CHANDERPAUL: RETIREMENT Is Not An Option

[quote author=Goog Lee link=topic=92734.msg588744#msg588744 date=1410983837]
Rev, Lord Shiv not only walked on the water, he churned the Ocean as well!  8)
[/quote]



[size=12pt]And don't forget Googs, Lord Shiv also parted the seas like Moses.[/size] ;D LOL

Rev

Shiv had them chaps bowling to him on that Strip b4 he closed back the Sea....

My daughter gave me a 2014 Threlkeld cricket Club Calendar !

This is the month of September on my Office wall  ::LOL::

                               

[quote author=ketchim link=topic=92734.msg588756#msg588756 date=1410985710]
Shiv had them chaps bowling to him on that Strip b4 he closed back the Sea....

[/quote]

ketchy:

* Look at that photo again.

* You notice Shiv's calmness and serenity despite all the chaos around him.

* Now you know why Shiv's power of concentration is so immense.

* By the way, nice present from your daughter.

Rev

quite a conversation piece with Clients who dont know this great game  ::LOL::

                               

dangerous Pitch !

                   

[size=24pt]NICE! VERY NICE PHOTOS KETCHY.[/size]

[quote author=Rev link=topic=92734.msg588606#msg588606 date=1410966961]
[size=18pt]Shiv(624) needs 376 runs to reach 1000 runs in India. Only 2 other West Indians have scored 1000 runs in India--Lloyd and Greenidge.[/size]

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/...pe=batting

Rev
[/quote]

That would be some lofty company. Shiv's numbers against England (52.42 avg) are in line with his overall career average (53.10). I can't believe it has been 5 years since Shiv played a home Test against England.

[quote author=dillinger10 link=topic=92734.msg588784#msg588784 date=1410998903]
That would be some lofty company. Shiv's numbers against England (52.42 avg) are in line with his overall career average (53.10). I can't believe it has been 5 years since Shiv played a home Test against England.
[/quote]

* The last time Shiv played against England in the Caribbean was in 2009.

* He averaged 59.80 with 1 hundred and 2 fifties.

http://howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Pl...eries=0587

* England will play 3 tests in the Caribbean in April 2015 after the world cup. So Shiv will get a crack at them at home.

Rev

Read this over at CC:

http://caribbeancricket.com/topic/1092127

Quote:IS SHIV A GREAT BATSMAN ?

[size=12pt]When it comes to batsmanship, and the mantle of greatness, there are many questions that arise. Much criteria is bandied about as to what qualifies a batsman as great. Broadly speaking, there are two categories of greatness. There is statistical greatness and aesthetic greatness. Rarely is there a marriage of the two and when that happens those unique souls who achieve both belong in the pantheon of the greatest of the great.

Statistical greatness is just that. It is an objective, numbers based analysis of a players performance over a period of time using a definite set of objective numerical indices. This is easy to do. Just pull up the averages, the runs accumulated, the not outs etc. Set a bar. Set a minimum number of matches (to account for longevity) and a particular average etc etc and see who you come up with. Those would then be your greats.

However, the purists will say and rightly so, that it does not capture the true essence of batsmanship. For batsmanship is not simply a measure of the runs one accumulates over time. Was it ponderously accumulated in circumstances that required otherwise? Was it accomplished in a flash in the context where a longer innings was required? Or were the runs achieved in a delicate balance of pace as the situation required? Nor is it the amount of not outs one accumulates, but the manner of the not outs. Were you not out fighting with the tail to save or win a match (Lara's 153 comes to mind)? Or was it done by you throwing the tail to the wolves and protecting yourself (a lot of SHiv's innings)?

Was your batting attractive and aesthetically pleasing? Was it entertaining and worth the price of admission? But attractive and aesthetically pleasing batting can be short and pointless (Hooper). In the same vein that dour and dull accumulation can be useful (Shiv, Boycott, Kallis). But then it can be both (Lara, Sobers, Ponting, Clarke, Tendulkar, Laxman, Sanga and Mahela et al).

The subjective element in aesthetic greatness often ignores the objective weight of the numbers. Numbers are objective and fair say the statisticians. But the purists say that numbers tend to deceive and do not tell the true story. They may even hide the truth (e.g. Shiv's not outs where he leaves the tail to fend for themselves).

Batsmanship...truly great batsmanship....finds a way to marry statistical greatness and aesthetic greatness. It finds a way to score a great deal of runs in a way that is entertaining and attractive, It is the skill of the greatest of the great to know how to adjust the tempo of the innings depending on the situation of the match whilst still keeping the spectators riveted. It is the art of making a defensive stroke as beautiful and meaningful as the glorious flourish of the most exquisite cover drive.

To my mind, Shiv is an anomaly. Shiv is capable of swift destruction (see his 69 ball century) but he is known for his dourness and grit and slow, painful, attritional accumulation. He has some brilliance but rarely shows this side of him. He has to be prodded somehow. Left to his own devices, Shiv is erratic. This is not aesthetically pleasing...but kind of manic. Shiv is what I would consider to be statistically great. He has an average above 50 with a decent test strike rate in the early 40's; is one of 3 left hand batsmen in the history of cricket with 30 or more centuries and he has 65 50s. He has played in 158 tests and 269 innings with 49 N.O.'s. By all objective statistical accounts, Shiv is one of our greatest batsmen. But he will never be considered a part of the pantheon because he is not an aesthetically great batsman.

Hands down if you ask fans around WI to choose between paying money to watch Hooper for 30 minutes or Shiv, money would be on Hooper. It's just the truth. Shiv does not even begin to sniff the door of the conversation for our greatest batsmen. He never has, and he never will. Why? Because he never excited us or entertained us the way other batsmen did. Rarely have we ever left a ground speaking wistfully of a Shiv innings or a shot. Whenever we did, it was more out of shock than admiration.

So in conclusion, Shiv is a statisticians greatest batsman. But for those who think that batsmanship involves much more than just the accumulation of runs over time, then Shiv will not be a great batsman.

Personally, I agree with the thread Spuds started. Viv, Brian and Sobers were our great batsmen. Headley may have been among the greats had he played more and same for Collie Smith (had he lived longer) and Lawrence Rowe (if he never messed himself up). [/size]