Chanderpaul, is he great ?

[Goughy]

Ok, I dont class him as a great for the following reasons.

- Some of his innings I have thought to be more passive than they had to be and didnt take game situations into account.

- He doesnt possess the numbers, character, flair to transend the sport

- His average is inflated massively due to his scores in draws. Compared to a random group of peers:

Average in Draws
Chaderpaul = 75.52
Dravid = 68.5
Tendulkar = 65.87
Sehwag = 62.48
Ponting = 59.68

He also has a lowest non-drawn Test average than all those on the list.

- He has not been part of a successful team or played many high pressure important games for wins.

For me, he is a very good player but is a notch below the top players of his generation.

 

[chaminda_00]

I think it is harsh to say Chanderpaul not a great cus he hasn't played many match winning innings. It not his fault he played in such a poor side. Even his record in draws is inflated by the inability of his bowlers to win matches after he and other batsmen have put them in wining positions.

 

[Goughy]

I think it is harsh to say Chanderpaul not a great cus he hasn't played many match winning innings. It not his fault he played in such a poor side. Even his record in draws is inflated by the inability of his bowlers to win matches after he and other batsmen have put them in wining positions.

The criteria to be great should be harsh. The term should not be given out free in cereal packets. Also if the draw average is the fault of the bowlers (something I think is a convenient and lazy excuse) then wouldnt you expect his averages in wins and losses to be high as well when the bowlers have done their jobs? Of course it isnt, it is lower than the others.

On its own it may not be enough to exclude him from the 'great' group but there are far too many red flags to include him. The weight of evidence against him is pretty big.

He just wasnt/isnt as good as the best of his day.

 

[chaminda_00]

The criteria to be great should be harsh. The term should not be given out free in cereal packets. Also if the draw average is the fault of the bowlers (something I think is a convenient and lazy excuse) then wouldnt you expect his averages in wins and losses to be high as well when the bowlers have done their jobs? Of course it isnt, it is lower than the others.

On its own it may not be enough to exclude him from the 'great' group but there are far too many red flags to include him. The weight of evidence against him is pretty big.

He just wasnt/isnt as good as the best of his day.

I don't actually think he is great ftr.

But doesn't he average 55 in wins. I don't know what the other average but you would think that would be up there. Apart from his record in losses (average of 38), I don't see that many holes statiscally. For mine a lot of those innings in draws would have been match winning knocks for most other sides. So given a even playing field his average could be around 60 for wins.

 

[Precambrian]

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

Very valid q SJS> Unfortunately not the case.

 

[andyc]

Ok, I dont class him as a great for the following reasons.

- Some of his innings I have thought to be more passive than they had to be and didnt take game situations into account.

- He doesnt possess the numbers, character, flair to transend the sport

- His average is inflated massively due to his scores in draws. Compared to a random group of peers:

Average in Draws
Chaderpaul = 75.52
Dravid = 68.5
Tendulkar = 65.87
Sehwag = 62.48
Ponting = 59.68

He also has a lowest non-drawn Test average than all those on the list.

- He has not been part of a successful team or played many high pressure important games for wins.

For me, he is a very good player but is a notch below the top players of his generation.

I don't really see what's too bad about having a high average in draws, especially in Chanderpaul's case. The fact is, for most of those Tests, at least in recent times, Chanderpaul's batting was probably the reason why it was a draw rather than a loss. Without proper support, a batsman can't really win that many games, but he can at least draw them for his team.

 

[Uppercut]

Ok, I dont class him as a great for the following reasons.

- Some of his innings I have thought to be more passive than they had to be and didnt take game situations into account.

- He doesnt possess the numbers, character, flair to transend the sport

- His average is inflated massively due to his scores in draws. Compared to a random group of peers:

Average in Draws
Chaderpaul = 75.52
Dravid = 68.5
Tendulkar = 65.87
Sehwag = 62.48
Ponting = 59.68

He also has a lowest non-drawn Test average than all those on the list.

- He has not been part of a successful team or played many high pressure important games for wins.

For me, he is a very good player but is a notch below the top players of his generation.

A lot of those wouldn't have been draws were it not for Chanders, i'm sure. When he stayed at the crease for long enough, they drew, when he failed, they lost. It's no big deal that his average may be inflated by this or these innings. For me, those stats demonstrate how heavily the result of the match was dependent on Chanderpaul's performance compared to those you've compared him with.

 

[Goughy]

A lot of those wouldn't have been draws were it not for Chanders, i'm sure.

I don't really see what's too bad about having a high average in draws, especially in Chanderpaul's case. The fact is, for most of those Tests, at least in recent times, Chanderpaul's batting was probably the reason why it was a draw rather than a loss.

Conjecture, conjecture, conjecture.

Absolutely no evidence to suggest that at all. There may be occasional instances but simply:
High incident of draws combined with high average in draws = Inflated average on easy batting tracks

It is wishful thinking to assume otherwise.

Its the same with Gayle. Massive average in draws.

 

[Precambrian]

Conjecture, conjecture, conjecture.

Absolutely no evidence to suggest that at all. There may be occasional instances but simply:
High incident of draws combined with high average in draws = Inflated average on easy batting tracks

It is wishful thinking to assume otherwise.

Its the same with Gayle. Massive average in draws.

No way. I agree with AndyC and Buttercup here. Average in draws is a useless measure to judge a batsman's utility. If at all any derivations can be made, a higher average, esp in a weak team, in draws suggest Chander's ability to save matches that otherwise Windies would have lost.

 

[Evermind]

All batsmen playing today (or recently retired) who average more than 50:

RT Ponting (Aus) 1995-2009 131* 220 26 10948 257 56.43 37 46 11
MEK Hussey (Aus) 2005-2009 37* 63 9 3002 182 55.59 9 14 5
Mohammad Yousuf (Pak) 1998-2007 79 134 12 6770 223 55.49 23 28 8
KC Sangakkara (SL) 2000-2009 80 132 9 6764 287 54.99 18 30 4
SR Tendulkar (India) 1989-2009 157* 257 27 12589 248* 54.73 42 51 14
JH Kallis (ICC/SA) 1995-2009 131* 220 33 10175 189* 54.41 30 51 10
DPMD Jayawardene (SL) 1997-2009 102 167 12 8251 374 53.23 25 32 10
BC Lara (ICC/WI) 1990-2006 131 232 6 11953 400* 52.88 34 48 17
R Dravid (ICC/India) 1996-2009 132* 228 26 10575 270 52.35 26 54 8
Younis Khan (Pak) 2000-2009 60 106 7 5129 313 51.80 16 20 11
A Flower (Zim) 1992-2002 63 112 19 4794 232* 51.54 12 27 5
KP Pietersen (Eng) 2005-2009 50 91 4 4445 226 51.09 16 14 3
TT Samaraweera (SL) 2001-2009 49 75 11 3269 231 51.07 9 18 5
SR Waugh (Aus) 1985-2004 168 260 46 10927 200 51.06 32 50 22
V Sehwag (ICC/India) 2001-2009 67* 115 4 5641 319 50.81 15 18 10
ML Hayden (Aus) 1994-2009 103 184 14 8625 380 50.73 30 29 14
GC Smith (ICC/SA) 2002-2009 77 135 9 6342 277 50.33 18 25 9
S Chanderpaul (WI) 1994-2009 119 202 32 8502 203* 50.01 21 52 12

Which of these would you consider not "great"?

The weakest one obviously is Samaraweera. Jayawardene, Younis, and Chanderpaul would round up the bottom 4 maybe?

 

[Goughy]

I dont think Smith, Hussey or KP could be considered great yet.

 

[Evermind]

I dont think Smith, Hussey or KP could be considered great yet.

How about Sehwag, Flower and Younis, then, who have all played fewer matches than Smith?

 

[Beleg]

of evermind's list, the bottom five are Jayawardena, Yousuf, Younis, Hayden and Smith - in no particular order.

Conjecture, conjecture, conjecture.

Absolutely no evidence to suggest that at all. There may be occasional instances but simply:
High incident of draws combined with high average in draws = Inflated average on easy batting tracks

It is wishful thinking to assume otherwise.

Its the same with Gayle. Massive average in draws.

umm, it's NOT wishful thinking. if you reckon WI's had been able to draw the games Uppercut linked earlier without Chanders massive contribution then it's you who's being wishful. Saving matches with your bowlers not firing on all cylinders in face of a huge total is, if anything, tougher than scoring a ton in a game where you bowlers got a bagful of wickets. you absolutely cannot judge someone's average in draws as a measure of their (in)ability.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

From Evermind's list:

01. Sachin Tendulkar
02. Brian Lara
03. Ricky Ponting
04. Steve Waugh
05. Rahul Dravid
06. Jacques Kallis
07. Matthew Hayden
08. Kevin Pietersen
09. Kumar Sangakkara
10. Andy Flower
11. Mohammad Yousuf
12. Shivnarine Chanderpaul
13. Mahela Jayawardene
14. Graeme Smith
15. Virender Sehwag
16. Michael Hussey
17. Younis Khan
18. Thilan Samaraweera

 

[andyc]

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.

From Evermind's list:

01. Sachin Tendulkar
02. Brian Lara
03. Ricky Ponting
04. Steve Waugh
05. Rahul Dravid
06. Jacques Kallis
07. Matthew Hayden
08. Kevin Pietersen
09. Kumar Sangakkara
10. Andy Flower
11. Mohammad Yousuf
12. Shivnarine Chanderpaul
13. Mahela Jayawardene
14. Graeme Smith
15. Virender Sehwag
16. Michael Hussey
17. Younis Khan
18. Thilan Samaraweera

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Change of opinion.

But meh, the first 10 are in correct order. The other 8 could be in any order.

 

[Evermind]

I still haven't understood why people rate Lara and Tendulkar over Ponting.

I especially wouldn't have expected it from ben91.

 

[Precambrian]

I still haven't understood why people rate Lara and Tendulkar over Ponting.

I especially wouldn't have expected it from ben91.

Are you serious?

 

[stephen]

From Evermind's list:


01. Brian Lara
02. Ricky Ponting
03. Sachin Tendulkar
04. Matthew Hayden
05. Rahul Dravid
06. Steve Waugh
07. Jacques Kallis
08. Kevin Pietersen
09. Virender Sehwag
10. Kumar Sangakkara
11. Mohammad Yousuf
12. Graeme Smith
13. Shivnarine Chanderpaul
14. Andy Flower
15. Mahela Jayawardene
16. Michael Hussey
17. Younis Khan
18. Thilan Samaraweera

That would be my order of batsmen out of that list.

Tendulkar IMO is behind Lara and Ponting (not meaning to start a religious war here - that's how I see it).

Hayden's accomplishments really should land him above lesser batsmen such as Waugh and Dravid. Kallis was way too high. His value is more from his all round abilities rather than his batting, which has a couple of holes.

Flower is fairly low down on the list - he really had an up and down record versus the better sides. Jayawardene, Hussey, Khan and Samaraweera round out the bottom of the list. Hussey may accelerate upwards again if he recovers from his form slump.

 

[Precambrian]

Tendulkar IMO is behind Lara and Ponting (not meaning to start a religious war here - that's how I see it).

Politely but strongly disagree with the above.