Biff v. Chanders - Who's the Better 'Ugly' Player?

[JontyPanesar]

However you wish to define 'better' (better peak, better career, who you'd rather have in your XI, etc)

 

[OverratedSanity]

Smith. Better in every way

Chanders is technically a good player I guess but his runs too often are made in a way that is useless for his team. He's overrated and is the least deserving 50+ average batsman.

 

[Daemon]

Why is Chanderpaul's record higher up the order comparatively terrible?

 

[JontyPanesar]

Why is Chanderpaul's record higher up the order comparatively terrible?

Something I've also wondered. Ugly players tend to do well up the order (Smith, Cook, Katich) because it's so hard to draw them onto the front foot. We could also be dealing with small sample size

 

[hendrix]

Chanders by far. I completely disagree with the idea that his runs are useless to the team. In a team which struggles to score runs, his are premium and I think he's very underrated.

 

[Jono]

Chanders by far. I completely disagree with the idea that his runs are useless to the team. In a team which struggles to score runs, his are premium and I think he's very underrated.

agree with everything except "by far"

 

[benchmark00]

Nope, Chanderpaul is not underrated. He's ranked 3 in the batting rankings ffs. There's no way in the world he's the third best batsman in the world. He's a quality accumulator of runs, can not question that, but he doesn't hurt batsmen and if you're batting 5 you need that gear, especially being in a team with poor batsmen around him.

Can not cop that he's underrated. He is what he is. And that's not the third best batsman in the world.

 

[Jono]

I imagine he meant he's underrated by common cricket folk, not a computer stats generator.

 

[benchmark00]

Who's common cricket folk? People who post on YouTube videos or planet cricket, or worse, cricsim? (Taste it Crabb)

Hendrix just said he's by far better than Smith. Is he a common cricket folk?

 

[Prince EWS]

I imagine he meant he's underrated by common cricket folk, not a computer stats generator.

Yeah. Over-rated by a computer stats generator though.

What I always battle with re: Chanderpaul is that he has the temperament of a top order player but the technique of a #6. You don't really want him to bat lower than four because he's poor with the tail, but you don't want him above five either because his technique would be unsuited. You'd struggle to find a really good role for him in a lot of sides which makes him an intrinsically less valuable player by my reckoning than someone like Smith who'd slot in as opener in 99% of teams in Test history and make a big difference.

 

[Jono]

I get your point, but I really don't think people saying Chanderpaul is underrated is a ridiculous thing. He's averaged over 50 for 150 tests and has a solid to very good record against every test nation (except Zimbabwe). Yes he's definitely got flaws in his game, and there are legitimate questions as to his ability to adapt to match situations. I reckon a lot of people would be surprised by his record. Yes thats partly because of the way he plays (as opposed to a KP for example), but I reckon a lot of people would not even consider Shiv in a second World XI right now, despite his current and recent batting performances.

I agree he's not #3 in the world and there are holes in his game, but he's been so good for so long. I reckon his record would surprise people who perhaps don't follow cricket as much as you do, but would still call themselves fans of the game.

@Benchy

 

[benchmark00]

Cliffs?

 

[Jono]

nah gagf that's less than 5 lines

 

[Riggins]

Smith every time for me. Would have killed to have a bloke like him in our team for the last 5 years. He's like a good version of the role we're trying to get Rogers to play.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Whatever Shiv is, underrated, or overrated, Smith is simply better. He has a limited game, like Chanders, but he doesn't let that stop him from adjusting superbly to match conditions, and pulling off great innings when his team requires it dearly. If anything, it's smith who's underrated.... The number of times he's got vital runs, and plenty of them, scored in exactly the manner the situation warrants is superb.

He hasn't found a good enough opening partner for a while but keeps going and produces the goods when the team needs them. In many ways he seems like a left handed, opening version of Steve Waugh, only not quite that great. I have a great deal of respect for the guy... Been a rock for his team

 

[Jono]

Smith's a ****ing gun and his 4th innings chases are stuff of legend.

But let's be fair, he has been surrounded by some quality for his whole career. That doesn't mean he CAN'T be better than Shiv, of course. But to say Smith's played great innings when his team has required it, when some of those innings have been in matches where he was also supported by a Kallis, Amla or AB de Villiers ton, is a tough thing to use to make him better over Shiv.

Remember Shiv's 2008 series against Australia? Amazing but WI lost every game. Pretty rough, and I don't think you can say he could have done too much more.

This is a genuinely good comparison for mine. I reckon I'd switch between choosing Smith or Shiv its so close for me. Smith being an opener the one thing that might make me choose him.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

I liked Shiv right from the start of his career, probably because of his unnervingly unique design on batting. His accumulating style of run making is something I have admired.
To choose Smith in this battle would be completely something based off of him being an opener and it really is hard to go against that. However, I think I'd prefer Shiv, he's made more innings I've enjoyed watching, particularly the '08 series

 

[Ray.]

Chanders the ugliest batsman to watch!

 

[Гурин]

Yeah. Over-rated by a computer stats generator though.

What I always battle with re: Chanderpaul is that he has the temperament of a top order player but the technique of a #6. You don't really want him to bat lower than four because he's poor with the tail, but you don't want him above five either because his technique would be unsuited. You'd struggle to find a really good role for him in a lot of sides which makes him an intrinsically less valuable player by my reckoning than someone like Smith who'd slot in as opener in 99% of teams in Test history and make a big difference.

But maybe his problem is batting with the west indian tail... and not only because of the mugs they've got down their order.

I was quite surprised this summer by the way he played and behaved in Derby, shielding the tail and avoiding those catastrophic runouts that we commonly see when he plays int. cricket. I was impressed expecially in this game, never seen him celebrating like this (maybe after that last ball six), whenever he bats for WI he gives the impression of not really caring (check out the video on youtube). It'd be really interesting to know if that's what he usually does when batting for FC sides.

Obviously in international cricket you have no option of changing side if you're not comfortable with your teammates/board, so any issues there might be a big part of his attitude. Who knows, had Smith been playing for whe windies maybe he would have had the same problems, and would have behaved the same... or maybe even worse. Yeah I know, would, if, yadda yadda yadda, but still I have this feeling that Shiv's really been hampered by playing for the west indies and whatever happened over there during the last 20 years.

 

[JontyPanesar]

I think there are some unfair things written about both players. Shiv's technique is unorthodox, but I'd hardly call it bad. It has proven to be robust to all types of bowling and conditions. That's the mark of an excellent technique if anything.
Shiv is also not as ugly as his critics make him out to be. He's a wonderful timer of the cricket ball with excellent balance, especially given that his feet shuffle all over the place initially. His ability to hit a straight drive on the up for 2 or 3 can be quite exquisite. On the other hand, Shiv deserves a lot of stick for his selfish play. He doesn't always farm the strike or counterattack when he's given the tail. He specifically did not want the captaincy, despite him being the most qualified for the job. And I don't think you hear about any Windies batsman talking about Chanders making them better players. Even with supposedly Selfish, Stats-Centered Sachin, his teammates all credit him with improving their techniques.
Biff doesn't get enough credit for just how good of an opening batsman he is in England, which is easily the toughest place for an opener.

Credit to both players in terms of their ability to play the turning and swinging ball so well. Despite Smith not being a naturally skilled player of spin, he has been a pretty consistent player in the subcontinent (though it is easier to do so at the top of the order). Chanders' performances in England are really quite something when you consider the consistency over such a long period. For his technique to hold up in those conditions is a truly remarkable (even if it's easier to bat down the order in England).