Shivnarine Chanderpaul vs Graeme Smith

[shortpitched713]

Lol what the actual ****.

Hayden is better than Tendulkar just because good modern openers are rare, but Chanderpaul is still better than Smith?!

You're off your head.

All ATGs, bit we have to split the hairs somehow.

I think Hayden really contributed to wins. He was the best bully bat I've seen, and I don't think that doing things when the conditions are a challenge is necessarily the biggest measure of greatness, it's contribution towards the end of winning. You can call Hayden a bit fortunate in that regard, but I think his style, and scoring speed in the circumstance he was in, makes his runs worth more than the face value.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Hayden(Because he opened) > Tendulkar > Chanderpaul > Graeme Smith

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Hayden(Because he opened) > Tendulkar > Chanderpaul > Graeme Smith

Oh boy oy oy

 

[Coronis]

All ATGs, bit we have to split the hairs somehow.

I think Hayden really contributed to wins. He was the best bully bat I've seen, and I don't think that doing things when the conditions are a challenge is necessarily the biggest measure of greatness, it's contribution towards the end of winning. You can call Hayden a bit fortunate in that regard, but I think his style, and scoring speed in the circumstance he was in, makes his runs worth more than the face value.

What a load of crap.

Smith in wins: 5214 @ 61.34 18 tons 64.43 SR
Hayden in wins: 6154 @ 55.44 23 tons 60.45 SR

Hayden played in more wins because he was on a better team. Smith contributed more meaningfully to wins as part of a weaker (still great) team.

He also beats Hayden on this scoring speed **** in wins.

 

[shortpitched713]

What a load of crap.

Smith in wins: 5214 @ 61.34 18 tons 64.43 SR
Hayden in wins: 6154 @ 55.44 23 tons 60.45 SR

Hayden played in more wins because he was on a better team. Smith contributed more meaningfully to wins as part of a weaker (still great) team.

He also beats Hayden on this scoring speed **** in wins.

Those stats don't tell you that. It just tells you how well each player performed when they did happen to win, not how meaningfully they contributed to the act of winning, because winning frequency is relevant to that.

That's even if your overall point is correct, which it may be, the stat doesn't tell you that.

 

[Coronis]

Those stats don't tell you that. It just tells you how well each player performed when they did happen to win, not how meaningfully they contributed to the act of winning, because winning frequency is relevant to that.

That's even if your overall point is correct, which it may be, the stat doesn't tell you that.

Winning frequency is far more dependant on the overall team strength, unless you’re someone ridiculous like Bradman, and you know it.

Another imperfect measure, in 60 wins Smith had 9 MOTM awards, Hayden had 8 in 71.

But by all means your “feeling” that Hayden was more aggressive and contributed more to wins is a good measure.

But yeah totes Hayden > Tendulkar > Shiv > Smith. That makes sense.