Chanderpaul, is he great ?

[sammy2]

Average above 50 for one? Improve his batting average away matches to 45? Take some risks on own and not benefit from the not outs due to poor WI batting at the other end?

His average is already above 50, he bats longer with the tail than any other player, which means more runs for the team. He doesn't need to give his wicket away to prove he is great.
Its best you stay out of the thread if you don't have anything worth reading to post. lol @ stop benifiting from not outs.

 

[Ikki]

Average above 50 for one? Improve his batting average away matches to 45? Take some risks on own and not benefit from the not outs due to poor WI batting at the other end?

Seriously, you must be kidding. That post is down-right insulting.

 

[Slifer]

Im very much looking forward to Chanderpauls next series in Australia, perform well there, keep his average above 50, reduce his conversion rate to atleast 1 in 5 and average 45 or more away and i would say he is an all time great. for now he is a great of his era below the very top rung even among WI batsmen:

Top
Lara, IVAR, Sobers, Headley
Weekes, Walcott
Worrell, Lloyd, Chanderpaul, Kanhai, Hunte, Greenidge etc

 

[Ikki]

Lara's away average is 47.80. What's a few points between friends?

 

[Precambrian]

His average is already above 50, he bats longer with the tail than any other player, which means more runs for the team. He doesn't need to give his wicket away to prove he is great.
Its best you stay out of the thread if you don't have anything worth reading to post. lol @ stop benifiting from not outs.

Righto. I was wrong he indeed has an avg above 50, exactly 50.01. So all time great?? Wow!!!

Secondly, his average sucks big time to even qualify as a modern great, leave alone all time great.

Thirdly, him batting with the tailenders is more a consequence of the direness of Windies batting than his special skill. Am not a fan of "covering" tailenders, and so I don;t mind his style of play, but those who are advocating that he is an all time great are talking through their arses.

 

[sammy2]

Righto. I was wrong he indeed has an avg above 50, exactly 50.01. So all time great?? Wow!!!

Secondly, his average sucks big time to even qualify as a modern great, leave alone all time great.

Thirdly, him batting with the tailenders is more a consequence of the direness of Windies batting than his special skill. Am not a fan of "covering" tailenders, and so I don;t mind his style of play, but those who are advocating that he is an all time great are talking through their arses.

You don't know anything about chanderpaul.

Okay.

 

[Precambrian]

You don't know anything about chanderpaul.

Okay.

I know as much as to understand he is invaluable to the Windies team. But he'd struggle to make to an XI of World beaters.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Chanderpaul isn't great.

Sachin Tendulkar, Brian Lara, Ricky Ponting, Steve Waugh, Rahul Dravid, Jacques Kallis, Matthew Hayden, Kevin Pietersen, Kumar Sangakkara, Inzamam-ul-Haq, Mahela Jayawardene, Mohammad Yousuf, Graeme Smith and Michael Hussey are all better batsman.

And that's just modern players. That's a fairly long list.

 

[Precambrian]

Chanderpaul isn't great.

Sachin Tendulkar, Brian Lara, Ricky Ponting, Steve Waugh, Rahul Dravid, Jacques Kallis, Matthew Hayden, Kevin Pietersen, Kumar Sangakkara, Inzamam-ul-Haq, Mahela Jayawardene, Mohammad Yousuf, Graeme Smith and Michael Hussey are all better batsman.

And that's just modern players. That's a fairly long list.

Lol at inclusion of Smith, Pietersen, Hussey (!), Jayawardene in that list. Chanders is better than those.

 

[roseboy64]

If you're putting Hussey, Jayawardene and Yousuf in there ahead of him....

 

[Precambrian]

If you're putting Hussey, Jayawardene and Yousuf in there ahead of him....

the avatar.

 

[sammy2]

Chanderpaul isn't great.

Sachin Tendulkar, Brian Lara, Ricky Ponting, Steve Waugh, Rahul Dravid, Jacques Kallis, Matthew Hayden, Kevin Pietersen, Kumar Sangakkara, Inzamam-ul-Haq, Mahela Jayawardene, Mohammad Yousuf, Graeme Smith and Michael Hussey are all better batsman.

And that's just modern players. That's a fairly long list.

what makes them better ?

None of them were capable of doing what chanderpaul did and continue to do today.

How many of those players can say they averaged over 100 in two consecutive years ?

Chanderpaul is way more solid than all those players. how can you place a player who has proven how difficult it is to get him out over and over again below those players ?

You are only looking at style - style and getting out.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Pietersen is better then Chanderpaul. Plays in more difficult conditions, in an identically weak team, with a greater average, scores more 100s and doesn't rely on not outs to boost his average.

 

[Precambrian]

**Battle of the mumbers**

 

[sammy2]

Pietersen is better then Chanderpaul. Plays in more difficult conditions, in an identically weak team, with a greater average, scores more 100s and doesn't rely on not outs to boost his average.

Difficult conditions ? how about scorcing hundreds in difficult settings or games ?

Pietersen is new, and his flame may dry up very soon - hence why he keeps sliding down the list of top batsmen in the rankings.

If you would prefer having pietersen in your team, then sure, he will slog at 97 then watch your team get bowled out for 51 in 30 overs.

Chanderpaul doesn't care about scoring hundreds, he plays to keep WI cricket alive.

Pietersen doesn't seem to give a damn about English cricket, just buffing his records while his team continue to show no sign of improvement. Pietersen will never be able to build his teamates confidence, he normally drags it down with stupid batting.

I can't argue with a batmans who keeps his wicket, and prove difficult to get out. If you dare to, then keep making yourself look strange.

How can you speak against not outs ? Isn't that the point ? to not get out.

Learn the game of cricket.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

what makes them better ?

None of them were capable of doing what chanderpaul did and continue to do today.

How many of those players can say they averaged over 100 in two consecutive years ?

Chanderpaul is way more solid than all those players. how can you place a player who has proven how difficult it is to get him out over and over again below those players ?

You are only looking at style - style and getting out.

More solid? So you think that Chanderpaul is a greater West Indies then Brian Lara?

 

[sammy2]

More solid? So you think that Chanderpaul is a greater West Indies then Brian Lara?

He is way more solid and consistent than lara, his comparison with lara might be stronger if WI build up with him still in the team, and he keeps his current form. Actually, I don't think chanderpaul is using good form to play good. He bats to the best of his ability everytime he goes out there - always expect the best of himself.

 

[Precambrian]

Chanderpaul doesn't care about scoring hundreds, he plays to keep WI cricket alive.

By subjecting it to cryonics?

I can't argue with a batmans who keeps his wicket, and prove difficult to get out. If you dare to, then keep making yourself look strange.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Difficult conditions ? how about scorcing hundreds in difficult settings or games ?

Pietersen always does it. With the berdun of the heated media always on his back. Pietersen's done it his entire career, unlike Chanderpaul who has only started doing it in the past 2 years.

Pietersen is new, and his flame may dry up very soon - hence why he keeps sliding down the list of top batsmen in the rankings.

It's funny as how Pietersen has always maintained his average of 50, unlike Chanderpaul who has averaged in the low 40's until just recently.

Pietersen doesn't seem to give a damn about English cricket, just buffing his records while his team continue to show no sign of improvement. Pietersen will never be able to build his teamates confidence, he normally drags it down with stupid batting.

Chanderpaul could never do what Pietersen did to Warne, McGrath, Murali and Pollock.

How can you speak against not outs ? Isn't that the point ? to not get out.

Top order batsman don't get allot of not outs. Obviously batting low down the order, in a weak team is going to improve your average with the amount of not outs you get.

 

[sammy2]

Pietersen always does it. With the berdun of the heated media always on his back. Pietersen's done it his entire career, unlike Chanderpaul who has only started doing it in the past 2 years.


It's funny as how Pietersen has always maintained his average of 50, unlike Chanderpaul who has averaged in the low 40's until just recently.


Chanderpaul could never do what Pietersen did to Warne, McGrath, Murali and Pollock.


Top order batsman don't get allot of not outs. Obviously batting low down the order, in a weak team is going to improve your average with the amount of not outs you get.

you clearly did not read the article.

Chanderpaul has one of the fastest hundreds in test cricket - look what he did to pollock in the champions trophy ?

Chanderpaul century against Aus with an injury to win with a record setting fourth innings total of 400 plus ...He made that against warne and mcgrath.

Murali was in the WI recently and couldn't get a wicket.

Chanderpaul lifted his average sharply, pietersen has been hovering on 50 avg after 50 games, let see where he is some years from now.