PlayerComparisons
International Captain
Two selfless players
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Shivnarine Chanderpaul vs Kane Williamson
- Thread starter PlayerComparisons
- Start date
SillyCowCorner1
Moooo
“Chanderpaul was selfish, he bats down the order to protect his average.”
Expect a lot of criticism in this direction for Shiv.
Expect a lot of criticism in this direction for Shiv.
shortpitched713
Cricketer Of The Year
I liked him during his career. But every time Chanderpaul keeps gets put in a comparison with a better batsman I am just reminded of this meme:
kyear2
Hall of Fame Member
Because it was true,
kyear2
Hall of Fame Member
If there's one WI not worthy of one, it's him, lol
Coronis
Hall of Fame Member
You guys have successfully changed my opinion on a West Indies player, kudos.
kyear2
Hall of Fame Member
And of course it was downwards, lol.
I know you don't believe s/r matters in test cricket, but contextually and results wise it often does.
All these guys are talented, but it's easier when you cut out shots and decide to play for yourself and your average.
That aside, Shiv took it to all new levels. Refusing to move up the order and taking singles early in overs while batting with that tail were the clinchers.
ataraxia
International Coach
So defensive batting is better, got it
kyear2
Hall of Fame Member
Exact opposite of what I said, but fine.
ataraxia
International Coach
You're saying that cutting out shots increases batting average, lol. The logical conclusion is that that means batting at 40 SR is better – particularly for a bad team for whom turning losses into draws is more valuable than turning draws into wins.
kyear2
Hall of Fame Member
I also said it often could be at the detriment of the team in terms of wins.
Barrington didn't play for an especially weak team, Shiv did, but that didn't factor into his reasoning. Kallis didn't have to go as slowly as he did. It was I'm playing for myself, wins be damned.
And turning losses into draws has its merit, but not close to being as important as turning draws into wins, or as some of the great ones did, turn loses into wins.
PlayerComparisons
International Captain
This depends on your team I think. In a weak team, batting in a way that turns losses into draws is more valuable than batting in a way that turns draws into wins.
kyear2
Hall of Fame Member
Who wants keep drawing contests and trying not to lose.
Saving draws are in close contests where you have a chance to come back, for a legitimately bad team, draws mean nothing in between the loses. Go for wins, no one remembers the draws in those instances. Lara's 153....
BazBall21
International Captain
Chanderpaul was definitely a bit unnaturally selfish towards the end, and it's right that he gets some scrutiny for that and the not outs inflation. I voted for Clive Lloyd against him.
But the guy did have to prop up a collapsing setup, played test cricket for more than 20 years, and did a lot of very good things. He deserves a lot of plaudits too and sometimes doesn't quite get them on here. I would pay money for the West Indies to have a cricketer as good as him today
But the guy did have to prop up a collapsing setup, played test cricket for more than 20 years, and did a lot of very good things. He deserves a lot of plaudits too and sometimes doesn't quite get them on here. I would pay money for the West Indies to have a cricketer as good as him today
Last edited:
BazBall21
International Captain
Perhaps but besides approach, Lara was capable of knocks that Chanderpaul wasn't even if he was as selfless as Greenidge. Hence regardless of the selfish accusations, Chanderpaul just wasn't in the same class as a batsman.
kyear2
Hall of Fame Member
All true. But would he help us get wins today? Or only lose 2-0 in a 5 match series?Chanderpaul was definitely a bit unnaturally selfish towards the end, and it's right that he gets some scrutiny for that and the not outs inflation. I liked that Clive Lloyd won a poll against him.
But the guy did have to prop up a collapsing setup, played test cricket for more than 20 years, and did a lot of very good things. He deserves a lot of plaudits too. I would pay money for the West Indies to have a cricketer as good as him today
ataraxia
International Coach
Ignoring based PC above: if a win was 1 and a loss was 0, I gather you might rate a draw at about 0.4.
Now if we pretend that we're talking about Barrington rather than Chanderpaul, because Chanderpaul was selfish/useless (which I really don't like) and I'm more latching on to the general point of discussion here, it's important to note how "being unhappy with a draw" is a modern concept. Back in Barrington's day (though probably more the 50s than a 60s), draws were seen as honourable results for both teams, hence the prevalence of them. Using the same scale as above, a draw was generally perceived to be maybe 0.7 back then.
We rate players for how they fared in the context of their time and the expectations upon them, and not anything else. Retrospectively saying "nah draws were bad" in an era they were perceived as good in, which is not an accusation towards anyone specifically, is bad analysis. So in my opinion this leaves two possible valid schools of thought: (1) you rate draws across history by their mathematical ("true") value of 0.5, or (2) you rate draws across history by the consensus cultural expectation of the time (0.4 today, 0.7 in the 1960s). Most importantly, what you don't do is rate all draws across history by the current cultural expectation (0.4). That is B-A-D.
Weird effort post, I know, but just saying.