Chanderpaul, is he great ?

[wfdu_ben91]

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.

Chanderpaul never scored a 100 against Warne or Muralitharan. The champions trophy is a ODI tournament, not a Test tournament.

 

[TT Boy]

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

14 tons in a winning cause, 18 in his test career, never lost a test when he scores a century, that makes him a match-winner but contrast that Chanderpaul who has played over 40 more tests then Smith but has only scored 7 100's in test matches which the Windies have won.

 

[Precambrian]

14 tons in a winning cause, 18 in his test career, never lost a test when he scores a century, that makes him a match-winner but contrast that Chanderpaul who has played over 40 more tests then Smith but has only scored 7 100's in test matches which the Windies have won.

Matchwinning innings are created due to efforts of the bowlers.

 

[Slifer]

Well I think its a travesty to ever compare Players like Peterson etc (recent comodities) to established batsmen like C'Paul. People conveniently forget that Chanderpaul started off way back in 94 at 19 years of age and has always maintained an average hovering around 45. He's faced the likes: of Murali, Waqar, Wasim, Mcgrath, Warne, Pollock,Donald etc. Had he started off in cricket around the same time as Pietersen and co i have no doubt he'd be averaging mid 50s right now. As it stands he just needs to keep that average over 50 (plus a few minor things) to be an all time great in my book (esp considering he averaged mid 40s thru most of the 90s when bowling was much much better.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Matchwinning innings are created due to efforts of the bowlers.

In such as instances as chasing 414 in the 4th innings of a Test Match?

 

[TT Boy]

Matchwinning innings are created due to efforts of the bowlers.

Come again?

 

[Precambrian]

In such as instances as chasing 414 in the 4th innings of a Test Match?

Exception rather than rule. How many instances have been there of such huge chases since the start of test cricket?

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Well I think its a travesty to ever compare Players like Peterson etc (recent comodities) to established batsmen like C'Paul. People conveniently forget that Chanderpaul started off way back in 94 at 19 years of age and has always maintained an average hovering around 45. He's faced the likes: of Murali, Waqar, Wasim, Mcgrath, Warne, Pollock,Donald etc. Had he started off in cricket around the same time as Pietersen and co i have no doubt he'd be averaging mid 50s right now. As it stands he just needs to keep that average over 50 (plus a few minor things) to be an all time great in my book (esp considering he averaged mid 40s thru most of the 90s when bowling was much much better.

Why is it a travesty? Because Pietersen's obviously the better batsman? Chanderpaul always averaged around 45? Hardly. It took him 28 Tests to register 2 Test hundreds and he was averaging 39 after 50 Tests, which was in 2001. Pietersen has not only made runs against but has dominated the best bowlers of the modern era, something that Chanderpaul has never done. The way Pietersen played Warne & McGrath was Tendulkar & Lara esque.

Did you not forget that Pietersen's first Test innings was coming in at 5/21 whilst Glenn McGrath was in one of the greatest spells of bowling in the history of Test cricket? And that his first 3 innings were half-centuries against Warne when Warne was bowling at his very best? Or how he basically saved England at the Oval 2005? Pietersen also averaged over 50 against the 4 prom bowling attack of McGrath, Clark, Lee & Warne on Australia soil?

Chanderpaul has nothing on Pietersen when it comes to succeeding against better bowlers.

 

[Precambrian]

Why is it a travesty? Because Pietersen's obviously the better batsman? Chanderpaul always averaged around 45? Hardly. It took him 28 Tests to register 2 Test hundreds and he was averaging 39 after 50 Tests, which was in 2001. Pietersen has not only made runs against but has dominated the best bowlers of the modern era, something that Chanderpaul has never done. The way Pietersen played Warne & McGrath was Tendulkar & Lara esque.

Did you not forget that Pietersen's first Test innings was coming in at 5/21 whilst Glenn McGrath was in one of the greatest spells of bowling in the history of Test cricket? And that his first 3 innings were half-centuries against Warne when Warne was bowling at his very best? Or how he basically saved England at the Oval 2005? Pietersen also averaged over 50 against the 4 prom bowling attack of McGrath, Clark, Lee & Warne on Australia soil?

Chanderpaul has nothing on Pietersen when it comes to succeeding against better bowlers.

Don't forget the 3 dropped catches during the Oval innings.

 

[roseboy64]

Basically wfdu_ben91 has no idea about Chanderpaul.

 

[Athlai]

Why is it a travesty? Because Pietersen's obviously the better batsman? Chanderpaul always averaged around 45? Hardly. It took him 28 Tests to register 2 Test hundreds and he was averaging 39 after 50 Tests, which was in 2001. Pietersen has not only made runs against but has dominated the best bowlers of the modern era, something that Chanderpaul has never done. The way Pietersen played Warne & McGrath was Tendulkar & Lara esque.

Did you not forget that Pietersen's first Test innings was coming in at 5/21 whilst Glenn McGrath was in one of the greatest spells of bowling in the history of Test cricket? And that his first 3 innings were half-centuries against Warne when Warne was bowling at his very best? Or how he basically saved England at the Oval 2005? Pietersen also averaged over 50 against the 4 prom bowling attack of McGrath, Clark, Lee & Warne on Australia soil?

Chanderpaul has nothing on Pietersen when it comes to succeeding against better bowlers.

Since Pietersen's debut: 21 Jul 2005

Chanderpaul:

2470 @ 56.13
7 100's
17 50's

 

[stephen]

Well I think Chanders is, as was said by someone else, a third tier batsman in the games history. This is not a bad thing by any means. What it does mean is that he's not in the top tier (would be challenging for a spot in an all time XI) and not in the second top tier (challenging for the team of his generation 90s-00s). It does put him as one of the better batsmen of all time though. Certainly would have a shot at an all time WIndies side (even if he didn't get in) and would romp it in as a batsman to an all time minow side (such as Zimbabwe or Bangladesh). I don't regret picking him for my Jumping the Shark team, but I wouldn't have picked him earlier than round 7-8.

He is certainly among the top 15 batsmen of the last decade (in no particular order):

Tendulkar
Dravid
Ponting
Waugh
Lara
Chanderpaul
Smith
Kallis
Sangakkara
Inzi
Pieterson
Yousef
Jayawardene
Sehwag
Hayden

 

[Precambrian]

Well I think Chanders is, as was said by someone else, a third tier batsman in the games history. This is not a bad thing by any means. What it does mean is that he's not in the top tier (would be challenging for a spot in an all time XI) and not in the second top tier (challenging for the team of his generation 90s-00s). It does put him as one of the better batsmen of all time though. Certainly would have a shot at an all time WIndies side (even if he didn't get in) and would romp it in as a batsman to an all time minow side (such as Zimbabwe or Bangladesh). I don't regret picking him for my Jumping the Shark team, but I wouldn't have picked him earlier than round 7-8.

He is certainly among the top 15 batsmen of the last decade (in no particular order):

Tendulkar
Dravid
Ponting
Waugh
Lara
Chanderpaul
Smith
Kallis
Sangakkara
Inzi
Pieterson
Yousef
Jayawardene
Sehwag
Hayden

No Andy Flower? No Younis Khan? No Hussey? ITSTL.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Basically wfdu_ben91 has no idea about Chanderpaul.

Big call for someone that's not even assembling an arguement.

Since Pietersen's debut: 21 Jul 2005

Chanderpaul:

2470 @ 56.13
7 100's
17 50's

Exactly. As these stats show, Pietersen has scored more then twice as many centuries then Chanderpaul since his debut. Someone that scores hundreds is better then someone who gets 60s & 70s not outs.

 

[stephen]

No Andy Flower? No Younis Khan? No Hussey? ITSTL.

They are three good batsmen, but are not as good as what Chanderpaul is. You could put Gilchrist and even Martyn up there as well if you wanted to be pedantic.

 

[andyc]

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.

Uh oh!

 

[Son Of Coco]

14 tons in a winning cause, 18 in his test career, never lost a test when he scores a century, that makes him a match-winner but contrast that Chanderpaul who has played over 40 more tests then Smith but has only scored 7 100's in test matches which the Windies have won.

Given SA are a stronger team and have been I'd assume over the period we're talking about they've won a lot more matches in total than the WI. A better comparison might be percentage of 100's scored in test matches vs team wins for each player. If Australia win 50 matches in the period we're discussing and Ponting has scored 14 centuries in these matches does that make him better than Chanderpaul who has scored 7 100's in matches the Windies have won when they've only won 11 in total?

Winning matches kind of depends somewhat on the personnel you have around you. Not many teams will win off the back of one person, and that's proven with the Windies where Chanderpaul regularly performs well but doesn't have the players around him to help them to success. Smith, on the other hand, is in a team where they have been arguably the 1st/2nd/or 3rd best for the time you're talking about. He's not scoring runs all that often and seeing it go to waste on the back of a bad performance from his teammates.

 

[SJS]

Can a player be great "at a point of time" ?

 

[SJS]

Does a player become great every time his batting averages touches fifty ?

 

[chaminda_00]

Does a player become great every time his batting averages touches fifty ?

And when their away aveages is 45 and for SB batsmen when their non SB average is over 50. It all about what they average, nothing more nothing less. You ever been to CW before, seriously learn to read.