West Indies

[marc71178]

Asking Akmal to open isn't unbalancing the side, he is capable of doing a fairly decent job.

Playing a specialist batsman at 7 is though.

 

[aussie]

He'd definitely play ahead of Symonds/Watson for Aus.

that debatable to an extent, in ODI's he wont play ahead of Symonds & overall wouldn't start in the ODI team. He would probably play ahead of Watson based on his performances on the international stage, but to me because he plays for the struggling windies he got his chance & showed his talent while Watson is fighting his away to get into the Australian team & the chances he has played he has played in alien roles. If their FC records are anything to go by, if Bravo was an aussie Watson would be above him but both would be on the fringes of the national side.

 

[Beleg]

Playing a specialist batsman at 7 is though.

Has Gilchrist never batted at seven? How many times has that saved Australia's backside?

 

[Sanz]

Has Gilchrist never batted at seven? How many times has that saved Australia's backside?

But how many times has Gilly opened up for Australia in a test match ?

 

[Beleg]

But how many times has Gilly opened up for Australia in a test match ?

I haven't checked. It isn't relevent to the point Marc was raising though. His objection, as I see it, is that the presence of a pure batsman at seven unbalances the side.

I am not saying Akmal is as good a batsman as Gilchrist, however, he is better then the nincompoops Pakistan have been fielding off-late. Pakistan can afford to play him at two if the middle-order consists of Sarwan, Inzamam, Younis, Yousuf and Chanderpaul.

 

[Jono]

Chanders has gone from a batsman argued to be better than Damien Martyn (if anyone remembers that thread comparing the batsman, had some good debate), to a batsman not good enough to make England's middle order?

Fairly interesting. Cook has done very well, and so has Collingwood and Bell obviously, but I can't honestly think that you'd select one of those three ahead of Chanderpaul. Surely Chanders is the better batsmen then those two at this point of their careers?

 

[Jono]

that debatable to an extent, in ODI's he wont play ahead of Symonds & overall wouldn't start in the ODI team. He would probably play ahead of Watson based on his performances on the international stage, but to me because he plays for the struggling windies he got his chance & showed his talent while Watson is fighting his away to get into the Australian team & the chances he has played he has played in alien roles. If their FC records are anything to go by, if Bravo was an aussie Watson would be above him but both would be on the fringes of the national side.

Of course he wouldn't play ahead of Symonds in ODIs.

In tests however, if Symonds can get a run of tests, Bravo most certainly would. And Bravo's bowling is a streets ahead of Watson. Streets.

 

[Swervy]

Pretty evident to you, maybe - Sarwan is more talented. I agree that Sarwan's stats don't stand up to scrunity if you were comparing him to, say, Younis or Chanderpaul. However, you cannot realistically compare a sample size of 32 innings to more then 100 without major extrapolations - a sample size of 32, which I might add, is good but not spectecular by any means.

Exactly how much have you seen KP play may I ask?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Chanderpaul's last 50 Tests:

3772 runs @ 50.29
12 hundreds
17 fifties

And that's including a run of 14 Test innings over the course of a year where he went without a half century.

 

[Goughy]

Chanderpaul's last 50 Tests:

3772 runs @ 50.29
12 hundreds
17 fifties

And that's including a run of 14 Test innings over the course of a year where he went without a half century.

What does that prove? Are you saying he would make any team in the world? Apart from listing numbers you dont seem to be making any point.

Also to reply to your numbers

Chanderpaul's last 20 Tests:
1463 runs 44.33 av 3 tons 7 50s
Not bad and in line with his career figures. But also nothing too special to make him out to be that great.

Also he averages over 70 in drawn games. I always have issues with players that artificially inflate their averages in draws.

 

[Sanz]

Also he averages over 70 in drawn games. I always have issues with players that artificially inflate their averages in draws.

It is not a very fair assumption. It is also possible that majority of those games were drawn because of Chanders' Innings, No ?

 

[Goughy]

It is not a very fair assumption. It is also possible that majority of those games were drawn because of Chanders' Innings, No ?

I think you are trying to be a bit pedantic. When a player averages far more in drawn games than in games won or lost it devalues their career average as a lot of the time it is cheap runs.

Drawn games are usually on batter friendly wickets. The only true way to get a reflection of a batsmans worth is to compare games where there are comparable situations.

No matter where in the world, games where one team gets 20 wickets are comparable. That leaves win and losses.

Outside draws Chanderpaul averages 38.64. Again, not bad but certainly not great.

 

[Beleg]

Exactly how much have you seen KP play may I ask?

Six tests and highlights.

 

[Sanz]

Outside draws Chanderpaul averages 38.64. Again, not bad but certainly not great.

Chanders averages 55 in matches won and that is good enough for me. I must commend you though for finding amazingly selectively reading arguments to suit your opinion.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

What does that prove? Are you saying he would make any team in the world? Apart from listing numbers you dont seem to be making any point.

Also to reply to your numbers

Chanderpaul's last 20 Tests:
1463 runs 44.33 av 3 tons 7 50s
Not bad and in line with his career figures. But also nothing too special to make him out to be that great.

Also he averages over 70 in drawn games. I always have issues with players that artificially inflate their averages in draws.

Anyone who has actually followed Chanderpaul's career would know that he's not one who only cashes in on flat pitches. There's a much better argument for Trescothick and Lara and Gayle in that sense.

Chanderpaul has been the only truly reliable batsman for the West Indies over the past decade or so. He has scored runs in some extremely difficult situations and against high quality bowling. Many many times he has had little to no significant support, and he has scored big runs carrying injuries also. Chanderpaul is a class player. It baffles me that people can't recognize that still.

 

[Jono]

I'd have to agree with Liam. Chanders is clearly still very underrated if many believe Cook, Bell and Collingwood to already be superior players, and hence Chanderpaul is not good enough to deserve a place in the English batting line-up.

He's done so much for so long in his career, and this isn't a case of "well he's played more tests and is more experienced so he's better", but rather "he's accomplished so much, against quality opposition, and is hence better."

IIRC, it wasn't that long ago that Chanderpaul had a very large say in West Indies chasing down the largest ever 4th innings target.

 

[superkingdave]

i'd take Chanderpaul at no. 5

wouldn't have Sarwan in the test side at the moment

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

90+ scores for Chanders:

137* out of 298 - WI won
95 out of 303 - Pak won
118 out of 352 - WI won
140 out of 501 - Drawn
101 out of 394 - WI won
136 out of 629/9 dec. - Drawn
140 out of 497 - Drawn
100 out of 237 (3rd fastest 100 of alltime) - Aus won
104 out of 418/7 - WI won
109 of out 321 - SA won
128* of 416 and 97* of 267 - Eng won
203* of 543/5 dec. - Drawn
127 of 747 - Drawn
92 of 345 and 153* of 254 - WI won
97* of 581 - Drawn

Of course he's scored heaily on good pitches, but look at the other times when he scored in the clutch. The best batsmen cash in on the good times and still score consistently through the bad. Chanderpaul is one of the best.

 

[Goughy]

Anyone who has actually followed Chanderpaul's career would know that he's not one who only cashes in on flat pitches. There's a much better argument for Trescothick and Lara and Gayle in that sense.

Chanderpaul has been the only truly reliable batsman for the West Indies over the past decade or so. He has scored runs in some extremely difficult situations and against high quality bowling. Many many times he has had little to no significant support, and he has scored big runs carrying injuries also. Chanderpaul is a class player. It baffles me that people can't recognize that still.

Tresco does not really cash in on flat tracks and when the game isnt on the line. If you wanted an English example the best one is Vaughan.

My issue with this thread is about how overrated WI batting is. You write in your post that Chanderpaul has often had little significant support. Yet others are talking about how good the unit of Gayle, Lara, Sarwan, Chanderpaul and recently Bravo is.

It cant be both ways. I do not deny that Chanderpaul is a good player (I think I have mentioned that in every post) but my problem is that the bowling is getting a lot of criticism when the batting deserves equally as much.

Check my earlier post about how WI have by far the lowest team batting average of any Test standard team.

 

[stumpski]

Incidentally, Dwayne Bravo's having a surprisingly tough time of it in county cricket. 167 runs at 33 and one wicket for 283. Maybe should have turned out for Lashings instead.