Australia in West Indies 2012 May 3, 2012

When Chanders went bonkers

And Gayle went all Boycott
24

The engrossing 2011-12 Test season came to an end last week, as Australia sealed a 2-0 win in the West Indies. The series could have had a different result had West Indies not been undermined by IPL clashes, selectorial squabblings, and top-order batting with the solidity of a blancmange in a 1950s nuclear-weapons test. History will probably judge those three factors to have been interlinked.

Standing defiantly amidst the wreckage was Shivnarine Chanderpaul, the best batsman in the series by a significant margin, who became the tenth batsman to pass 10,000 Test runs, returned to the top of the Test batting rankings, and edged his career average back over 50. There may be few cricket lovers who drift off to sleep at night fondly reminiscing about the day they saw Chanderpaul stroke the ball effortlessly around the park, but he has been one of the most remarkable batsmen in an age of remarkable batsmen, a craftsman of infinite resource, capable of breaking out of his physics-defying stance with outbursts of truly sublime timing.

Chanderpaul will be remembered primarily as a dogged accumulator, but he was responsible for one of the most extraordinary innings ever played in Test cricket. On day one of the April 2003 Test against Australia in Guyana, he came to the wicket with West Indies wallowing in an especially sludgy mire at 47 for 4. Lara was soon dismissed at the other end to make it 53 for 5.

Chanderpaul, ever the man for a crisis, might have been expected to try to graft his team towards a moderate total. Instead, he plumped for an unexpected Plan B - he hammered a 69-ball century, batting as if someone had spiked his morning cornflakes with industrial-strength fireworks, and flaying the Australian bowling attack as if he had just discovered they had each eaten one of his beloved squad of pet terrapins, leaving behind only empty shells graffitied with the word "yum".

For a man with a career strike rate of 40, who less than a year before had ground his awkward way to 136 not out off 510 balls in an 11-hour megavigil against India, to slap what was then the third-fastest Test hundred of all time against the world's No. 1- ranked team has to go down as one of the most out-of-character innings in Test history. He has compiled some of the most remarkable individual series performances of recent times, but that one innings stands out on his CV like a freshly powerdrilled thumb.

At the other end of the "What on Earth Got Into Him?" scale of out-of-character batsmanship is Aravinda de Silva's epically unproductive performance against Zimbabwe in Bulawayo in October 1994. He followed a 14-ball first-innings duck with a staggeringly negative 27 off 191 balls ‒ the second-slowest recorded innings of 25 or more in Test history ‒ as Sri Lanka ground their way to a draw on the fifth day. It must have felt like watching Michelangelo paint a chapel ceiling in an especially featureless shade of beige.

Only Jack Russell's unbeaten 29 off 235 in Johannesburg in 1995-96 ‒ the Robin of Resistance to Atherton's Batman of Block ‒ has ever out-turgided de Silva's innings, and that was an innings that was certifiably in-character, a magnum slow-pus by one of cricket's most infuriating batsmen.

De Silva, on the other hand, was a cavalier and magician, one of the most bewitching batsmen of his era, capable of destroying the best attacks while under the utmost pressure, in a flurry of untouchable strokeplay. In Bulawayo, the cavalier became a roundhead, and the magician downed his magic wand, gave his rabbits the day off from appearing out of his top hat, and did his accounts.

Furthermore, he was up against a bowling attack none of whom had taken more than 16 Test wickets. And three of whom (Jarvis, Rennie and Peall) were so traumatised by the ordeal of bowling to him that they played a combined total of two more Test matches and took a collective one further Test wicket in the rest of their careers.

Behind de Silva on that list of epic grinds are some of the all-time legends of strokeless negativity ‒ Chris Tavaré (35 off 240), Trevor Bailey (68 off 427), Trevor Franklin (28 off 175), and the renowned snooze-inducing West Indian stodgemeister, Chris Gayle.

Hang on, is that the same Chris Gayle widely regarded as the best Twenty20 batsman in the loud history of the format? The Chris Gayle who hit a 70-ball Test hundred? Who flambéed 117 off 57 balls to register the first-ever century in a T20 international? Against South Africa? Who is third on the all-time list of Most-Sixes-Clonked In International Cricket? Who is one of only two players to have twice hit seven or more sixes in a Test innings (the other being Chris Cairns)? Who in his last two IPL matches has chunk-hammered 86 off 58 and 71 off 42, hitting one in every ten balls over the ropes and endangering innocent passers-by in the streets of Bangalore with his leviathan power? The Chris Gayle who can make bowlers inwardly beg for their mummies with one muscular flick of the shoulder? Yes. That Chris Gayle. That very same Chris Gayle.

In April 2001, early in his Test career, at the end of a testing series against South Africa, as West Indies battled towards a consolation fifth-Test victory against the potent Protean pacemen, Gayle anti-bludgeoned his way to a sub-Boycottian 32 off 180 balls. It remains the slowest Test innings of 25 or more ever played by a West Indian. If he batted at the same rate in the IPL, he would carry his bat for 11 not out.

Gayle did not find Test cricket an easy game in his early years. In his first 20 Tests he averaged under 30, and it was only in his 37th Test that his strike rate rose above 50. If he found Test cricket difficult then, however, now, he finds it impossible. Albeit for off-the-field reasons. Which is deeply regrettable. In what seem likely to prove his final 18 Tests, between December 2008 and December 2010, Gayle averaged 58, and hit 36 sixes.

Would England rather be bowling at Adrian Barath and Kieran Powell when the first Test begins at Lord's in two weeks' time? Was Don Bradman good at batting? And would world cricket rather be watching England bowl at Gayle? Ditto.

● Strap in for some curious stats. Since Brian Lara retired from Tests at the end of 2006, Chanderpaul has averaged 66 in Tests - the highest average of any Test batsman over that period. In the matches he played with Lara, Chanderpaul averaged 43. Was he cowed by Lara's presence?

Lara, in Tests when he played alongside Chanderpaul, averaged 47. In all the Tests he played without Chanderpaul in the team, Lara averaged 62. Was he cowed by Chanderpaul's presence? Maybe each was inspired by the extra responsibility of not being able to rely on the other. Maybe it is just coincidence. Maybe not.

Conclusion: West Indies should have played and dropped Lara and Chanderpaul in alternate Tests throughout their careers. Leaving out one of their two best players every match might not have been especially popular with the supporters, or with Lara or Chanderpaul, but you cannot argue with statistics. In any case, West Indian cricket has recently shown a relentless determination not to pick its strongest team anyway, so it might as well have done so from the mid-1990s.

Andy Zaltzman is a stand-up comedian, a regular on the BBC Radio 4, and a writer

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Eeduaard on July 31, 2012, 6:36 GMT

    Comma only when estc3hungry and not mc3s that three times dc3a. b3 n of the vehc3culos and the crude fruits in each food inecldus montc3, preferably 50%. In order to have mc3s satisfaccic3 b3 n outside the food of ur, chews each mouthful at least 32 times. This tambic3a9n activarc3the body of ur to generate sec3b1ales of hambre/de the fullness. It obeys these sec3b1ales. Nothing with excepcic3 b3 n of the water meanwhile. It regularly takes the slight exercises and the enc3a9rgicas long walks by 30 Min. preferably twice to dc3a. Or alcanzarc3quc3a9 or has not soc3b1ado and that tambic3a9n in awhile reasonable and even bothers freely. It has patient and nonhaste. Or b3 n cannot choose the points for reduccic3. This schedule can be adopted on permanent base to take a life heals and to maintain the weight.

  • harrytheman on May 7, 2012, 14:00 GMT

    Definitely, it is worth noting that Gayle averaged less than 30 in his first 20 tests. Maybe, the media should give the young Windies openers a decent chance before judging them. I am sure that they will improve soon. The Windies selectors are working to a three year plan, after all.

    Weren't some pundits calling for Alaistar Cook to be dropped before the first test match in the last Ashes series? Remind me, did he score any runs?

  • Anonymous on May 7, 2012, 10:02 GMT

    Lovely piece, Andy. Trevor Bailey's "68 from 427" is a stat as memorable, (even with out the appending of the name of the batsman), as "99.94". Not only can its quiet recitation be used as a healthier alternative to sleeping-tablets, but it can also be chanted as a mantra. The stat fits perfectly with Bailey's commentating style, best described as "anti-hyperbolic". He was a man so understated in both praise and negative criticism that his use of "very good" would be confined solely to subjects such as Bradman's batsmanship or Warne's ability with the ball, and "poor" reserved for the batting performance of a team reduced to 47 all out on a decent strip.

  • V. Ramsamooj Gosine on May 6, 2012, 3:24 GMT

    Chanderpaul is not a flashy batsman. He is not one who exhibits pretty strokes. He is a crisis man. Throw him in the middle when the team is down and more often than not, he begins to build partnerships, settles himself with the fellow at the other end,and slowly, very slowly, he begins to pile up runs. And long before anyone knows it, he is rooted in his spot; he is the wall. Such a determination did not come overnight but was cultivated by his passion for the game called cricket. At an early age in Georgetown, he showed that determination to make his mark and has made it. Perhaps he mae cricket his number one priority and that has paid off.Congrats, Chanders. You deserve every accolode that comes your way.

  • Konaan Petrus on May 5, 2012, 16:23 GMT

    Been an avid follower of your posts and find them delightfully to my taste, partly due to your intelligent wit and humour, in part also to the extraordinary command of yours over the English language and last but not the least because of your unique imagery (which is, to some extent, coupled with your sense of humour). You were struggling here, clutching at straws, seemed almost like your metaphoric "Michaelangelo" painting the ceiling. Hope you bounce back and keep them coming ... P.S.: I do hope you read this comment!

  • Atul Bhogle on May 5, 2012, 5:20 GMT

    Loved the conclusion, Andy!!! I remember this Chanders' inning all too well. I had a classmate who was a big Chanderpaul fan, and he was hysterical the day after this inning. He did a wonderful imitation of the sweep Chanders played to a fast bowler which still gives me the splits, almost as much as your article does. Thanks!

  • Som on May 4, 2012, 22:48 GMT

    Brilliant !

  • KC on May 4, 2012, 21:51 GMT

    the Robin of Resistance to Atherton’s Batman of Block - HILARIOUS!! Very well written piece overall

  • subho on May 4, 2012, 7:34 GMT

    the last part was better than the first 8/9ths of the article. i do agree with you - west indies should have used the two left handers alternatively. chris gayle though it the last genuine west indian. chandrapaul is merely a bangladesh batsman who can play for long stretches.

    chandrapaul's 70 ball hundred and Gayle's masterly 32 merit another "conclusion" down the lines of the one you drew at the end - eagerly waiting for your take.

  • sanjay on May 4, 2012, 6:31 GMT

    Andy: your gems of insights never stop. Michaelangelo and cricket can only be brought into one write-up by a genius like you. as for the Windies blundering in not choosing Lara and Chanders alternately, maybe the same should have been done for Dravid and Tendulkar or Sehwag and Laxman. I doubt if they ever clicked together.

  • Eeduaard on July 31, 2012, 6:36 GMT

    Comma only when estc3hungry and not mc3s that three times dc3a. b3 n of the vehc3culos and the crude fruits in each food inecldus montc3, preferably 50%. In order to have mc3s satisfaccic3 b3 n outside the food of ur, chews each mouthful at least 32 times. This tambic3a9n activarc3the body of ur to generate sec3b1ales of hambre/de the fullness. It obeys these sec3b1ales. Nothing with excepcic3 b3 n of the water meanwhile. It regularly takes the slight exercises and the enc3a9rgicas long walks by 30 Min. preferably twice to dc3a. Or alcanzarc3quc3a9 or has not soc3b1ado and that tambic3a9n in awhile reasonable and even bothers freely. It has patient and nonhaste. Or b3 n cannot choose the points for reduccic3. This schedule can be adopted on permanent base to take a life heals and to maintain the weight.

  • harrytheman on May 7, 2012, 14:00 GMT

    Definitely, it is worth noting that Gayle averaged less than 30 in his first 20 tests. Maybe, the media should give the young Windies openers a decent chance before judging them. I am sure that they will improve soon. The Windies selectors are working to a three year plan, after all.

    Weren't some pundits calling for Alaistar Cook to be dropped before the first test match in the last Ashes series? Remind me, did he score any runs?

  • Anonymous on May 7, 2012, 10:02 GMT

    Lovely piece, Andy. Trevor Bailey's "68 from 427" is a stat as memorable, (even with out the appending of the name of the batsman), as "99.94". Not only can its quiet recitation be used as a healthier alternative to sleeping-tablets, but it can also be chanted as a mantra. The stat fits perfectly with Bailey's commentating style, best described as "anti-hyperbolic". He was a man so understated in both praise and negative criticism that his use of "very good" would be confined solely to subjects such as Bradman's batsmanship or Warne's ability with the ball, and "poor" reserved for the batting performance of a team reduced to 47 all out on a decent strip.

  • V. Ramsamooj Gosine on May 6, 2012, 3:24 GMT

    Chanderpaul is not a flashy batsman. He is not one who exhibits pretty strokes. He is a crisis man. Throw him in the middle when the team is down and more often than not, he begins to build partnerships, settles himself with the fellow at the other end,and slowly, very slowly, he begins to pile up runs. And long before anyone knows it, he is rooted in his spot; he is the wall. Such a determination did not come overnight but was cultivated by his passion for the game called cricket. At an early age in Georgetown, he showed that determination to make his mark and has made it. Perhaps he mae cricket his number one priority and that has paid off.Congrats, Chanders. You deserve every accolode that comes your way.

  • Konaan Petrus on May 5, 2012, 16:23 GMT

    Been an avid follower of your posts and find them delightfully to my taste, partly due to your intelligent wit and humour, in part also to the extraordinary command of yours over the English language and last but not the least because of your unique imagery (which is, to some extent, coupled with your sense of humour). You were struggling here, clutching at straws, seemed almost like your metaphoric "Michaelangelo" painting the ceiling. Hope you bounce back and keep them coming ... P.S.: I do hope you read this comment!

  • Atul Bhogle on May 5, 2012, 5:20 GMT

    Loved the conclusion, Andy!!! I remember this Chanders' inning all too well. I had a classmate who was a big Chanderpaul fan, and he was hysterical the day after this inning. He did a wonderful imitation of the sweep Chanders played to a fast bowler which still gives me the splits, almost as much as your article does. Thanks!

  • Som on May 4, 2012, 22:48 GMT

    Brilliant !

  • KC on May 4, 2012, 21:51 GMT

    the Robin of Resistance to Atherton’s Batman of Block - HILARIOUS!! Very well written piece overall

  • subho on May 4, 2012, 7:34 GMT

    the last part was better than the first 8/9ths of the article. i do agree with you - west indies should have used the two left handers alternatively. chris gayle though it the last genuine west indian. chandrapaul is merely a bangladesh batsman who can play for long stretches.

    chandrapaul's 70 ball hundred and Gayle's masterly 32 merit another "conclusion" down the lines of the one you drew at the end - eagerly waiting for your take.

  • sanjay on May 4, 2012, 6:31 GMT

    Andy: your gems of insights never stop. Michaelangelo and cricket can only be brought into one write-up by a genius like you. as for the Windies blundering in not choosing Lara and Chanders alternately, maybe the same should have been done for Dravid and Tendulkar or Sehwag and Laxman. I doubt if they ever clicked together.

  • Prashanth on May 4, 2012, 3:53 GMT

    You makse for such an engrossing reading Andy. I visualise whatever I read in your sentences and am sure you can imagine myself emotionally embarked on a relentlessly rocking and entralling roller coaster ride. Kudos to your writing, it is the most enjoyable piece for me that makes me forget myself for some minutes.

  • Ram on May 4, 2012, 1:40 GMT

    Dropping Lara / Chandrapaul every alternate test - not a good idea. Lara + Chandrapaul =90 (47 +43) Dropping Chandrapaul and getting a new person: For that strategy to work, you need Lara + new person >90 Lara averaged 66. You needed someone to average atleast 24 for that strategy to work.

    West Indies thought about it and realized, they didnt have anyone averaging 24! Thats why, WI kept them both, not because WI wanted to argue with statistics.

  • BOSSMAN19TT on May 3, 2012, 23:39 GMT

    Great to see SHIV getting all this attention, what a wonderful batsman! SHIV DE BOSS

  • Admirer of Andy on May 3, 2012, 22:20 GMT

    Andy, you are so funny! I never miss read/listen-to your articles/podcasts. You rock!

  • Phil on May 3, 2012, 21:40 GMT

    West Indies should have played and dropped Lara and Chanderpaul in alternate Tests

    Wouldn't that be dependant upon assuming the 'replacement' batsman also scocored at an average of at least 45-ish?

    In which case, surely you'd rather have three West Indian batsmen whom each score 45, in the same test, rather than one scoring 60 while the rest of his side collapse?

  • Anonymous on May 3, 2012, 21:02 GMT

    Based on numbers, I believe that both Lara and Chanderpaul playing for WI was not a bad thing

    Before proving that :) , I would like to say that I loved reading the article. Funny and Unbelievable stats!

    I would like to note that, When both Lara and Chanderpaul played for WI, they added 47+43 = 90 to the score. The additions to the score when only one of them, as we understand, is 62 or 66 only. Now, when we take into account the replacement for Lara or Chanderpaul, the average should have been greater than or equal to 30 to have made a difference.

    If I see the averages of all the batsmen who played between 1990 and 2006, I only see one or two with average of greater than 30 who were available at any point in time and most probably they were already part of the eleven. So, it was probably not very bad for WI that both Lara and Chanderpaul played

  • Bryce Cunningham on May 3, 2012, 20:46 GMT

    I enjoyed reading the entrie article. Minus the last point where despite Chanderpaul and Lara averaging "only" 43 and 47 respectively when playing along side the other, no other WI batsman could average that much so even with their diminished returns it was still a lot more than what the next in line could produce.

  • Sree on May 3, 2012, 20:06 GMT

    "....man for a crisis" Shiv sure is that. As ususal, a good article. This makes me think that you can have your next list based on that theme..."The crisis XI".

  • sohel ahmed on May 3, 2012, 19:02 GMT

    Another great piece from the wizard of humour.Dear andy i want you to write a few lines on Ganguly's crafty and watchful 16 off 23 balls against MI.I also do want you to write a line or two on Marlon Samuel's T20 batting prowess and why Jesse Ryder or Brendon Mccullum are automatic choices over Tamim Iqbal.And if you can,would you please please care to write an essay about ''A 100 ways to fail to chase 120 in a T20 match''?

  • Daniel on May 3, 2012, 18:52 GMT

    Would the replacement for Lara/Chanderpaul have averaged more than the ~20 you gain by dropping one of them? Certainly they wouldn't if you were picking from modern West Indian batting options.

  • Kiran on May 3, 2012, 13:35 GMT

    Yes..you can never argue with statistics! Hilarious to the core!

  • Shuster Walker on May 3, 2012, 13:01 GMT

    The article seemed to have lost it's thread half way through and I thought the author was lost but the article concluded very well. I must say I don't read too many of your blogs Andy but the few times I have it has been nothing short of hilarious. I think I am going to have to be a more regular reader of your blog after all. Well written and well done.

  • Dr Nick Meakin on May 3, 2012, 11:40 GMT

    Very nice article; enjoyed the read. Gayle reminds me of Seywag - I'd love to see these two open together!

  • Arnold D'Souza on May 3, 2012, 11:22 GMT

    Now Andrew, I don't often comment over here, so believe me when I say this - I LOVED THIS ARTICLE! It's the one instance where you've managed to get absolutely everything right. For the first time in my life, I came to the end of a blog post by you and thought to myself, "Gee, if only I could write like Andy Zaltzmann."

    kthxbye

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Arnold D'Souza on May 3, 2012, 11:22 GMT

    Now Andrew, I don't often comment over here, so believe me when I say this - I LOVED THIS ARTICLE! It's the one instance where you've managed to get absolutely everything right. For the first time in my life, I came to the end of a blog post by you and thought to myself, "Gee, if only I could write like Andy Zaltzmann."

    kthxbye

  • Dr Nick Meakin on May 3, 2012, 11:40 GMT

    Very nice article; enjoyed the read. Gayle reminds me of Seywag - I'd love to see these two open together!

  • Shuster Walker on May 3, 2012, 13:01 GMT

    The article seemed to have lost it's thread half way through and I thought the author was lost but the article concluded very well. I must say I don't read too many of your blogs Andy but the few times I have it has been nothing short of hilarious. I think I am going to have to be a more regular reader of your blog after all. Well written and well done.

  • Kiran on May 3, 2012, 13:35 GMT

    Yes..you can never argue with statistics! Hilarious to the core!

  • Daniel on May 3, 2012, 18:52 GMT

    Would the replacement for Lara/Chanderpaul have averaged more than the ~20 you gain by dropping one of them? Certainly they wouldn't if you were picking from modern West Indian batting options.

  • sohel ahmed on May 3, 2012, 19:02 GMT

    Another great piece from the wizard of humour.Dear andy i want you to write a few lines on Ganguly's crafty and watchful 16 off 23 balls against MI.I also do want you to write a line or two on Marlon Samuel's T20 batting prowess and why Jesse Ryder or Brendon Mccullum are automatic choices over Tamim Iqbal.And if you can,would you please please care to write an essay about ''A 100 ways to fail to chase 120 in a T20 match''?

  • Sree on May 3, 2012, 20:06 GMT

    "....man for a crisis" Shiv sure is that. As ususal, a good article. This makes me think that you can have your next list based on that theme..."The crisis XI".

  • Bryce Cunningham on May 3, 2012, 20:46 GMT

    I enjoyed reading the entrie article. Minus the last point where despite Chanderpaul and Lara averaging "only" 43 and 47 respectively when playing along side the other, no other WI batsman could average that much so even with their diminished returns it was still a lot more than what the next in line could produce.

  • Anonymous on May 3, 2012, 21:02 GMT

    Based on numbers, I believe that both Lara and Chanderpaul playing for WI was not a bad thing

    Before proving that :) , I would like to say that I loved reading the article. Funny and Unbelievable stats!

    I would like to note that, When both Lara and Chanderpaul played for WI, they added 47+43 = 90 to the score. The additions to the score when only one of them, as we understand, is 62 or 66 only. Now, when we take into account the replacement for Lara or Chanderpaul, the average should have been greater than or equal to 30 to have made a difference.

    If I see the averages of all the batsmen who played between 1990 and 2006, I only see one or two with average of greater than 30 who were available at any point in time and most probably they were already part of the eleven. So, it was probably not very bad for WI that both Lara and Chanderpaul played

  • Phil on May 3, 2012, 21:40 GMT

    West Indies should have played and dropped Lara and Chanderpaul in alternate Tests

    Wouldn't that be dependant upon assuming the 'replacement' batsman also scocored at an average of at least 45-ish?

    In which case, surely you'd rather have three West Indian batsmen whom each score 45, in the same test, rather than one scoring 60 while the rest of his side collapse?