How do you rate Chanderpaul as a batsman?

[vic_orthdox]

Nah, it's definitely different. West Indies' batting lineup is terrible (maybe it isn't now if Brathwaite and blackwood kick on). It has not been a batting lineup that is "working".Comparing that with India and England is just not right. Different scenarios entirely.

Ftr, I'm pretty much on the fence on whether Shiv should move up the order. But I believe that the argument that him moving up would help the team does have some merit.

The point I'm making is not about others; it's about the effect on himself. For most, there is not much difference between batting 4 and 5; I'm suggesting that the difference between that for Chanderpaul is far different to that of his teammates, and most people.

 

[Slifer]

Among wi batsmen:

Lara,Viv,Sobers,Headley (atg)
Chanders, Walcott, Weekes, Worrell (greats)
Kanhai, Lloyd, Nurse, Hunte,Greenidge (very very good)

I used to have Shiv in the bottom tier but he's done more than enough to b just below the very top group

 

[harsh.ag]

Would put Greenidge in the second tier as well. But agree on the rest

 

[Goughy]

Just a note on Chanderpaul which could be used by different sides of an argument is that there are 86 players in the history of Test cricket with 5000+ Test runs. Chanderpaul has the highest not out percentage in history from that large group - 18.22%

The person with the lowest not out percentage in history with over 5000 Test runs? ...... Brian Charles Lara with 2.59%

 

[Coronis]

Yeah that Lara was always throwing away his wicket.

 

[Goughy]

Yeah that Lara was always throwing away his wicket.

Not my point at all.

 

[Beamer]

As a pure batsman (both technical and statistical) I rate Shiv as very good, behind only Lara, Richards, Sobers and Headley, just as Slifer said. His numbers are superb and he has played some truly astonishing innings. He is very nearly an all-time great in pure batting terms, but the following factors make him only very good IMHO:

- Refusal to move up to number 4 when BCL retired.
- Failure to take charge of the situation when batting with the tail
- A few too many innings where he meandered along at an unnecessarily slow strike rate even though we all know he has the ability to step it up.

Having said all that, Shiv represents more than just a very good batsman to most reasonable West Indies fans. He has been the only man standing between us and Bangladesh style humiliation on so many occasions. He has been holding the fort, keeping the flame of West Indian batsmanship alive whilst we wait for the current generation to come to terms with test cricket. Having come from extremely humble beginnings in Unity Village, he has risen to become an absolute giant of a human being. For this reason, I rate him right up there with the Worrell, Headley and Lara in terms of what they meant to West Indies cricket.

 

[Coronis]

Not my point at all.

Thems the jokes.

 

[kyear2]

Among wi batsmen:

Lara,Viv,Sobers,Headley (atg)
Chanders, Walcott, Weekes, Worrell (greats)
Kanhai, Lloyd, Nurse, Hunte,Greenidge (very very good)

I used to have Shiv in the bottom tier but he's done more than enough to b just below the very top group

Lloyd, Greenidge and Kanhai all deserve to be ranked with the 3W's

 

[kyear2]

As a pure batsman (both technical and statistical) I rate Shiv as very good, behind only Lara, Richards, Sobers and Headley, just as Slifer said. His numbers are superb and he has played some truly astonishing innings. He is very nearly an all-time great in pure batting terms, but the following factors make him only very good IMHO:

- Refusal to move up to number 4 when BCL retired.
- Failure to take charge of the situation when batting with the tail
- A few too many innings where he meandered along at an unnecessarily slow strike rate even though we all know he has the ability to step it up.

Having said all that, Shiv represents more than just a very good batsman to most reasonable West Indies fans. He has been the only man standing between us and Bangladesh style humiliation on so many occasions. He has been holding the fort, keeping the flame of West Indian batsmanship alive whilst we wait for the current generation to come to terms with test cricket. Having come from extremely humble beginnings in Unity Village, he has risen to become an absolute giant of a human being. For this reason, I rate him right up there with the Worrell, Headley and Lara in terms of what they meant to West Indies cricket.

Just seems at times he is playing more for his own numbers than for the team. The difference in not outs between him and Lara speaks volumes.

 

[Furball]

I've always been baffled by people using a high number of not outs by a batsman against him.

 

[Goughy]

I've always been baffled by people using a high number of not outs by a batsman against him.

OK. Are you just making a statement or asking to have it explained to you?

 

[grecian]

OK. Are you just making a statement or asking to have it explained to you?

I'm not Furball, but I don't get it either, in the end Lara batted 3, Shiv bats lower in a worst batting line-up, surely he'll end up with more not-outs. In the end, it's hard to see how it helps a career, the earlier part of the innings are the hardest, so being cut off in your prime is not going to help whatsoever IMHO.

 

[harsh.ag]

I think it's just that some people are concerned that the average seems "inflated" when taken without the context of runs-per-innings. But lower runs per innings are due to the factors that Grecian mentions above, and as he rightly points out, it doesn't help the batsman to be left stranded when he has got himself in and done all that hard work.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I think the inference is that when batting at Number 6 and being left with the tail the batsman makes no attempt to change his approach in terms of trying to keep the strike or take more risks to increase the scoring. Whether Chanderpaul inherently took singles when batting with 9, 10 or 11 in order to protect his own wicket I would rather doubt, but can't really recall.

 

[grecian]

I think the inference is that when batting at Number 6 and being left with the tail the batsman makes no attempt to change his approach in terms of trying to keep the strike or take more risks to increase the scoring. Whether Chanderpaul inherently took singles when batting with 9, 10 or 11 in order to protect his own wicket I would rather doubt, but can't really recall.

Well if that's the case it's a silly inference, Steve Waugh was possibly the greatest at working with the tail, and he always believed in not shielding them, hence giving them confidence.

 

[cnerd123]

Big difference between Waugh and Chanderpaul in personality tho. Waugh would talk to his tailenders, pass on advice, build them up, sledge the bowlers, empower them to do well. Chanders always bats in his own bubble regardless of who is at the other end.

 

[Maximas]

Guys Like Hussey and now Angelo Mathews have had success shielding the tailenders at first and going after the bowlers to put the pressure back on them, then slowly giving the tailender more strike as the bowlers tire/feel the pressure. For a guy that gets stuck with the tail as often as Chanders his way of going about it is pretty poor IMO

 

[grecian]

Matthews not out percentage pretty high though too. I just think it means little as a stat.

 

[Furball]

But the point of batting is to not be out.