Is Shivnarine Chanderpaul an ATG test batsman?

[CricketFan90s]

How the **** is someone who batted for his not outs than his team's scores be considered a very good lower middle order player?

Also he was mostly a #5 which is middle order, not lower middle order.

i know you want to support @OverratedSanity's Insanity more than trying to know the facts about Chanderpaul.
Chanderpaul had his great moments but the problem with him is he was not crowd pleaser like other overrated players.

 

[honestbharani]

i know you want to support @OverratedSanity's Insanity more than trying to know the facts about Chanderpaul.
Chanderpaul had his great moments but the problem with him is he was not crowd pleaser like other overrated players.

First time for everything i guess @OverratedSanity ?

 

[Prince EWS]

That was a stick used to beat Clarke (somewhat unfairly tbh) for a while too - that his performances overwhelmingly came when he batted at #5, and indeed he was bizarrely and unreasonably poor whenever he batted at 4, to the point where @Prince EWS and I called it voodoo because of how much it violated any sort of cricketing or frankly statistical logic beyond being just really really unlucky and/or actually cursed.

It's hard to know how much it actually matters. It certainly matters once you get down to #6 though - if you can't bat with the tail and you're better than all the blokes above you, then what on earth are you actually doing down there?

Clarke was actually good at batting with the tail though, so him batting 5 instead of 4 didn't really matter (other than the fact that Australia struggled to find someone who was actually good at 4). Chanderpaul's average looked pretty when he batted 5 but he wasn't actually increasing the team total the same way as Clarke was in the position. If he could've batted 3 or 4 instead to the same standard it would have made a much bigger difference than if Clarke could.

 

[trundler]

i know you want to support @OverratedSanity's Insanity more than trying to know the facts about Chanderpaul.
Chanderpaul had his great moments but the problem with him is he was not crowd pleaser like other overrated players.

If anything CW loves Chanderpaul so it can feel smug about liking an unpopular player. I like dour batsman I am very smart.

I'd rather have Laxman or Clarke in my side to bat 5/6 even if they were 'inferior' batsmen. No one thinks those guys are ATGs so this thread is a real head scratcher.

 

[Spark]

Clarke was actually good at batting with the tail though, so him batting 5 instead of 4 didn't really matter (other than the fact that Australia struggled to find someone who was actually good at 4). Chanderpaul's average looked pretty when he batted 5 but he wasn't actually increasing the team total the same way as Clarke was in the position. If he could've batted 3 or 4 instead to the same standard it would have made a much bigger difference than if Clarke could.

Yeah I remember having all these same arguments ten years ago haha. I definitely agree, not least because the "protection" Clarke got at 5 was often nominal anyway. The same was true of Chanderpaul, but in his case that often meant he was simply not out in a crap total and he should have been batting higher. Or at least he should have been taking more risks when batting with the tail, rather than doing **** like actually causing run outs in his desperation to shield himself from the strike.

 

[Coronis]

If anything CW loves Chanderpaul so it can feel smug about liking an unpopular player. I like dour batsman I am very smart.

Crap, you’re onto us.

 

[trundler]

Crap, you’re onto us.

You're just transparent

 

[Coronis]

You're just transparent

You see right through me

 

[trundler]

Wish I never saw your posts tbh

 

[Coronis]

Wish I never saw your posts tbh

Y u gotta b so r00d?

 

[Prince EWS]

If anything CW loves Chanderpaul so it can feel smug about liking an unpopular player. I like dour batsman I am very smart.

I'd rather have Laxman or Clarke in my side to bat 5/6 even if they were 'inferior' batsmen. No one thinks those guys are ATGs so this thread is a real head scratcher.

Chanderpaul usually absolutely cops it here compared to how he was treated on commentary tbh.

Definitely not entirely without merit, but I think people take it too far sometimes. Chanderpaul is one the players I most disagree with my own statistical ranking system about (it over-rates him IMO) and for largely the reasons stated - scoring slow is fine, batting 5 is fine, but doing both in conjunction in a **** team and not shepherding the tail just makes your average flatter you - but he was still a total gun.

 

[trundler]

Chanderpaul usually absolutely cops it here compared to how he was treated on commentary tbh.

Definitely not entirely without merit, but I think people take it too far sometimes. Chanderpaul is one the players I most disagree with my own statistical ranking system about (it over-rates him IMO) and for largely the reasons stated - scoring slow is fine, batting 5 is fine, but doing both in conjunction in a **** team and not shepherding the tail just makes your average flatter you - but he was still a total gun.

Yeah still a gun player obviously which is why he still gets discussed. I'd place him alongside Inzi. Regular great as HB would say.

 

[Socerer 01]

why is @CricketFan90s simping for a guy who wasn’t that good in 1990s

 

[Howe_zat]

The thing I always think of when it comes to Chanders is the team mates he had. He started out playing with Lara, Walsh, Ambrose, Haynes and Richardson. By the time he was the best player in the side he was playing with Devon Smith, Carlton Baugh, Sulieman Benn and Brendon Nash.

I've not been working long enough to know how that feels but I can imagine. One day you realise you're the only one who can do anything - it'd stop anyone

 

[The_CricketUmpire]

All Time Great? No...not in my opinion. Is that a knock on Shiv? Absolutely not. Shiv was still a very very good batsman, as his record/stats show. But he is below All Time Great status. Not all players get there which is fine. Still though I liked watching Shiv bat..he wasn't the prettiest or the most stylish batsman to watch but he had courage and guts and valued his wicket.....something the Aussie batters could learn about too whilst in India...

 

[BazBall21]

I’m not convinced re the theory that all attacking players would average much higher if they batted attritionally. Playing safely does naturally reduce your chances of getting out and attacking does have its pros but some players are fundamentally set-up to attack and would not be more successful if they adopted Shiv’s tempo. There’s almost no chance the likes of Sehwag, Pietersen and G Smith would average more by grinding. Balanced players with great defensive games probably would though. It’s not black and white.

 

[Spark]

Oh he valued his wicket alright. Sometimes more than the actual team's chances of winning the game.

 

[trundler]

Meme where I am the smart person to /thread.

I’m not convinced re the theory that all attacking players would average much higher if they batted attritionally. Playing safely does naturally reduce your chances of getting out and attacking does have its pros but some players are fundamentally set-up to attack and would not be more successful if they adopted Shiv’s tempo. There’s almost no chance the likes of Sehwag, Pietersen and G Smith would average more by grinding. Balanced players with great defensive games probably would though. It’s not black and white.

My comment about Lara wasn't really about attritional batting. It was more about where they batted and how they approached batting with the tail. Lara exclusively batted higher up the order and had a much lower proportion of not outs as a result. He also shepherded the tail the way a great batsman ought to. There is a qualitative difference between their contributions to their team and if Lara batted in a similar dgaf manner to Chanderpaul he easily could've boosted his average by a few points.

 

[BazBall21]

View attachment 34776

Meme where I am the smart person to /thread.

My comment about Lara wasn't really about attritional batting. It was more about where they batted and how they approached batting with the tail. Lara exclusively batted higher up the order and had a much lower proportion of not outs as a result. He also shepherded the tail the way a great batsman ought to. There is a qualitative difference between their contributions to their team and if Lara batted in a similar dgaf manner to Chanderpaul he easily could've boosted his average by a few points.

Yeah fair enough that’s a better point. Lara was the opposite extreme. No not outs to Shiv’s 1230 not outs.

 

[Coronis]

Yeah fair enough that’s a better point. Lara was the opposite extreme. No not outs to Shiv’s 1230 not outs.

Yeah just chucked his wicket away the loser