a class and an unlucky batsman

[Cricketics]

what a fantastic player chanderpaul is.. u might place him on the top of the list in the list of most boring batsmans, but certainly is a classic batsman.. and very unlucky.. doesn't get enough support from the team.. its been england vs chanderpaul, rather then eng vs windies.. what a class.. and a salute to this fantastic cricketer

[Donny]

Why unlucky ? I certainly don't see him as boring because his 45% strike rate (and less) innings are almost always battling, team innings. Excellent to watch.

[Cricketics]

well i dont think he is boring either.. but while discussing on various boards, i have noticed lot of ppl calling him a boring batsman..

[Donny]

Why unlucky ?

[Cricketics]

because windies not winning.. lone man standing there. getting some rare support from other players.. scoring in every game, deserves something atleast.. imagine guy score 80, 90 every game, and end up as a player on a loosing side... all effort going in vain..

[CC1981]

Chanders & excellent to watch ? Not only is he slow..he has such an ugly technique...sure is a hella good batsman, though.

[Lurker]

Chandrapaul is born in the wrong era. Had he born in earlier eras when Test cricket was the thing Chandrapaul would have been considered amongst the greats. The chap keeps his chin up and has delivered when other bigwigs have failed around him. His average may not put him up in the top bracket but he is a very very capable batsman and which Indian can forget the stellar innings he seems to play with almost his eyes closed. Great servant for West Indies. If only they had a couple more like him.

[gs]

Chanderpaul is a very effective batsmen, but I find his style very slow and boring/ugly.

[Predator_05]

I hate Chanderpaul. This f*cker ALWAYS scores against India. and they are never exciting knocks either - he deliberately plays slow to bore the f*cking hell out of everyone. What is his average against IND, anyone know ? 993724.342 ? He was so boring that I needed rehabilitation after the 2002 WI tour to erase the memory of all those painfully slow innings of his.

[Ram]

Chandrapaul is born in the wrong era. Had he born in earlier eras when Test cricket was the thing Chandrapaul would have been considered amongst the greats. The chap keeps his chin up and has delivered when other bigwigs have failed around him. His average may not put him up in the top bracket but he is a very very capable batsman and which Indian can forget the stellar innings he seems to play with almost his eyes closed. Great servant for West Indies. If only they had a couple more like him.

Well said Lurks.. If he had played in the 70's and 80's , he would have been hailed among one of the greats !

[Donny]

Chanders & excellent to watch ? Not only is he slow..he has such an ugly technique....

Give me a batsman who is effective, any day, over 'stylish' cameos by underperforming superstars such as Fleming, Vaughan, Sehwag, Gayle etc. I hope you all witnessed Chanders' innings yesterday. On a slow wicket where none of the locals felt comfortable, he was very careful early (50 from 85 balls) and then put the foot down. His second 50 came from 29 balls and he raced to his century from 77 in just 11. He went from 50 to 116 n.o. in just 37 deliveries, giving his team a substantial, winning total. The Prince of Twitch sure ain't pretty to watch but he gets the job done for his team.

[CC1981]

Give me a batsman who is effective, any day, over 'stylish' cameos by underperforming superstars such as Fleming, Vaughan, Sehwag, Gayle etc.

Categoric injustice to Sehwag to lump him in that group, atleast in Tests- he is way way better a bat than Fleming,Vaughan & Gayle. I'd prefer the stylish batsman over the dour but boring one (though i'd include 1-2 in my side anyways for their value) if they are close enough in performance- at the end of the day, its a sport, its an entertainment. I'd easily take the kind of entertainment that a stroke-filled Rohan Kanhai brought to the wicket along with his 47-48 average over a dour, battling 51 averaging Border or Miandad anyday of the week. I dont consider 'pretty' to be a factor of how fast they score- Rahul is a far better batsman to watch than Gayle or Gillchrist are IMO and Symonds/Flintoff are uglier to watch than Lara or Tendy. Its just that Chanders is the epitome of the boring bat- he scores slow AND he bats in such an ugly manner. A very good batsman, no doubt, but not the type who'd have my money to watch him play.

[King]

I agree Chanderpaul is a captain's delight. He can be trusted upon to score more often than not. I would rather prefer a Chanderpaul than Gayle as for the team is concerned. Chanders may not not be pleasing to the eyes but in the end supporters, team management and the selectors want to see some consistent performances.

[Donny]

Categoric injustice to Sehwag to lump him in that group' date='[/quote'] Actually, he's perfectly placed in that group - and the Indian selectors agree with me. Sure, he's converted some good starts to big scores but how often has he failed by refusing to get his head down ? How often out to the irresponsible flashy stroke ? Far too often in recent times which is why he isn't in the present squad.

[The Outsider]

Far too often in recent times which is why he isn't in the present squad.

In recent times, yes but he has been arguably the second best test opener of this decade after Hayden overall.

[King Tendulkar]

Brilliant summer, quality. But has still only scored 1 century in SA and never scored one in oz, nz and pak. This exposes his limitations