Who is a better batsman Martyn or Chanderpaul?

[marc71178]

Is that why you made yours?

What that Martyn is comfortably a better player than SRT?

Is there any doubt about it?

 

[marc71178]

pardon me if i missed any intended sarcasm..

So you'd say that SRT is a better player than Martyn then at the moment?

 

[viktor]

^^no. the post was about outrageous comments. saying martyn, even at the moment is "comfortably " ahead of SRT is, in my view an outrageous comment.
at this point in time, martyn is slightly ahead of SRT, but that is primarily because he had such a fabulous 2004. IIRC, martyn was having a tough time, just one year before, i.e. 2003, when he hadn't reached three figures for a pretty long time.

 

[roseboy64]

Chanderpaul has done it for longer than Martyn. As Liam showed Chanderpaul is better on current form as well. Chanderpaul has had at best one bad season over the last few years. Martyn has just come on in recent times. How then do you justify saying that Martyn is better than Chanderpaul? So what if he scored heavily against India. What did he do before that? Chanderpaul has been at it for a whle and has been solid. In a few years if Martyn still has this high an average and continues to score profusely then I'll agree that he's a better batsman but not now when he's only had a few good seasons.

 

[tooextracool]

Nonsense. Remind me the no. of Seasons Martyn went on without passin 3 figure mark ??.

err he went for about a year. rahul dravid nearly went for 2, from mid 2000 to early 2002.

You may give his century a lot of value, I dont because he was batting against a team which had effectively only ONE Bowler, infact in that series it was Lehman whose batting counted more than Martyn's. In Mumbai test the difference between the Class of Tendulkar and Martyn was evident.

thats despite the fact that they both scored 55?

And I do know the Quality of Aussie batsmen and love to watch Martyn, but dont tell me that Martyn is in the same class as SRT, BLC, RD etc. Not in this life time.

maybe not yet, but im fairly sure that by the end he will probably be very very close to it.

 

[aussie]

Chanderpaul has done it for longer than Martyn. As Liam showed Chanderpaul is better on current form as well. Chanderpaul has had at best one bad season over the last few years. Martyn has just come on in recent times. How then do you justify saying that Martyn is better than Chanderpaul? So what if he scored heavily against India. What did he do before that? Chanderpaul has been at it for a whle and has been solid. In a few years if Martyn still has this high an average and continues to score profusely then I'll agree that he's a better batsman but not now when he's only had a few good seasons.

Martyn also only real bad season was in 2003, Martyn really cemented himself in the Australian middle order during the last ashes series in England and was very consistent in his run scoring but no real big hundreds, similar was the case with Chanderpaul he also was very consistent making a lot of 50's then getting out.

We all agree that 2004 is where Martyn has come of age, even though Chanderpaul averages higher than Martyn currently which is shocking to me, the situations under which martyn scored his runs last year was more difficult than Chanderpaul without doubt.

 

[aussie]

at this point in time, martyn is slightly ahead of SRT, but that is primarily because he had such a fabulous 2004.

Exactly thats the reason why he is better than Tendulkar currently, his CURRENT FORM

 

[marc71178]

^^no. the post was about outrageous comments. saying martyn, even at the moment is "comfortably " ahead of SRT is, in my view an outrageous comment.
at this point in time, martyn is slightly ahead of SRT, but that is primarily because he had such a fabulous 2004. IIRC, martyn was having a tough time, just one year before, i.e. 2003, when he hadn't reached three figures for a pretty long time.

Martyn would be challenging for a place in a World XI IMO.

SRT would be around the 4th choice team.

 

[C_C]

4th choice ?
Hardly....
Purely on form, there arnt 18-20 batsmen ahead of Sachin.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

4th choice ?
Hardly....
Purely on form, there arnt 18-20 batsmen ahead of Sachin.

Maybe not, but it's not far off - I think he'd make about the 3rd XI, with Ponting/Dravid/Lara/Flintoff and Kallis/Martyn/Inzamam/Chanderpaul probably making up the 3-6 slots in the first two world XIs currently. After that, Tendulkar would find a place.

 

[C_C]

Like i said before, Until Kallis or Inzamam does anything substantial against quality attacks, i wont rate them in the same level as Dravid, let alone Tendy-Lara.
And Flintoff isnt a better batsman than Tendy- never was, never is and probably never will be.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Like i said before, Until Kallis or Inzamam does anything substantial against quality attacks, i wont rate them in the same level as Dravid, let alone Tendy-Lara.
And Flintoff isnt a better batsman than Tendy- never was, never is and probably never will be.

Flintoff would bat at 6 in a world XI as an all-rounder though, hence Tendy would miss the team...

Anyway, I'm not suggesting Kallis or Inzamam are better than Tendulkar, but they are certainly better than him right now.

 

[Mister Wright]

Tendulkar had the 2nd best batting average for tests in 2004

In 2005 he is 22nd on the list.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Tendulkar had the 2nd best batting average for tests in 2004

In 2005 he is 22nd on the list.

Doesn't mean a lot, as far as I can see. His 2004 average was inflated by three massive scores, aside from that he was largely a failure. People can say he deserves the average because of those scores, and that's fair enough, but I think the fact that he failed so often indicates he isn't currently among the top few batsmen in world cricket.

 

[C_C]

and how much of lara's stats are inflated by massive scores ?
espeially in 2004 or in 1999 ?

 

[Mister Wright]

Doesn't mean a lot, as far as I can see. His 2004 average was inflated by three massive scores, aside from that he was largely a failure. People can say he deserves the average because of those scores, and that's fair enough, but I think the fact that he failed so often indicates he isn't currently among the top few batsmen in world cricket.

The same could be said for any batsman in international cricket. They will go through periods like that. Selecting a world XI will depend on criteria - if it were stats only, easily done. However, there are other factors that need to be considered IMO.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

and how much of lara's stats are inflated by massive scores ?
espeially in 2004 or in 1999 ?

In 2004, yes. Not sure about 1999 though. Anyway, the point is that Tendulkar played three good innings in all of 2004, one of which was against Bangladesh. He's still clearly a very good batsman, but as things stand there is no justification beyond reputation for picking him in a world XI ahead of Ponting, Dravid, Lara, Kallis, Martyn and probably not Inzamam either. He's simply one of the better batsman in the world now, rather than really standing out as one of THE best.

The same would have been true of, say, Steve Waugh in the 2002-2003 period. He was still a very high quality batsman, but he was not the awesome force he had been in the 90s, and would not have deserved selection in a world XI.

 

[Sanz]

err he went for about a year. rahul dravid nearly went for 2, from mid 2000 to early 2002.

This is what I call BLATANT LIE. But knowing you, I am not surprised. Your bias against Indians has always been so apparent. Anyways Dravid Centuries between Mid 2000 and and early 2002 :- Read and WEAP.

1. 200* on 20th Nov 2000
2. 162 on 26th Nov 2000
3. 180 on 14th Mar 2001
4. 144* on 14th Apr 2001

And How many century is that ?? As for Martyn, why dont you look once again and find out the no. of months Martyn went without, I can gaurantee you that it is at least 24 months.

thats despite the fact that they both scored 55?

Typical you, But I dont expect anything better from you. Sachin scored 55 on the 3rd day when the pitch was at it worst, and Martyn scored a bif FAT ZERO.

Martyn is a very good batsman, but I am not going to put him in the same class as BLC, SRT etc just because he has had one great year. You can put him next to bradman, but that's you. and your weird theories.

 

[Sanz]

So you'd say that SRT is a better player than Martyn then at the moment?

Yes, ANY DAY, even with injury, SRT avg is better than Martyn in last 5 tests.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Your bias against Indians has always been so apparent.

You do realise that Dravid is TEC's favourite player, don't you? You really need to get off your "everyone is biased but me" high horse. I've never seen anybody on this forum stack as much lavish praise on Dravid as TEC has, and to suggest he dislikes him because of some sort of bias is utterly ridiculous.

Martyn is a very good batsman, but I am not going to put him in the same class as BLC, SRT etc just because he has had one great year. You can put him next to bradman, but that's you. and your weird theories.

How many times do people have to say that they are talking about form and not career stats? Tendulkar over the last couple of years has been an average to good batsman, and nothing more. Before that, he was brilliant, and he is obviously an all-time great. Steve Waugh was an all-time great, and between around 95 and 2000 or so (or even 89 to 2000) he excelled and was one of three batsmen who stood head-and-shoulders above everyone else in the 90s (along with Lara and Tendulkar), but in the last couple of years of his career was an average to good batsman, and neither of them were among the top 4 or 5 batsmen in the world in their slumps, regardless of how good they were beforehand.