Shiv Chanderpaul v Michael Clarke

Tac has suggested on the Chanderpaul thread that Michael Clarke would be picked in a test team over Shivnarine Chanderpaul. I think that is crazy; what does the forum reckon?

Leo wrote:Tac has suggested on the Chanderpaul thread that Michael Clarke would be picked in a test team over Shivnarine Chanderpaul. I think that is crazy; what does the forum reckon?

Leo, I said that Shiv wouldn't be picked in the current Oz team over Pup . . . why not be accurate rather than chucking a hissy fit?

Someone with 14 solid years (Shiv) vs someone with 10+ years to come, an excellent fieldsman, handy part-time bowler . . . and obvious future captain (Pup). Seems a no-brainer to me, mate.

And if you just want to talk about batting, for all the smoke that's been blown up Shiv's arse over the last couple of years, he's averaging no better than Pup for the same period . . . so he wouldn't be picked on pure batting either.

Clarkey!

The question should be- Who would you rather have coming to the crease at 30-3?

Shiv has done it for 13 years.

Shiv stood up to McWarne at their best in 96/97.

Shiv has hit a 60 ball century against the best team in the world.

His list of achievements go on and on.

Plus when you consider the pressure he is under, he always performs.

Michael Clarke rarely comes to the crease with his team in trouble, but when he does, the stats show that he consistently fails to deliver.

Henry wrote:Michael Clarke rarely comes to the crease with his team in trouble, but when he does, the stats show that he consistently fails to deliver.

How about Pup's first test.

I don't think pure stats give a proper comparison between these two - Chanders is a well known red ink hunter, Clarke loves scoring runs.

Does anyone have Chanders stats for tests he played with Lara?

I don't know how to filter that, but I get the impression Chander's stats would be better with Lara not in the team.

Clarke is a better fielder and bowler than Shiv. Although Shiv as a youngster was an exceptional fielder and he still has a safe pairs of hands.

Paris to open with the FTB , Shiv to 4 and the sookie frog dubber to fark off back to moo juice cricket

embee wrote:Paris to open with the FTB , Shiv to 4 and the sookie frog dubber to fark off back to moo juice cricket

So you wouldn't pick Shiv ahead of Pup . . .

No one in their right mind would pick Clarke when they can have Chanderpaul.

Shiv.

Okay, so what you're saying is that Clarke would be ahead because of long-run potential.

That's a very different thing from arguing Clarke deserves to be ahead of Chanderpaul as a batsman. And I don't agree anyway - a proven test player with 7500 runs who is still performing has a locked in place. If we had Chanderpaul, he would be the 3rd or 4th batsman picked. Ahead of Clarke.

Leo wrote:Okay, so what you're saying is that Clarke would be ahead because of long-run potential.

That's a very different thing from arguing Clarke deserves to be ahead of Chanderpaul as a batsman. And I don't agree anyway - a proven test player with 7500 runs who is still performing has a locked in place. If we had Chanderpaul, he would be the 3rd or 4th batsman picked. Ahead of Clarke.

Mate, I said what I said . . you're the one having a hissy fit. Chanders would be picked in front of Roy, but not ahead of Pup in the current Oz line-up . . .

Shiv is a proven "solid" test player . . . has managed to bump his average up a bit lately with some handy scores and more than a few not outs, but it's still only 47 and will probably drop again before he retires . . . (as most averages do). Pup is young and is still maturing, but averages the same as Shiv . . . and has matched his average even through Shiv's golden run of the last 2 years.

Your infatuation with the Shiv is such that you have even suggested that Shiv might be picked ahead of Hussey . . . that is just plain silliness.

Shiv - just.

Clarke is still subject to brain fades (such as his Sydney Test three months ago), but he is maturing as a Test batsman quickly enough to satisfy anybody remotely interested in being satisfied. His second-innings effort in Perth was outstanding.

Most of his failures when the side was in trouble happened in England in 05 (when else has Australia been in trouble lately?), when he was surrounded by more experienced players who mostly did even worse and created the mess that he was supposed to clean up.

It's pretty simple. Chanderpaul. He constantly comes in with the shit flying and usually plays a lone hand. It's not his fault he runs out of partners. Furthermore, I think his technique stands him in better stead in all conditions. I reckon there's some dubber bias creeping about.

Look, Clarke is quality. Very valuable player for us, I'm not in any doubt on that point. He's done the job brilliantly over the last 18 months. Played well (relatively speaking) in the 05 Ashes as well.

I would also point out Chanderpaul's average first rose above 47 in early 2005 (at least, leaving out his first 20-odd tests when he averaged 50 against some pretty good bowlers). He had a poor run in 2006, but has now pulled it back up again. It's not like he had a career average of 40 a year ago or something like that.

Paul Keating wrote:I don't know how to filter that, but I get the impression Chander's stats would be better with Lara not in the team.

Clarke is a better fielder and bowler than Shiv. Although Shiv as a youngster was an exceptional fielder and he still has a safe pairs of hands.

Stats guru has a filter for matches involving 2 players. Since they updated it statsguru has become a pretty good tool, I've pretty much stopped using howstat.
For the record Chanderpauls performances with and without Lara in teh side are:

Chanderpaul with Lara (1994-06) 146 innings 5634 runs @ 43.67 12 100's 35 50's hs 153*
Chanderpaul without Lara (2000-) 41 innings 1925 runs @ 62.09 5 100's 11 50's hs 204*

Being in the majority doesn't make you right, but it generally beats being in the minority.

Leo wrote:Being in the majority doesn't make you right, but it generally beats being in the minority.

Just for taccy.

So it's been over a year since the last vote. What's the views on the two at the moment?

Seems that Clarke lad has developed into a fair cricketer . . . doubt Oz would swap him for anyone . . . .

tac wrote:Seems that Clarke lad has developed into a fair cricketer . . . doubt Oz would swap him for anyone . . . .

He and AB are going head to head as very good batsmen at #5 atm.