Message Board Archives

Must have played at least 80 tests.........good number to show longevity.

Must have averaged at least 50.............FIFTY is the lowest landmark a batsman seeks when he goes to the wicket.

Must have dominated bowlers throughout career!

Those batsmen are Richards, Sobers, Lara.

END OF STORY!!

@RMc@

In reply to SpudsMcKenzie

The Word of Spuds! So...by your definition, if Shiv retires now...wouldn't he qualify as one of our greats?

In reply to dale_staple

The man talking bout great in the sense of great,men who commanded the pitch,aggressively commanded games on a regular basis,like the type of great batsmen Viv,Sobers and Lara were. He ain talking bout great accumulator batsmen like Boycott,Shiv etc.

He talking bout great juggernauts.

In reply to SpudsMcKenzie

Agreed.

If dem 3 great...then lesser mortals cannot also be great.

Either that, or you find a higher category to put those 3 in.

And knowing how much it must pain you to include Lara in that list demonstrates just how great Lara was.

In reply to bravos

Did u read his criteria? Do not put words in his mouth. By the criteria he has listed, if Shiv were to retire now, he would be one of our greats.

In reply to imusic

it also demonstrated that despite his shortcomings,Spuds is true to himself,and not blinded by some self empowering and glorifying agenda..

In reply to dale_staple

Define "dominate"

Whilst Shiv has great numbers he cannot be accused of being a great batsman according to Spuds's definition with which I agree

In reply to SpudsMcKenzie

Dude, this stuff is highly subjective

It's like trying to determine who the greatest fighter is

We will never know

who from around the world, past and present, would you include in this category?

Lest we forget..

In reply to SpudsMcKenzie

Absolutely aree... Crabbie does not belong in the great category !!

In reply to black

Yeh but we know Ali was definitely better than Holmes and Lewis. And we know Ali,Ray Leonard and Hearns were better than the rest.


And we know Sobers,Lara and Viv were better the rest,we definitely know that Shiv can't bat with them.

So it's no mystery there.

^**Perspecive: Your theory may apply to choosing the best one among Sobers,Lara and Viv..doh try dat..

In reply to bravos

The Body Snatcher and the Marvellous One would beg to differ.

In reply to SpudsMcKenzie

that list is 21 strong.



what does dominate throughout career mean?

In reply to doosra

If you don't know....you never will

In reply to imusic

dominate means what to you?

let me give a scenario

a player averages 40sinting for more than half of his career(latter half)

does that tell you anything about dominate throughout his career?

In reply to JahJah

Yeh they were good too,I didn;t go into details,was just trying to make a point.

Sugar Ray Hearns and Hagler could literally fight for top honors,I gave it to Hearns for his weight division crossing..but Hagler right there..just like Sobers,Lara and Viv..

In reply to bravos

How do we know that???

In reply to doosra

'Dominate' here would mean consistently bat aggressively while you accumulate runs. .

In reply to black

Well you should have followed boxing more closely. Even school children knows that.

Don't blame me for lack of knowledge.

It's you that don;t know..

In reply to bravos

Do we ALL know that TYSON was the VERY BEST?

In reply to moneybrain

Bradman.

In reply to bravos

a player averages 40sinting for more than half of his career(latter half, about 60 matches)

would u classify that player as one who has dominated "throughout" his career?

In reply to doosra
Dominate in cricket as it pertains to batsmen:

Bowlers fear you
Captains cannot set a field for you
Opposing teams know that if they don't get you quickly, that you dominate the bowling so much to put them in a potentially losing situation because you also score quickly.
You attack the bowling and they're powerless to stop you
You do all that while making a ton of runs at a high average. (see spuds criteria above)

That's DOMINANT

In reply to imusic

fair enough




now can u please address the next question as posed above?



ps: you don't have to address this question

In reply to doosra

I won't. It's not relevant.

In reply to imusic

why is it NOT relevant?

you said this, not me

In reply to doosra

He dominated his shortcomings and found a model to consistently produce. He never consistently dominated bowlers historically.

He shuts down and goes into survival mode(n.o)..

Minus some of his not outs and you would understand..minus Lara's also and you would have an epiphany.

In reply to bravos

thanks for that response

In reply to doosra

If he dominated the bowling in averaging that 40 something, and still ended with an average of over 50, then yes, he dominated throughout his career.

The main thing is that when he batted, he dictated(dominated) to the bowlers......he was not accumulating.

SIMPLE!

Best regards!

@RMc@

In reply to SpudsMcKenzie

I just started an interesting thread on Shiv. I concluded by agreeing with your first post on this thread.

In reply to SpudsMcKenzie

that is a way much more informed opinion than presented before on the question of "dominated throughout his career".

now let us examine the 21 that meet your first 2 criteria and see how many of those would fit the 3rd [having clarified fairly well what dominate throughout could be taken to mean]

who would u have in there.

In reply to dale_staple

OF COURSE NOT!

He will qualify as one of our top 5 batsmen to me ....BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN HE WAS GREAT.

Get that in yuh head.

You must dominate bowlers to rank as great.

Stop using the word "great" so loosely.

Could Shiv bat with Lara, Viv or Sobers??

HELL NO..

So find another adjective to describe him.

You can even call him the greatest accumulator is West Indian history!!

I would accept "great accumulator"....and hey........NOTHING is wrong with that, eh.

I know its a tough concept to grasp but....................hey.............dale with it!

Best regards

@RMc@

In reply to SpudsMcKenzie

oh punts

In reply to SpudsMcKenzie and Doosra

READ MY THREAD AND CONCLUSION.

In reply to doosra

Not to me..it was very clear originally.....but hey, if that helped, so be it.

There are 21 west indian batsmen over 80 tests and averaging over 50??

Really??

Name 5.

Thanks!

@RMc@

In reply to SpudsMcKenzie

Gospel.

In reply to SpudsMcKenzie

no u did not read my post on page 1

21 is the universal number. will be 22 the next time Amla plays

Jayawardene
Inzy
Sehwag

all missed the mark by a little bit

In reply to doosra

Chappell
Tendy
Miandad
Ponting
Clarke
DeVillers

Yes, if they have met the first two criteria, they great.

I will admit i have a bit of a problem with Clarke and DeVillers at this time....even tho they have met the criteria apparently.

So I will say, that one MAY be classified as great if meeting my 3 above.

Maybe its good that Sehwag and Jayawardene missed the mark cuz im a bit skeptical about them and their records on the sub-continent that skews things

@RMc@

In reply to SpudsMcKenzie

what is the problem? Clarke outside of Australia? What about DeVilliers

No Hayden dude?

Are you saying that Sangakarra is an accumulator?

And overall the cricket world has only produced

9 great batsmen, with question marks next to 2?

In reply to doosra

Like I said, I have a problem with them tho Im not sure what it is......maybe cuz I have not followed them closely enough to witness their domination..yea, that's it.

If Hayden was in ur list, yes he's great if he met the first two.....cuz we know he DOMINATED.

As a matter of fact, i would have included him if he averaged 48...........an EXCEPTION to my set criterion.,

Sangakarra?? I dont know him to dominate bowlers consistently.

And YES.................ABSOLUTELY...........it's 9, or maybe 10, or 11. The word "GREAT" must NOT be used carelessly.

Leave "great" for the truly great.

Many others were VERY GOOD; quite a few more "good;" and many more "average."

Best regards!

let's examine the spudster's list of Greats[minus those with some doubt]

8

In reply to doosra

U know Kevin Pietersen was just 3 short of the 50 run criteria. WOuld he count?

In reply to dale_staple

using which algebraic system?

In reply to SpudsMcKenzie

Spuds bestowing greatness on people now.

Per the Spuds bible, of course.

One of your great batsmen - Lara - ran like hell from McGrath and Akram.

In reply to bravos

You not serious. Why was Ali better than Holmes? Explain that to me.
Hearns was not as good as McCallum Mayweather and a ton of other boxers.

In reply to SpudsMcKenzie

You trying to eliminate the old timers who played for many years but played in fewer tests. Sobers played a good 20 years for his 90 matches. These days you can play 100 matches in 10 years

some born great

some achieve greatness


some have greatness thrust upon them






Pele said some dribble wid dem toe, some dribble wid dem heel and some wid de sole of their feet ....

everybody done get dribble


IF

[i][b]If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,[/b]
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:[/i]

In reply to dale_staple

Pietersen average is 47/48??

Nah...not great...sorry.

Ask yuhself this: would u rate him alongside Richards, Sobers, Lara?

Lemme answer that 4 you: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.....................so he ain great..............SIMPLE!

Next???

@RMc@

all those references to skilled pugilists by the well informed and well read posters and yet they wish to display ignorance of the most in depth tactician of war and competition :- Sun Tzu......



A thousand runs N.O 3 times hohoho it must be Christmas or the red light distict on Friday.

A lesson for the failed intelligentsia, in parts.



Thus we may know that there are five essentials for victory:
1 He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.


"If it fine .. and if it fat ..". The voopsters are inept and incapable of recognising which is which


2 He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces.


Dem cud barely handle pace and cyan read or write spin, swing or seam is anodda tailor fih dem ...which one does bodda de Crab?



3 He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all its ranks.


[b] Oh shoite Here comes a maturing Paint. If only others will put a jockstrap wid a box over dem stump/s
[/b]


4 He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared.



A bowling machine .. six hours practice ... fit a rarse




5 He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign.”



Send message to tell me how to bat ... plenny time .. de effin effrontery .. like ah is likkle bai in short pantz
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War


all dis for de cognoscienti

In reply to SpudsMcKenzie

You are allowing your personal preferences to affect your judgement. Is Chanderpaul as entertaining a batsman as Sobers, Richards or Lara? No, he is not. That is because there are different styles of batting. Some batsmen are majestic, others are swashbucklers and some are accumulators. What determines a great batsman is not style but runs. If Chanderpaul maintains his form when he retires the experts at Wisden will consider him a great batsman. The same way they thought Ken Barrington, Sunil Gavaskar, Javed Miandad and Allan Border were great batsmen.

So Bradman not great?

In reply to Fivestar

Five star as much as I don't want to agree with you I think I have to. We all may not like it but Shiv has to go down as one of the greats if his stats remain.

We may not like his style but it works if it get the numbers. Also we need to actually give Shiv credit for his notouts and stop hating.

The man criterua covers all the things people go to see entertaining and winning Test cricket for - style,fearlessness, runs galore with any field placing (because they had all the shots in the book) and any bowler on. Those WI 3 could not be contained for more than one or two overs, utterly refused to be pegged down. Like most of the comns say Shiv bats within his limitations; those 3 Spuds mentioned had none when batting.

In reply to Fivestar

BWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA...................

U delusional.

@RMc@

In reply to Scar

U see the number uh half-volleys Shiv patting fuh a single??

Against Banglafactingdesh........and dem wanna call him great??

Maaaaaaaaaaan...tell them get the fuck outta here blowhards.

Dem tink dem men at Wisden skuntish like dem??

Anytime u hear any big time older cricketer pon commentary talk about Shiv, they always qualify his ability. They never speak of him in the same breath as Lara......dem know better than these groupie fans Shiv gat.

@RMc@

I question the criteria. 80 tests is too many, because it eliminates anyone who played before the 60s when Test cricket occurred less often, especially those whose careers were interrupted by WWII. I cannot see a list of great West Indies batsmen without Headley, Weekes and Walcott. Dominating bowlers is a slippery criterion because it creates a bias in favor of attacking batsmen. A fifty average is a good landmark, but it does not always tell the whole story.

Let's take a hypothetical example. Batsman A has an outstanding career for more than 80 tests and keeps his average above 50 through that time. He is rated for half of that time as the #1 batsman in the world. By the time he is ready to retire at 38 with his average still above 50, his team, like the Windies, is going through a rough patch and he is encouraged to stay on to help the young ones develop. His batting falls away a bit, but he is seen as a father figure and a valuable mentor, Like Worrell was is the early 60s, even with a somewhat lower current average, which is still better than many in world cricket. He finally retires at 43 y.o. but his average has suffered, and at retirement it has dropped to 49. Is he suddenly no longer a great player because he stayed on too long? That is why final numbers do not often determine greatness. Greatness is a subjective category.

In reply to SpudsMcKenzie



Oi Spuds,

(1) Number of match winning games

(2) Number of match saving games

Are those valid criterions to be used when determining the greatness of a player?

In reply to SpudsMcKenzie

Kara made great bowling by spinners look ordinary, I never see Sobers pad out in an era where many used the tactics due to old lbw rules. Viv well he respected no one.

In reply to Cameron

No. Not as long as we can agree to an evaluation criteria.

The test is to develop this criteria which is acceptable to debaters and statisticians.

Any criterion that rejects Dexter and Cowdrey, but includes Barrington; that excludes Bradman but includes Matty Hayden; that excludes Kanhai but includes Chanderpaul, is flawed. I do not think that current fans appreciate how good a batsman Rohan Kanhai was. Read CLR James on Kanhai.

In reply to Cameron

The evaluation metrics (criteria) so developed and agreed upon would be fair to every cricketer who is up for appraisal for GREATNESS.

In reply to Courtesy

Not everything can be objectively evaluated, in my view. Putting numbers on a category does not make it objective. Our attempts to create evaluative criteria often gives us only the illusion of objectivity.

In reply to Cameron

That's all that needs to be said.

In reply to Cameron

Mate, I premised by statement on the essential that the criteria must be agreed upon.

Also, there can be qualitative and quantitative metrics incorporated in your criteria.

In reply to Courtesy

So I will imagine that as we establish the criteria for judging who is great, then we can determine who is the greatest also? Since this will be purely objective.

In reply to runout

Your agreed criteria (if this can be developed to cope with the lifespan of cricket) will determine the greatest.

In reply to Courtesy

And after agreeing on who is the greatest, then what?

Does it change anything or just satiate our favoritism?

Spuds could never be more right.

_r

In reply to runout

The point being made here is this: Posting a three point subjective criteria to determine great or greatness which does not find agreement among the debaters and statisticians is meaningless.



Let's agree to the metrics (qualitative and quantitative) first then we can talk after this.

In reply to Courtesy

And I contend that any discussion surrounding greatness is pointless, let alone a three point subjective criteria.

So what if, for argument sake we draw up a 10point basis? And the we appoint the greats. Then what? Don't the greats know that they are/were great? Would they rely on some arbitrary standards to judge how they played the game, and how they fit into this metric that 'we' who don't have any idea how they may have gone about securing their status in this glorious game of cricket

Do you think that the 'greats' would really care? Not trying to be abrasive here.

For example and this is just a basic flaw:

What if the majority of tests are played against minnows or conversely...

We need to be able to see the wood from the trees.

In reply to Courtesy

I agree. And playing 80 tests would have been unheard of pre ww ii

You know time has a certain way of adding luster to our memories, not too long ago the perception of Viv was that he was a gifted slugger, it wont surprise me if at some point after Shiv retires he will be regarded in the same circle as Viv himself.

In reply to runout

So you see how developing a criteria which is acceptable is so difficult.

Brother there are inherent difficulties and dangers in pursuing such a simplistic approach.

This done.

In reply to Courtesy

Cool. Good night.

In reply to SpudsMcKenzie

Thats an injustice to Pietersen, the man who dominated the most dominant team and bowling attack in the modern era.

This is what Sir Viv says about Shiv:

So spuds you can go fcuk yourself.

Sir Viv speaks and he knows cricket more than you do.

Go get your facting meds and remain silent now.


Need I remind you that WI needed 10 to win off 2 balls: Who got it done? That is fcuking domination for a winning cause. You fcuking blowhard knows nothing about cricket. So fut the shuck up

In reply to SpudsMcKenzie

When Chanderpaul retires and Wisden proclaims him one of the great batsmen who played the game I will remind you that you claimed Shiv wasn't great.

In reply to anandgb

Where did he say he was great??

Look..........it's like you.........you are at the top of the tree re brains in yuh family.

But that dont mean that you smart.

Kapiche?? Now run along!

Best regards!

@RMc@

In reply to runout

And I knew and was waiting for some joker to bring this up.

Okay the........lets bring it down to 60 tests.

Does anyone else show up to be considered??

I'm waiting.................THANKS!

Maaaaaaaan...............allyuh too easy yeh!

@RMc@

Shiv can be aggressive and dominate ala Lara and them ... he just chose not to. Now that's greatness.

In reply to natty_forever

Now that's CRAP............. what u wrote.

PHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEWWWW........!!!

@RMc@

In reply to SpudsMcKenzie

You know how to get these ppl hyped...thats for sure.

The wonderful thing is that the English language caters for Chanderpaul.

Shiv is a great batsman but he is not a great.

I have utmost respect for Shivnarine Chanderpaul. At the same time, alot of the supporters who vest themselves in Shiv are angered by anyone who supposedly belittles him. And you know that

I dont care about his ethnicity, or his upbringing, or his education. The man has proven himself to have an incredible appetite for playing cricket.

However I am a fan of the sport, not a person. As a fan of the sport it has been obvious that Shiv reshaped his career post captaincy to leave his name in the record books. The man saw what was around him, the crass self indulgence, and having sacrificed in both ODI cricket (he could have averaged more playing for himself...) and in Test cricket, he decided Shiv was going to bat for Shiv.

But the point Spuds is...wouldnt you when you are surrounded by what Shiv has been surrounded by ?

My view of Shivs batsmanship was that in the moments when he had to separate himself, even from Lara, he didnt.

The Pakistan tour in 1997. Not showed in the Caribbean. Shiv was at SEA. Lara was in protest and sulking (which AGAIN is part of the reason why NOONE should have a real issue about selfish Shiv), but Shiv was as dependent on Lara as the rest of the team.

The SA tour in 1998. Shiv again was at sea vs Donald and Pollock...whilst Lara was more bothered about playing golf with Cronje.

For a long time fans thought Sarwan was the heir apparent as the next great batsman. That was because Shiv retreated from that title and decided he was going to accumulate. WHilst Sarwan crashed and burned, Shiv worked his way, ala Boycott into a position where WI had to pick him.

After those two tours and the switch I thought that Shiv had enough of this pretend team business. His finest period was when he was opening as an ODI bat for WI. That Shiv was the best Shiv of his career. Remember he had a higher average than Chris Gayle opening.

However I think Shiv made the right decision for himself and his place in posterity.

All hail Shiv Chanderpaul, a man of resilience and consistency, and above all a man who stuck to the job through thick and thin, and MASTERED IT within his means.

In reply to SpudsMcKenzie

I thought I made the point?

Spuds you need to relax man. This Shiv business is really taking a toll on the quality of your posts.

In reply to Commie

ABSOLUTELY SPOT ON!!

And I SAID exactly that back then. I remember writing here ad nauseum that Shiv was right to start playing for himself because of the assholes he had around him.

Doosie should have NO HESITATION in confirming that I said that.

BUT THE FACT THAT HE DID ACCUMULATE, and has this great record, DOES NOT MAKE HIM GREAT!!



AGAIN...............I AGREE!

My problem is with peeps like Norm who has lost all credibility....talking the skunt he is.

Peeps like Anandbg and West Dim are jokers i toy with...they dont count.

Best regards!

@RMc@

[b]In reply to SpudsMcKenzie[/b

Dominant is the operative word placed in this criteria to ensure that Shiv does not make this category. Dominant means-assertive, forceful, competitive, insistent, vigorous, energetic, dynamic, driving, bold, audacious, enterprising, go-ahead, zealous, pushing;in-your-face.
Teams feared Viv just walking out to bat because of his aggressive swagger.
They must also hold their heads when Shiv comes out because they know they are going to be out in the hot sun all day. It might be for different reasons but teams must dread the appearance of Shiv, the same way they did with Viv.

In reply to SpudsMcKenzie

Even by the criteria ,you could put Viv another notch upwards. Super Great.Bowlers feared the man

In reply to SpudsMcKenzie

Shiv in full flow

See his stance. Amazing how much he changed his stance to be more two eyed.

Do you know why and when ? Its those things that interest me about Shiv. Isht people like Gayle and Samuels and Sarwan (with his hooking habit) should learn from.

In reply to Commie

Great synopsis !

I read the first page of the post and did not see George Headley’s name – so it is hard to take this thread seriously

In reply to SpudsMcKenzie

Wait, you awarding "credibility" to people too? The Spudsy Certifying Agency, eh? Like a few others on this MB, you seem to think that repeating something over and over makes it true.

Your technique is simple. Proclaim your view as loudly as you can, deem it "wisdom" then cuss anyone who disagrees.

You sure waste a lot of time trying to put down the credibility of someone with no credibility!

Very smart. The Spudsy way, eh?

In reply to bobby

Yea...and i bet bowlers shook in their boots.

Steeeeeeeeeeeeuuuppppssssssssssssss....

@RMc@

In reply to birdseye

WHO??

The man played just over 20 tests.

Get the fuck outta here.....and stay out!!

@RMc@

In reply to SpudsMcKenzie

Spuds, why are you so upset with Shiv's accomplishemnts, and his fans claim to his greatness?

Does that diminish the status of your idols?

After all you do realize that this "great" thing is all about nothing, right?

In reply to runout

Sure. Spudsy knows that. Doesn't matter tho.

He just needs an excuse - any one - to cuss up and behave bad!!!

This was never about Shiv. It was about Spudsy carrying on and carrying on. The man even has his own following!

In reply to runout

Look man....we know that longevity is a major criterion, right???? We agree on that?

So u mentioned 80 might be too arbitrary.

So lets make it 70??

What about 60??

Tell yuh what..lets make it 50 because if we start coming down too much further, then longevity does not become a factor anymore...right??

So..........which other batsmen will be added to my 3 if we said 50 tests is a criterion??

Thanks..........the other joker can help yuh.

I'm waiting.

Oh, and by the way......."GREAT" is a big deal in every sport, so lets keep it real!

@RMc@

In reply to SpudsMcKenzie
Spuds, are you ok?

I am not trying to prove or disprove anything on the statistical greatness.

All I have stated is that we have attempted to arbitrarily assign greatness without any standardization. And this leads to confusion. And even if we did standardize greatness, then what does it mean to the BCL's, Viv etc? Does it really change the way they played the game, and how we appreciate it?

Now who is the other joker?

In reply to runout

Dude!!! Yuh gat time with dat ole skunt? He juss post here after receiving instructions via his PM...

In reply to SpudsMcKenzie



For players of yesteryears longevity is equated to the number of years played, not games. Players today play more games than those in the past.

Sir Frank Worrell played for 15 years – 51 tests with 49.48 average. Worrell was great.

Your criterions are too simplistic and they fall short.

In reply to XFactor

Even if de idiot nah pick Sir Frank....Walcott played 44 Tests over 12 Years and average 56.68 with 15 Tonas and 14 50's....Weekes average 58.61 in 48 Tests over a 10 year period with 15 Tons and 19 50's and dem nah GREAT!!!

Spuds is a big mouth blowhorn!!!

In reply to NineMiles

where do you put him? any ideas

In reply to Dan_De_Lyan
I think Shiv should start to advertise Mylanta....I think that he is causing more than his share of Stomach Ailments for some folks here.

From the name calling, to the cussing, to the detractions....maan Shiv must be GREAT at causing insomnia and burn-stomach even if he is NOT considered a great batsman.

I think Chicken prices went up in Jamaica because of him too (ask Crissy)...and Punchin Rum gone to country in T&T and El Dorado slaes have definitley jumped in GY.

In reply to XFactor

true......but that is terribly flawed.....like using time to judge the fastest century.

Remember when they judged that by time too??? Stupid, huh??

Look....its not my fault they only played less than 50 tests.

WHAT I am saying that the fact that Sobers, Lara, Viv played so many more than 50 tests and still averaged up in the 50's must be given major consideration over the 3 W's.......no fault of the W's but hey...life ain fair.

Bottom line is that so few tests is not a barometer for judging greatness.

Bottom line also is that the more tests played, the "likelihood" average falls. That happens vast majority of times.

Look.............find your criteria and you name your greats.....okay??

I sticking with "longevity" by NUMBER of tests as one of mine.

Regards nevertheless!

@RMc@

In reply to SpudsMcKenzie

Bottom line also is that the more tests played, the "likelihood" average falls. That happens vast majority of times.

Spudzie...I think you are making the strongest argument here that Shiv's supporters are trying to make in order to qualify his greatness, no?

In reply to runout

Maaaaaan, that was put there with the expectation that u would clutch at that straw........and you did.

BWAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA>...........................

So use that as ur criterion and be happy.....join with Pooper.

@RMc@

In reply to SpudsMcKenzie
No, man, I didn't clutch at anything...just replaying what you wrote...you need to stop hating and start appreciating.

Don't make Shiv's accomplishments denude you of self-restraint and encourage you to post derogatory comments. Like Shiv you should encourage yourslef to be better.

In reply to runout
Spudzie, what is the real problem with you and recognizing Shiv as the great player that he is?

Is is that you are afraid that he will supplant your heroes? And if he did or didn't, did he fraudulently do so, or did he do it with hard work and perseverance?

In reply to SpudsMcKenzie

The same criteria that exclude Shiv from the exclusive club.....because he played more tests, in the eyes of many of his critics!!

In reply to SpudsMcKenzie

Come on Spuds, give Mass George a bly.

In reply to Drapsey

Yuh haffi come up wid your own criteria fi Mass George. If not, him get what di duck get...no bly.

In reply to SpudsMcKenzie

nice to reminisce of those 3.......however did they help WI beat bangladesh?

since this thread is to enforce that Chanders can not be on the same team as those guys...

chanders near 12000 runs did not come from a video game....hard work in the middle

In reply to Dan_De_Lyan

stws......thats what u get from this thread????

Oh well............

@RMc@

In reply to SpudsMcKenzie

how many great bowler dominate Shiv.? (ref in bold)

In reply to SpudsMcKenzie


One criterion full of crap (to be polite)

This has to be a joke.

This self-appointed cricket expert would have us believe and accept that "greatness" in cricket, as a batman, should begin (if not relegated or limited to) to such narrow criteria.

I wouldn't humour him with names of other West Indian "greats", far less those of other countries who played less than 80 tests.

p.s. why should greatness in Windies cricket be defined any differently than it is in any other Test playing countries?