Michael Hussey v Shivnarine Chanderpaul

[Ikki]

That's amazing. From the moment Hussey has debuted he averages about 56-57.

 

[Richard]

Hussey - match winner

Chanderpaul - match saver

No: Australia's bowling - match-winning; West Indies' bowling - not match-winning.

Simple as. Batsmen do not in themselves win matches and if your bowling attack is not good enough no batsman can ever win matches by himself.

Anyway, Chanderpaul > Hussey so far. Hussey's obviously a far better technician but it's not really all about that. It might conceivably be so later in their careers though.

 

[Evermind]

Mahela Jayawardene > both of them

I guess the West Indian and Sri Lankan teams are just like that.

Gayle, Chanderpaul, Sarwan + a whole bunch of muppets vs Jayawardene, Sanghakkara, Jayasuria + a whole bunch of muppets.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Hussey, for being someone I can actually bear to watch bat. Chanderpauls stance does my head in everytime.

 

[TT Boy]

Hussey - match winner

Chanderpaul - match saver

Not really...

 

[Xuhaib]

Mahela Jayawardene = both of them

Fixed.

 

[Uppercut]

Chanders has had to play against the Australian attack, it should be noted, and averages an impressive 48 against them. There aren't many batsmen in world cricket who have shown they can play the swinging ball as well has he did in the '07 tour to England, it'll be interesting to see how Hussey does there.

As for Chanders < Ponting/Tendulkar, well if they retired today that would obviously be true. But there's no player i'd consider more likely to score runs in a test match played tomorrow than Chanderpaul (and it's been that way for a long, long time now), so in that sense he's the best in the world.

 

[Precambrian]

Chanders has had to play against the Australian attack, it should be noted, and averages an impressive 48 against them. There aren't many batsmen in world cricket who have shown they can play the swinging ball as well has he did in the '07 tour to England, it'll be interesting to see how Hussey does there.

As for Chanders < Ponting/Tendulkar, well if they retired today that would obviously be true. But there's no player i'd consider more likely to score runs in a test match played tomorrow than Chanderpaul (and it's been that way for a long, long time now), so in that sense he's the best in the world.

Purely on current form, Chanders might be the best test batsman today. However, I wonder whether he;ll end up with a 50+ average when he retires.

 

[Uppercut]

Purely on current form, Chanders might be the best test batsman today. However, I wonder whether he;ll end up with a 50+ average when he retires.

I don't think he can be expected him to. Comparing his and Hussey's averages is unfair tstl. Chanderpaul was fast-tracked into a weak batting lineup and hence played tests before he was quite ready. The general feeling was that he was too small, too weak and didn't have the stamina to convert fifties into hundreds. In his past 60 tests he's averaged 57, as someone above pointed out.

Hussey on the other hand was a complete batsman by the time he played tests. He was given years of preparation in the world's most high-quality FC system before being introduced to an already rock-solid batting lineup. Career averages are rarely a good way to judge how good a player was.

 

[Precambrian]

I don't think he can be expected him to. Comparing his and Hussey's averages is unfair tstl. Chanderpaul was fast-tracked into a weak batting lineup and hence played tests before he was quite ready. The general feeling was that he was too small, too weak and didn't have the stamina to convert fifties into hundreds. In his past 60 tests he's averaged 57, as someone above pointed out.

Hussey on the other hand was a complete batsman by the time he played tests. He was given years of preparation in the world's most high-quality FC system before being introduced to an already rock-solid batting lineup. Career averages are rarely a good way to judge how good a player was.

I hate to be telling this. But I consider a good test batsman as the sum of all his innings rather than his peak form. Because real batsmanship is tested only over a long period of time, and the longer he prevails and performs, the better he is in my books.

 

[Uppercut]

I hate to be telling this. But I consider a good test batsman as the sum of all his innings rather than his peak form. Because real batsmanship is tested only over a long period of time, and the longer he prevails and performs, the better he is in my books.

Chanders has been performing for a longer period of time than Hussey. 60 tests to the Huss's 31.

 

[Precambrian]

Chanders has been performing for a longer period of time than Hussey. 60 tests to the Huss's 31.

Hardly Huss's fault he has not played 60 test matches. If he continues in the same vein he will end up with a near 60 avg after 60 tests.

Again am not advocating for Hussey being superior. It's just that I prefer him to Chanders.

 

[Prince EWS]

Hardly Huss's fault he has not played 60 test matches. If he continues in the same vein he will end up with a near 60 avg after 60 tests.

Contradicts what you said before though, really. I agree with you that a player's entire career performances and value should be considered rather than just his overall average, but Hussey's career as it stands isn't even as long as Chanderpaul's "peak" as such. You talked about the sum of all their innings and Chandepaul certain has more in the bank on that front ATM.

Hussey has been better throughout his career than Chanderpaul has during that time, but in reality his performances over that time are only marginally better and Chanderpaul has been doing it for much longer.

I voted for Hussey on the simple basis of "if I was picking a side today and had to choose between the two, I'd take Hussey" but if they both retired now, Chanderpaul would definitely go down as the better batsman for mine.

 

[The Masterplan]

Shiv

 

[Jigga988]

Shiv is definitely harder to dislodge but the selish way in which he bats is questionable, some could argue that the reason why his averege has sky rocketed in the past 60 odd tests is due to his unambitious nature regarding where he bats and how he plays with the tail, as not outs increase his average. The way Shiv recently batted with Nash was a joke. Nash is making his debut and needs time to settle, thus making all those dot balls acceptable, but Chanders has no excuse, he needed to keep the runs ticking to take pressure off of Nash. Chanders might be able to handle the pressure of not scoring runs in a while but it's hard for a debutant to do this.

Despite this, in terms of accumulating and just purely scoring runs their's no one better in the game currently. People are blessed with more talent than him but no one is as in tune with their game as Chanders is.

 

[Richard]

Shiv is definitely harder to dislodge but the selish way in which he bats is questionable, some could argue that the reason why his averege has sky rocketed in the past 60 odd tests is due to his unambitious nature regarding where he bats and how he plays with the tail, as not outs increase his average.

I've seen not-a-few examples of Chanderpaul getting out hitting-out when 2 or 3 wickets remain so I'd not agree with this even if I didn't feel that there's really no point hitting-out randomly when you're batting with the tail.

As a top-order batsman, your best bet when batting with the tail is to look to hit sensibly. Not just swing at every ball the way some batsmen do. Playing this way will result in you being not-out quite often, and will also give the best chance of putting-on some small sort of stand with a tailender.

Almost all the best batsman-tailender partnerships have involved the batsman being judicious about his strokeplay and almost never removing the "treat the ball on its merits" idea from use.

 

[NUFAN]

Contradicts what you said before though, really. I agree with you that a player's entire career performances and value should be considered rather than just his overall average, but Hussey's career as it stands isn't even as long as Chanderpaul's "peak" as such. You talked about the sum of all their innings and Chandepaul certain has more in the bank on that front ATM.

In the bank or in the ATM?

Best player = Hussey
Most important to their country = Chanderpaul

 

[Jigga988]

I've seen not-a-few examples of Chanderpaul getting out hitting-out when 2 or 3 wickets remain so I'd not agree with this even if I didn't feel that there's really no point hitting-out randomly when you're batting with the tail.

As a top-order batsman, your best bet when batting with the tail is to look to hit sensibly. Not just swing at every ball the way some batsmen do. Playing this way will result in you being not-out quite often, and will also give the best chance of putting-on some small sort of stand with a tailender.

Almost all the best batsman-tailender partnerships have involved the batsman being judicious about his strokeplay and almost never removing the "treat the ball on its merits" idea from use.

If you have seen a few examples of Chanders getting out hitting out with tail-enders then i have seen about a million examples of Chanders being selfish. I am not just referring to the fact that he doesnt play strokes. There also is the running between the wickets thing, he will take a run first ball of the over and leave the tail-ender to take 5 balls from the bowler, how is that not being selfish???

There is also the example i gave earlier of him batting with Nash, - even though he is not a tail ender.

 

[Uppercut]

If you have seen a few examples of Chanders getting out hitting out with tail-enders then i have seen about a million examples of Chanders being selfish. I am not just referring to the fact that he doesnt play strokes. There also is the running between the wickets thing, he will take a run first ball of the over and leave the tail-ender to take 5 balls from the bowler, how is that not being selfish???

There is also the example i gave earlier of him batting with Nash, - even though he is not a tail ender.

How did you not notice him getting out trying to sweep a ball from outside off for a single to keep Baker off strike? Making an effort to protect Nash from the strike would have been an insult and a humiliating thing to do to the team's number 6. There's been times when i've thought Chanders didn't do enough to accelarate with the tail (at Old Trafford '07, for example) but your example's a complete fallacy.

 

[Jigga988]

How did you not notice him getting out trying to sweep a ball from outside off for a single to keep Baker off strike? Making an effort to protect Nash from the strike would have been an insult and a humiliating thing to do to the team's number 6. There's been times when i've thought Chanders didn't do enough to accelarate with the tail (at Old Trafford '07, for example) but your example's a complete fallacy.

Firstly, yes he got out trying to play a big stroke, but this is only because he has been highly criticised for doing the exact opposite and he obviously took note of it and tried to do something different.

Secondly, i wasnt suggesting that he guard Nash away from the strike, i was merely suggesting that the Windies at that time had scored about 2 or 3 from forty balls. I thought Chanders could've made more of an effort to keep the scoreboard ticking, i.e. with singles. Not guard Nash away from the strike. When no one was scoring the pressure was on the debutant not Chanders which caused him to play a rash stroke. With Chanders being the senor batsman he should have took the pressure off him, not from trying to do anything out of the ordinary just scoring singles and twos to keep the scoreboard moving.

BTW it is seeming as if i hate chanders or dont rate him, on the contrary i think he's the best test batsman in the world right now i just think he could be slightly less selfish and slightly less consious of his average.