Message Board Archives

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).

In reply to dale_staple

Great points...

In reply to dale_staple

EXACTLY........MUCH too rare.

But hey, leave him to accumulate for the West Dim's and RemainUnknowns and Anandbgs....

I dont even mind the accumulation when it's needed...but hey...GREAT?????

NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH.......................sorry!

@RMc@

In shiv's defence, he "dominated" in his own way

I have no doubt bowlers tried to get him out and plenty couldn't

I don't think there's a dispute that he's the single most difficult batsman to dislodge in the history of cricket.

That alone is a kind of dominance. Not the aggressive, meet you head on and punish you kind of dominance. But more the Chinese water torture, drip, drip kind.

The difference is this. Opposition teams could live with that because his approach didn't lessen their chances of winning. The longer he stayed at the crease didn't really matter because of 2 major factors:

1 - His colleagues would likely get out anyway
2 - He didn't score fast enough to put the opposition under pressure.

Cricket is still a game where the objective is to score more runs than the opposition and if you're not scoring quickly enough, those 2 points exacerbates the situation.

In reply to dale_staple



Score on Shiv’s stat sheet has his run rate at ‘below average’ and he is always not out.

When his fans asked about his performance Shiv didn’t lie. "I’ve played on the worst WI team ever” he said! “I was forever trying to save them”.

Shiv’s style has been adopted and shaped by the environment and conditions in which he played.

Shiv is great!

In reply to XFactor

Fuh YOU!

@RMc@

In reply to SpudsMcKenzie

SHiv is great

In reply to XFactor

Lara played under the same or worse circumstances all his career it never made him bat any different,that's why he is a great..

In reply to SpudsMcKenzie



There will always be debate on what criteria should be used when one considers who is great player.

Two of the most important criteria used in every sport, including cricket are:

(1) Number of match winning games
(2) Number of match saving games

Not that I'm saying Shiv is better than Lara but I'm willin to bet Shiv figures better than Lara, in both of the above categories.

In reply to bravos



Of the two, Lara and Shiv,who played on the worst team the longest?

Dale nice read

Question: does the situation a batsman find himself in dictate his temperament, his approach/application? And if so then will you agree that Shiv's game was modified significantly because of the situation he usually finds himself in with the recent Windian teams?

In reply to runout

That was one of my issues with Shiv. Case in point was the match against Bangladesh recently when he was batting with Brathwaite. The situation demanded that he accelerate the rate, yet he did not. In fact, he scored slower than KB. It was boring and unenterprising. Shiv will play like that in almost any situation regardless.

In reply to dale_staple

Dale I believe that Shiv will be the first to say that that was a bad day at the office. And we can all relate to that. We all know that he is much more talented than that. And I guess that is what is so frustrating for his supporters and detractors alike.

But that said, something about his appetite for making runs, and the hunger for making more runs, is truly amazing.

In reply to runout

Does Shiv an appetite for run making or does he just like to stay at the crease and bat? There is a difference. Lara had an appetite for runs and the ability to stay there and get them. So did Sobers. So does Gayle. Lil Bravo has the appetite but not the skill (mental) so to do.

In reply to dale_staple

I maintain that he has the appetite for scoring runs however the situation of the West Indies batting has been horrendous, and that explains why he is the last man standing. It takes some doing to do what he does especially at this ripe age. The man is like a good bottle of red wine. Gets better with age.

In reply to dale_staple
It is simple for Shiv:
When he go for runs, he will likely get out

When he stays at the crease and bat, runs will come

When shiv places his bat in d living room, he will be written as one of WI greats.

Whether Shiv is great or not is creating quite a stir, especially when the implications are that it diminishes BCL in the pantheon of great batsmen.

Why can't Shiv be great and Lara Viv and Sobers greater?

Shiv is a legend.

In reply to runout

It is all simple: his detractors think him being great takes away from their idols. That is the crux of the matter.

Shiv is uneducated , so he should not have a claim to fame.

These jackarses (spuds Imusic et al.) are simple profound idiots.

In reply to runout

I never said he not great..but they gotta know their place re Lara.

In reply to dale_staple
Shiv mentally and quietly pulverized the opposition.

So, for this little but devastating fact, Shiv is great!

Ress this story man.

In reply to bravos Im with U sah, full stop!

Really, does it matter?

There are only about 2 that EVERYONE thinks is "Great". Bradman and Sobers. There are arguments against Headley, Pollock, Barrington, Border. Even Richards.

For example, I don't consider Dravid, Hayden or Waugh to be "Great". And there are others (plenty) who don't think Lara is "Great".

If only 2 universally qualify, then it is really meaningless to discuss.

All I know is, that for 20 years, I have really enjoyed watching Shiv play and am incredibly appreciative of his prowess, tenacity and uniqueness. If at times a little frustrated (I mean, 49 not outs? really?)

In reply to BeatDball

Written by you.

Afterall, you can write what yuh want.

@RMc@

In reply to fatman

Dude..he was named one of the 5 greatest of the 20th century.............one of just 5.

Shut yuh skunt!

Listen to the pundits talk about him. THAT is greatness.

@RMc@

In reply to dale_staple

When Shiv passes Lara on total runs in test many will come on here saying he is greater than Lara etc .... Its easy... Lara scored my runs than Viv and to me Viv was a class by himself Lara to me not better than Viv. Shiv will not be in my eyes better than Lara but he will be rank as one of the best patient batsman with great ability to bat long without being flustered by lack of runs.
For me its Viv, Lara, Sobers, as great men in WI cricket.
I am not a SHiv basher though I truly respect his game. Best put Shiv is the Larry Gomes of our time and KB is the Gomes of the future. Those players are needed in all teams. Shiv is the greatest of that bunch

OK OK OK OK....look.......allyuh come up with allyuh criteria that makes Shiv great and be happy........OKAY??

Lets hear it.

PHEW!!

@RMc@

In reply to Chally1... Larry Gomes my ass. Shiv is a one of a kind. If we had 2 more, we would not have a 16% win record, over the last 100 tests.

In reply to natty_forever

If we had 2 more like Shiv, u would have only seen West Dim, Anandbg, RemainsUnknown, Googley, Runout, Deanjones, fatman and Norm in the stands when Windies batting....and that's much less than we even see now.

Phew!

@RMc@

In reply to SpudsMcKenzie
Relax bro...don't allow Shiv's accomplishments and the associated acclolades from his fans and adversaries alike bring you any harm.

You have KB surrently, Tage in the wings and perhaps we can find another one just to satisfy you, and the empty stands in the small islands.

Hopefully with Clive at the helm test cricket can return to the proper place in WI like Gy, Bdos Jam etc...

In reply to dale_staple

YES. greatest

In reply to dale_staple

Nice post.
Remember this ... 'If it fine block it and if it fat hit it' ?
That speaks to greatness ..simplifying a batting art and inspiring no less a player than Samuels to a Test ton in Saffie Land.
Shiv will make a fine batting coach. He is not top shelf great,but great he is.