takes turn etc and itgets visibly worse for the batsmen.
day 5 and theres even more uneven bounce, more turn, footholes become even more pronounced and batting becomes quite difficult.

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.

so by calling me an idiot, you obviously are claiming that you happen to be extremely intelligent and i can thereby assume that you happen to be praising yourself?
go on, dont stop yourself from being a joker.

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

then you obviously cant read. the fact that a similar number of wickets were lost on both days suggests that the wicket didnt get too much worse between 2 and 3

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

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 ?..

take a bow, for someone who says that i cant read english, you really have showed remarkable command over the english language.
please show me where i have called you a 'racist', or that you were in any way being racist?
the entire point of it all, is that you spend an incredible amount of time on this forum talking about racism and definetly on this forum you've spent about half your life talking about how several white people have been racist and biased against colored people. and the fact that you actually go on other websites to talk about racism confirms that

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.

who am i? i am the person who has to put up with all your sh*t.
as far as im concerned, i havent been anywhere near as insulting as calling you a 'class A idiot' or a ' dumb shyte'.
and i certainly dont intend on lowering myself to your level. so as of now seeing as you cant carry out an argument in a civilized manner, i refuse to respond to anymore of your rubbish. you go ahead though, if you havent managed to make enough of a mockery of yourself then theres still plenty of room for you to do it some more.

 

[tooextracool]

In 2000-2001 season Dravid Scored at an avg. of 104+, Tell me one season where he scored at an higher average. I expect you to pick and chose stats now. .

and for the millionth time, zimbabwe dont count.

YES, it does. Besides Zimbabwe of 2000 had proved that they could compete. Just because they were losing doesn't mean they were not test class..

fact is that they rarely competed, and more often than not andy flower made the difference to the 'competed' and 'not competed'.

Shutup How many more lies you are going to make, you said end of 2000 till mid 2002. I have already quoted your post. Go and read it. .

seriously have you heard of approximations? by saying mid 2002, its quite clear that i wasnt referring to the precise date of june 1st 2002.
and really if you couldnt figure out what i was referring from this:
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?

or this:

"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."

or even this:

"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."

then how in the blue hell am i supposed to help you?

You even quoted Zimbabwe series despite the fact that believe they are not test class..

i quoted it because it happened, and i didnt use it to get the overall average.

So ?? Lara had proved that he was already great, Martyn has not...

and i've never claimed that he was, just that on CURRENT form hes in the same class as them. you seem to dismiss the fact that he could ever become an all time great simply because he went through a 2 year phase without scoring a century, even though certain greats actually have done pretty much the same.

So Lara bad patch was from 96-00, And what was his avg. in 1998-99 ?? Let me guess it was 53.5 with 3 100s and 4 50s in 9 tests, really so out of form.

oh so he had 1 good year, whats your point? in fact it was actually 1 series against australia, other than that it was another non spectacular year.
in the next year his average fell down to 29, suggesting that it was merely a flash of brilliance, and he was still having a relatively ordinary time.

 

[tooextracool]

You quoted it and I dont care how you calculated your avg..

a classic case of losing an argument, when you say " i dont care about so and so".
fact is that it bore no relevance.

Hahahahahahahahaha, now that you are proved wrong, you are going to quote it test by test, inning by inning.
What next, Dravid was out of form for first 20 balls and then again for last 50 balls. ..

so hes never had a season averaging over 56?
whatever way you look at it, you have been proved wrong.

No they are not, but to say that Flower, Streak, Carlisle, Cambell etc are not test class is utterly ridiculous.

a.flower was, streak was, carlisle averaging 25 odd was not, cambell averaging 27 odd was not either. 2 test class players dont make a side test class.

That proves that they beat India without those two.

err they beat india with those 2 too. they also managed to beat pakistan with those 2. they nearly beat WI in WI(with ambrose and walsh) once, they might have beaten england in england were it not for the rain. and they were certainly competing a lot more with them than without them.

Dude Martyn's avg. fell to 45.8 (from 57.2) after his last century before hitting the lean patch. And I dont think 45.8 can be considered great.

a) martyn is not GREAT(yet)
b)lara's average fell to 47, so i guess hes not great either.

Martyn wasn't averaging in 50s when he was going century less, Lara was for the most part. See the difference.

yes because lara is better than martyn!!
but just because he wasnt averaging in the 50s during his lean patch, it doesnt mean that he cant be great.

Where have I said that ?? I say that he isn't in the same class as Kallis, Lara, SRT SRW etc. He is not yet great, just good.

i havent claimed that hes great either, just that on current form he deserves to be ranked up there as the best in the world, something which you denied earlier. theres no doubt that if he maintains the form hes in now, he will be great.
and i certainly cant see any reason why kallis is great already.

 

[tooextracool]

TEC's stats about Dravid are all lies and figment of his imagination. Lara yes he was out of form, yet he was either maintaining his centuries or was able to maintain his average.

which explains clearly why his average fell from 60 to 47, and why he didnt score a century for abt 27 innings.
ahh me and my lies.

 

[Sanz]

so hes never had a season averaging over 56?
whatever way you look at it, you have been proved wrong.
.

That's a LIE. Dravid Averaged 104+ in 2000-2001 season. Once again you keep posting your lies to prove your point.

And on Lara, another lie, his avg never went below 49 during those 27 innings, when he wasn't scoring centuries in those 27 innings, he still maintained his avg around 50 (49+). unlike Martyn whose avg. dropped to 45 from 57.
I guess I am done with this thread, you can continue to post your lies in this thread.