Shivnarine Chanderpaul vs Frank Worrell

[Coronis]

Worrell

 

[Johan]

Those 12 matches against Ind and Nz are close enough

his 53 series against India wasn't minnow bashing, competitive series + two competent opposition bowlers, 62 maybe. His twin fifties against NZ was also crucial.

 

[Johan]

Worrell

Ok so you're trolling in the Weekes thread.

 

[Thala_0710]

his 53 series against India wasn't minnow bashing, competitive series + two competent opposition bowlers, 62 maybe. His twin fifties against NZ was also crucial.

Crucial of course, Chanders' runs were crucial sometimes as well against weaker opposition. And he did perform up the order as well some times (Melbourne 96 for example), but was of course at his best lower down.
It's close for me, but I go with Chanders

 

[Coronis]

Ok so you're trolling in the Weekes thread.

I thought you were smarter than that…. sigh

 

[Johan]

I thought you were smarter than that…. sigh

I thought you were trolling but I decided to hurt your eyes with Pietersen glaze.

 

[Thala_0710]

I thought you were trolling but I decided to hurt your eyes with Pietersen glaze.

Isn't that what people generally use to hurt your eyes? Or is that Chappell and Chanders only?

 

[Johan]

Crucial of course, Chanders' runs were crucial sometimes as well against weaker opposition. And he did perform up the order as well some times (Melbourne 96 for example), but was of course at his best lower down.
It's close for me, but I go with Chanders

weaker opposition equivalent to 1953 India would be smth like New Zealand of 2000s, nobody removes that iirc

 

[Johan]

Isn't that what people generally use to hurt your eyes? Or is that Chappell and Chanders only?

I respect Chappell the bat, I just don't like how the standards are reworked just to have him higher than names he would generally be considered perfectly comparable to (IE Compton) in eyes of those who watched both and even statistically with proper context in place. Miandad and Chanders glaze is really annoying though

 

[Thala_0710]

weaker opposition equivalent to 1953 India would be smth like New Zealand of 2000s, nobody removes that iirc

No it isn't. Playing the Indian attack at home for all 10 games (basically Gupte and a bit of Mankad) and an even worse attack next time around, isn't as easy as playing Nz both home and away in the 2000s.
They had shane bond ffs (at least when Chanders played them)

 

[Johan]

No it isn't. Playing the Indian attack at home for all 10 games (basically Gupte and a bit of Mankad) and an even worse attack next time around, isn't as easy as playing Nz both home and away in the 2000s.
They had shane bond ffs (at least when Chanders played them)

when Chanders made 126* the bowlers were James Franklin, Kyle Mills, Jeetan Patel, Daniel Vettori and Ian O Brien ffs! there's no Bond, James or Shane.

 

[Thala_0710]

when Chanders made 126* the bowlers were James Franklin, Kyle Mills, Jeetan Patel, Daniel Vettori and Ian O Brien ffs! there's no Bond, James or Shane.

Well not in 2008 but Bond was there in both 02 and 06. And even without him, scoring runs in NZ in 2000s is still much tougher than making runs at home against Ind in the 50s

 

[Coronis]

I respect Chappell the bat, I just don't like how the standards are reworked just to have him higher than names he would generally be considered perfectly comparable to (IE Compton) in eyes of those who watched both and even statistically with proper context in place. Miandad and Chanders glaze is really annoying though

Oh it was Miandad you hate, not Younis

 

[Thala_0710]

The only other Indian bar Gupte who took 10+ wickets in the 5 match series was Mankad, who avged 53 with the ball

 

[Johan]

Well not in 2008 but Bond was there in both 02 and 06. And even without him, scoring runs in NZ in 2000s is still much tougher than making runs at home against Ind in the 50s

sure, but take SA for example, his 203* came on a road against the lineup of Ntini, Nel, Hall, Langeveldt and Boje. It's not like Shiv didn't fill his pockets against weak lineups. His 127 same series came on such a placid wicket that Graeme Smith bowled more than 40 overs!

 

[Thala_0710]

sure, but take SA for example, his 203* came on a road against the lineup of Ntini, Nel, Hall, Langeveldt and Boje. It's not like Shiv didn't fill his pockets against weak lineups.

He did but not in the same proportion. His runs in England came against weaker opposition but they weren't as bad.

 

[Johan]

He did but not in the same proportion. His runs in England came against weaker opposition but they weren't as bad.

his 2007 England series was against a similarly weak attack as that Indian one Worrell scored 237 imho

 

[Thala_0710]

his 2007 England series was against a similarly weak attack as that Indian one Worrell scored 237 imho

Harmison, Sidebottom and Panesar? It's not great but not that bad either especially for that series and time. Both Panesar and Sidebottom were quality that series iirc.
The best Indian bowler in that 61-62 series was Salim Durani, the only to take 10+ wkts in a 5 match series, with an avg of 35. Plus the home/away factor and overall strength of opposition.
I'd much rather bat against India at home in 61-62

 

[Johan]

Harmison, Sidebottom and Panesar? It's not great but not that bad either especially for that series and time. Both Panesar and Sidebottom were quality that series iirc.
The best Indian bowler in that 61-62 series was Salim Durani, the only to take 10+ wkts in a 5 match series, with an avg of 35. Plus the home/away factor and overall strength of opposition.
I'd much rather bat against India at home in 61-62

Panesar career average is 35, Sidebottom just bashed a bad NZ lineup and iirc wasn't good enough to be picked for Wshes and Harmison was at the hog end of his career too. If they did well, that really shows the lineup Windies sent to England in 2007, I compared it to the 52-53 series, not 61-62 one

 

[Thala_0710]

Panesar career average is 35, Sidebottom just bashed a bad NZ lineup and iirc wasn't good enough to be picked for Wshes and Harmison was at the hog end of his career too. If they did well, that really shows the lineup Windies sent to England in 2007, I compared it to the 52-53 series, not 61-62 one

Even in the 52-53 series, India only really had Gupte. As good as he was, he was bowling away from home and avged 30 that series.
As I said the next highest was Mankad with 15 @53 and no one else with 10+. Overall I'd stick pick the English attack at home anyday.
Panesar was poor overall but around 2007 was actually good on some tracks that assisted spin, which he had in that series iirc. The WI line up wasn't great but still had Chanders, Gayle, Sarwan etc who are all pretty good. And Sidebottom/Panesar both tore it up.