• 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.

Is Shivnarine Chanderpaul an ATG test batsman?

Is Shivnarine Chanderpaul an ATG test batsman?

  • Total voters
    38
ataraxia

ataraxia

International Coach
ZK$ said:
Why did you vote no then? If Chanderpaul is in the same tier as some ATGs, then shouldn’t that make him an ATG as well lol.
Click to expand...
Way to miss the point. Tiers don't exist – at least not in the sense that there exist sizeable gaps between tiers of batsmen and in one of those gaps lies the boundary between ATG and ATVG. Chanderpaul is a borderline ATG for mine, as in he's comparable to those who probably just sneak in as ATGs (I haven't names at the moment, I don't keep any sort of firm list!).

He's in the same 'tier' as those, but that doesn't mean he's as good as them.
 
C

CricketFan90s

U19 Captain
ataraxia said:
Way to miss the point. Tiers don't exist – at least not in the sense that there exist sizeable gaps between tiers of batsmen and in one of those gaps lies the boundary between ATG and ATVG. Chanderpaul is a borderline ATG for mine, as in he's comparable to those who probably just sneak in as ATGs (I haven't names at the moment, I don't keep any sort of firm list!).

He's in the same 'tier' as those, but that doesn't mean he's as good as them.
Click to expand...
Yeah All Time Very Good will be an appropriate word for Chanderpaul
 
trundler

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Slifer said:
Quantitively yes but qualitively no. Lara would've averagedwithout looking )around 60 odd vs Australia at home and in all but two tests Lara came up against the best fast bowler of all time: Sir Glenn. Against Pakistan Lara averages 50 + including 43 vs Waqar and Wasim. Against Donald and Pollock 40 I believe. Contrast this, with the Nels, Ntinis, and other lesser bowlers Shiv would've faced. Shiv and Lara should never be mentioned in the same breath. Nope.
Click to expand...
Lara would average 70 if he batted like Chanderpaul.
 
trundler

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
ZK$ said:
I think Chanderpaul is underrated tbh. He had his flaws, but he was an incredible player. I think he’d be rated higher if he played for like Australia or England.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't rate him higher in that case though. Don't think he's underrated at all. Every good player can't be lauded all the time.
 
OverratedSanity

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Ignoring the selfishness claims, Chanderpaul's biggest flaw as a batsman was that on the occasions he batted higher up the order, he couldn't get the same kind of scores. And so, he batted down the order. Which was fine, but then he didn't have either the game or complete selflessness to retain the strike (his tailenders were dreadful) and maximize run output for the team. I think I'd rate him far higher either if he batted 3/4 and averaged a few points lower, or if he came in at 5/6 but had a counterattacking game with the ability to dominate the strike and shield the tail. He was always stuck between the two in a kind of sub-optimal way imo.
 
C

CricketFan90s

U19 Captain
OverratedSanity said:
Ignoring the selfishness claims, Chanderpaul's biggest flaw as a batsman was that on the occasions he batted higher up the order, he couldn't get the same kind of scores. And so, he batted down the order. Which was fine, but then he didn't have either the game or complete selflessness to retain the strike (his tailenders were dreadful) and maximize run output for the team. I think I'd rate him far higher either if he batted 3/4 and averaged a few points lower, or if he came in at 5/6 but had a counterattacking game with the ability to dominate the strike and shield the tail. He was always stuck between the two in a kind of sub-optimal way imo.
Click to expand...
You are just telling what Chanderpaul made you feel. Chanderpaul's greatness is based on what he accomplished not based on your biased feelings. The fact is he was a very good lower middle order player.
 
honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
CricketFan90s said:
You are just telling what Chanderpaul made you feel. Chanderpaul's greatness is based on what he accomplished not based on your biased feelings. The fact is he was a very good lower middle order player.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top