England v West Indies, 1st Test, Lord's, 1st day May 17, 2012

Selfish gene fails shallow talent pool

Shivnarine Chanderpaul is not the first selfish batsman but his talents might be better utilised to benefit the West Indies team
159

Like the neighbour who rises early to practise on his drum kit, there can be a thin line between admirable dedication and infuriating selfishness.

It is a line that even the best of batsmen have struggled to find. Remember Geoff Boycott being dropped for slow scoring after a double-century against India in 1967, or Sunil Gavaskar batting through a World Cup match for 36 not out in 1975?

A glance at the scorecard from the first day of this game would convince you that Shivnarine Chanderpaul stood head and shoulders above his team mates. There is a good degree of truth in such a conclusion, too. While his colleagues flattered for a while, only Chanderpaul had the patience, the dedication and the temperament to offer meaningful resistance. Take his contribution - 87 not out - away and West Indies may well have not reached 200.

But that is not the whole story. The scorecard does not show how Chanderpaul left Darren Bravo stranded and run out; it does not show how Chanderpaul took a single from the first delivery of the final over of the day, fatally exposing Fidel Edwards to Stuart Broad, and it does not show how Chanderpaul has resisted the invitation to move up the order to No. 3. The current incumbent of the No. 3 position, Kirk Edwards has a Test average approaching 50 but, so far on this admittedly brief tour, has shown an inclination to play across straight ones and poke at wide ones. Those are not the attributes of a successful No. 3.

Perhaps the run out of Bravo was simply unfortunate. After all, most players are involved in a mix-up at some stage and, even if there was something unattractive in the way Chanderpaul grounded his bat to ensure his partner's doom, it is hard to think of many top-order players who would not have done exactly the same thing. Chanderpaul does not give his wicket away. You may as well try to persuade a lion of the virtues of vegetarianism as ask him to do so. That is not such a bad quality in a Test batsman.

But there is a context here. This was the 23rd run out in which Chanderpaul has been involved as a Test batsman. He has been the man dismissed on just three occasions. Those are damning statistics.

Chanderpaul could argue - with some evidence - that he has to put himself first for the sake of the team. He could argue - with some evidence - that the burden on his shoulders is such that he knows that he if fails, his team will fail and he could argue - with a mountain of evidence - that some of his team-mates would do well to emulate him.

But if that is the case, he needs to ensure he takes the final over of days. He needs to ensure he soaks up the new-ball spells of the best bowlers. He needs to ensure he bats in the position that is best for the team. Superiority comes with responsibility.

Chanderpaul has a method that has worked. He is currently rated as the best batsman in Test cricket. He averages more than 50. He has been strong enough to ignore decades of convention and years of coaching to develop a technique all his own. It takes strength to do that. It takes an ability to drown out every opinion, every bit of advice, everything but his faith in himself. Many captains would dearly love such a 'selfish' player in their side.

Fidel Edwards' dismissal may come back to haunt him, though. While it might increase the likelihood of him finishing with an average-flattering not out - Shannon Gabriel's career batting average of just 4.85 does not suggest he will detain us long on day two - it also reduces his chances of becoming just the fourth West Indies batsman (George Headley, Sir Garfield Sobers and Gordon Greenidge are the others) to score a second Test century at Lord's.

"The honours boards at Lord's record not victories and losses, but individual successes. In a better environment, Chanderpaul's selfish streak might be manipulated to the team's advantage"

Perhaps such issues should not matter. It is a team game. But selfishness and individuality are laced into it. After all, the honours boards at Lord's record not victories and losses, but individual successes. Chanderpaul may have a selfish streak but, in a better environment, it might be manipulated to the team's advantage.

It was as poignant as it was inevitable that, even as West Indies' middle-order were capitulating, Chris Gayle should be providing another demonstration of his extravagant talents with an 53-ball century in the IPL. It will not have gone unnoticed that Ramnaresh Sarwan also registered another century - his second in six Championship games - for Leicestershire on Wednesday.

The harsh might argue that Gayle, in particular, has been 'selfish' not to put country before franchise. They might argue that he should have patched up his differences with the WICB for the good of the sport and the good of the Caribbean.

But that would be simplistic. The truth is that Gayle - like so many other West Indies players - has been poorly managed. And that is the key. For while Gayle and Chanderpaul and Boycott and Gavaskar may all have an element of selfishness in their character, that does not mark them out as any different to just about every other batsman. Just about every other human, for that matter. The difference is management. In good teams, the needs of the individual are managed to ensure that they correspond to the needs of the group. In poor teams, the desires of the individual are allowed to come first. West Indies' management - at team and board and union level - have proved unable to coax the best out of their talented players for years. They have presided over the creation of an underperforming culture. It manifested itself on the first day at Lord's.

Indeed, this was a day that summed up many of West Indies' performances of late. They fought hard and at times it appeared they were building a decent position. Ultimately, however, they still ended up on the weaker footing and were still left searching for positives amid the rubble.

George Dobell is a senior correspondent at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • RogerC on May 19, 2012, 0:56 GMT

    Ridiculous nitpicking by Dobell. In a long test career of 18 years for Chanders, bad moments will exist here and there. You can't judge a player by these singular incidents. It was also unnecessary to classify Boycs and Sunil Gavaskar as selfish based on one innings in their long careers. Larry Gomes, who is similar to Chanders in playing style in the WI team of 80s was highly appreciated because he complemented other stars in the team. If Chanders is playing with Viv, Greenidge, Richardson, Haynes in the lineup, he would play differently than how he is doing today.

  • ozwriter on May 19, 2012, 0:06 GMT

    character assassaniation. its easy to do for a journalist and is always interesting to read or 'insightful' from certain quarters. at the stage of the cricketing hierarchy WI are in, i would suggest that a century is a century, doesn't really matter how you get there. WI do not have the talent of england or south africa to start complaining or criticising a player for the manner in which they got a 50 or 100.

  • on May 18, 2012, 19:42 GMT

    This article is so true. I have been saying this about him for yrs now. He is the most selfish player by far. In the last series against Astrialia, he shielded Bishoo until he got to his century, after this he avoided the strike and caused Sammy to declared the innings resulting in WI losing the game. I have seen this guy kissing the pitch after scoring a hunderd, while WI is losing by innings and hunderds of run. I am so happy that O. Gibson DROP him frm the limited overs team. He is no great player, gr8 players can bat in any position and play any form of the game.He have done nothing gr8. Most modern day average batsmen averages over 50. Gayle is a great player, two tripple centures, 19 ODI centuries, master @ T20 and healthy SR in all form of the game. He Dominates whenever he is at the crease. I see chander as a very talented guy, who because of his selfishness end up been a bocker and a pusher. its like a punishment to watch cricket whenever he is at the crease.

  • AdrianVanDenStael on May 18, 2012, 19:28 GMT

    Something else to bear in mind which is being overlooked is whether the likes of Kirk Edwards or Darren Bravo actually want to drop down a place so Chanderpaul can bat number three. I remember Mike Atherton's debut test in 1989. England were a desperately struggling side at that time, and had already been hammered by Australia. When it came to be England's turn to bat, Atherton batted at number 3 and got a duck, and there was some suggestions that the then skipper David Gower, who like Chanderpaul had over 100 tests to his name, had been a bit cowardly and selfish in putting so inexperienced a player in early when Gower himself was batting at number 5. However, what people didn't realise is that Atherton, being the character he was, wanted the responsibility of batting number 3. Sometimes a team might decide that the best way to encourage a young player is to show confidence in him and give him responsibility, even if it means sending a more experienced player in later.

  • AdrianVanDenStael on May 18, 2012, 19:21 GMT

    The problem with this article is not that the epithet "selfish" can never be hurled at Chanderpaul, but that it doesn't acknowledge how difficult batting with the West Indies tail - a responsibility often left to Chaderpaul - would be irrespective of how he went about it. Look at their test batting averages: Ramdin 22.80, Sammy 19.09, Roach 9.68, Edwards 6.55, Gabriel - making debut, first-class average 4.85. Contrast these with England: Prior 43.09, Bresnan 40.37, Broad 28.32, Swann 22.02, Anderson 11.92. Quite clearly a frontline batsman batting alongside the English tail like Pietersen or Bell can place more faith in that batting line up and is going to have some easier decisions to make about when and whether to keep strike, etc (although I notice that didn't stop Bell running out Prior at the Lord's test against Sri Lanka last year ...). Chanderpaul is often batting alongisde a tail which isn't likely to last very long no matter what he does.

  • on May 18, 2012, 18:04 GMT

    How is this approach different than sending a night watchman!?

  • cindian on May 18, 2012, 16:54 GMT

    Maybe this article can be re-titled ---Slot Chanderpaul in a number 3 Position so that the whole talent pool fails for the sake of Batsmen 1 to 3 especially Edwards. As present the WI has the chance to quickly find batsmen for position 1 to 3 -seeing that Darren Bravo and Chanderpaul is holding up the batting and it is quite unfortunate that Chanderpaul has the tendencies to run his partners -it is flaw he has--- but if Edwards can not bat at 3 then he should wait until his position -what ever that position become available and stop the whining. He will fail in any case. This is why baseball and American football is good to watch where individual talents contribute to winning of championship---not help Edwards article like a Third World Socialist begging to keep misfits in a team. How did Edwards become Vice Captain without any major contribution to WI cricket----Darren Bravo would have been a better choice. Please send Edwards home and get Johanatn Charles , Braitwaitte--

  • StJohn on May 18, 2012, 16:31 GMT

    The run out may be different to the 'facing the last over' issue. I didn't see it but get the sense that if Chanderpaul had gone for it then maybe they could have made the run. But is being involved in 23 run outs, and only being the guy who was run out in 3 of those, out of a career of some 239 Test innings, really "a damning statistic"? It may be, but it requires statistical comparison with other batsmen with similar length careers, or a review of the footage of all of Chanderpaul's run outs, or both, to see if is a bit selfish. Without that analysis the "damning statistic" criticism is just supposition: maybe Chanderpaul was just a faster runner on the day than the other 20 guys or maybe they were all stupid to get themselves run out?

  • StJohn on May 18, 2012, 16:24 GMT

    Maybe Chanderpaul (C) should've shielded the tail & waited till the 4th or 5th ball for the single. But it's 6 of one & half-a-dozen of the other: it's not really C's fault that WI have two complete bunnies at 10 and 11 and as a batsman you'd hope your no.10 could survive 5 balls. So the fact that Edwards & Gabriel both went so quickly is a reflection on their batting as much as C being selfish: it wouldn't have made much difference what C did as neither lasted long anyway. And C's job in that situation is probably to do what he thinks best to make sure he's still there and on strike in the morning. Batting with complete bunnies he's caught between a rock and a hard place, with nowhere to hide. Barath, Bravo & Samuels all had starts - it needed one of them to go on too, but as is too often the case for WI, C was left fighting a lone battle. It is a pity that Gayle and Sarwan aren't playing, as together with C and Bravo WI could have 4 genuine world-class batsmen in their top 6.

  • AyrtonS on May 18, 2012, 16:22 GMT

    Just think what would happen if one or two of the other 10 so called batsmen in the W.I team was just as selfish as Chanders !!

  • RogerC on May 19, 2012, 0:56 GMT

    Ridiculous nitpicking by Dobell. In a long test career of 18 years for Chanders, bad moments will exist here and there. You can't judge a player by these singular incidents. It was also unnecessary to classify Boycs and Sunil Gavaskar as selfish based on one innings in their long careers. Larry Gomes, who is similar to Chanders in playing style in the WI team of 80s was highly appreciated because he complemented other stars in the team. If Chanders is playing with Viv, Greenidge, Richardson, Haynes in the lineup, he would play differently than how he is doing today.

  • ozwriter on May 19, 2012, 0:06 GMT

    character assassaniation. its easy to do for a journalist and is always interesting to read or 'insightful' from certain quarters. at the stage of the cricketing hierarchy WI are in, i would suggest that a century is a century, doesn't really matter how you get there. WI do not have the talent of england or south africa to start complaining or criticising a player for the manner in which they got a 50 or 100.

  • on May 18, 2012, 19:42 GMT

    This article is so true. I have been saying this about him for yrs now. He is the most selfish player by far. In the last series against Astrialia, he shielded Bishoo until he got to his century, after this he avoided the strike and caused Sammy to declared the innings resulting in WI losing the game. I have seen this guy kissing the pitch after scoring a hunderd, while WI is losing by innings and hunderds of run. I am so happy that O. Gibson DROP him frm the limited overs team. He is no great player, gr8 players can bat in any position and play any form of the game.He have done nothing gr8. Most modern day average batsmen averages over 50. Gayle is a great player, two tripple centures, 19 ODI centuries, master @ T20 and healthy SR in all form of the game. He Dominates whenever he is at the crease. I see chander as a very talented guy, who because of his selfishness end up been a bocker and a pusher. its like a punishment to watch cricket whenever he is at the crease.

  • AdrianVanDenStael on May 18, 2012, 19:28 GMT

    Something else to bear in mind which is being overlooked is whether the likes of Kirk Edwards or Darren Bravo actually want to drop down a place so Chanderpaul can bat number three. I remember Mike Atherton's debut test in 1989. England were a desperately struggling side at that time, and had already been hammered by Australia. When it came to be England's turn to bat, Atherton batted at number 3 and got a duck, and there was some suggestions that the then skipper David Gower, who like Chanderpaul had over 100 tests to his name, had been a bit cowardly and selfish in putting so inexperienced a player in early when Gower himself was batting at number 5. However, what people didn't realise is that Atherton, being the character he was, wanted the responsibility of batting number 3. Sometimes a team might decide that the best way to encourage a young player is to show confidence in him and give him responsibility, even if it means sending a more experienced player in later.

  • AdrianVanDenStael on May 18, 2012, 19:21 GMT

    The problem with this article is not that the epithet "selfish" can never be hurled at Chanderpaul, but that it doesn't acknowledge how difficult batting with the West Indies tail - a responsibility often left to Chaderpaul - would be irrespective of how he went about it. Look at their test batting averages: Ramdin 22.80, Sammy 19.09, Roach 9.68, Edwards 6.55, Gabriel - making debut, first-class average 4.85. Contrast these with England: Prior 43.09, Bresnan 40.37, Broad 28.32, Swann 22.02, Anderson 11.92. Quite clearly a frontline batsman batting alongside the English tail like Pietersen or Bell can place more faith in that batting line up and is going to have some easier decisions to make about when and whether to keep strike, etc (although I notice that didn't stop Bell running out Prior at the Lord's test against Sri Lanka last year ...). Chanderpaul is often batting alongisde a tail which isn't likely to last very long no matter what he does.

  • on May 18, 2012, 18:04 GMT

    How is this approach different than sending a night watchman!?

  • cindian on May 18, 2012, 16:54 GMT

    Maybe this article can be re-titled ---Slot Chanderpaul in a number 3 Position so that the whole talent pool fails for the sake of Batsmen 1 to 3 especially Edwards. As present the WI has the chance to quickly find batsmen for position 1 to 3 -seeing that Darren Bravo and Chanderpaul is holding up the batting and it is quite unfortunate that Chanderpaul has the tendencies to run his partners -it is flaw he has--- but if Edwards can not bat at 3 then he should wait until his position -what ever that position become available and stop the whining. He will fail in any case. This is why baseball and American football is good to watch where individual talents contribute to winning of championship---not help Edwards article like a Third World Socialist begging to keep misfits in a team. How did Edwards become Vice Captain without any major contribution to WI cricket----Darren Bravo would have been a better choice. Please send Edwards home and get Johanatn Charles , Braitwaitte--

  • StJohn on May 18, 2012, 16:31 GMT

    The run out may be different to the 'facing the last over' issue. I didn't see it but get the sense that if Chanderpaul had gone for it then maybe they could have made the run. But is being involved in 23 run outs, and only being the guy who was run out in 3 of those, out of a career of some 239 Test innings, really "a damning statistic"? It may be, but it requires statistical comparison with other batsmen with similar length careers, or a review of the footage of all of Chanderpaul's run outs, or both, to see if is a bit selfish. Without that analysis the "damning statistic" criticism is just supposition: maybe Chanderpaul was just a faster runner on the day than the other 20 guys or maybe they were all stupid to get themselves run out?

  • StJohn on May 18, 2012, 16:24 GMT

    Maybe Chanderpaul (C) should've shielded the tail & waited till the 4th or 5th ball for the single. But it's 6 of one & half-a-dozen of the other: it's not really C's fault that WI have two complete bunnies at 10 and 11 and as a batsman you'd hope your no.10 could survive 5 balls. So the fact that Edwards & Gabriel both went so quickly is a reflection on their batting as much as C being selfish: it wouldn't have made much difference what C did as neither lasted long anyway. And C's job in that situation is probably to do what he thinks best to make sure he's still there and on strike in the morning. Batting with complete bunnies he's caught between a rock and a hard place, with nowhere to hide. Barath, Bravo & Samuels all had starts - it needed one of them to go on too, but as is too often the case for WI, C was left fighting a lone battle. It is a pity that Gayle and Sarwan aren't playing, as together with C and Bravo WI could have 4 genuine world-class batsmen in their top 6.

  • AyrtonS on May 18, 2012, 16:22 GMT

    Just think what would happen if one or two of the other 10 so called batsmen in the W.I team was just as selfish as Chanders !!

  • Paulk on May 18, 2012, 15:55 GMT

    One more thing - by not shepherding the tail and taking singles at every opportunity, Shiv also reduces his chances of scoring centuries which is exactly what happened here. So how does that make him selfish? Steve Waugh used to do exactly the same and his logic was that by exposing the tail to bowlers you make them better batsmen in the long run, and that was seemingly borne out by the improvements in the Australian tail most notably Jason Gillespie. So different people have different styles and thinking. Yes Brian Lara was extremely good at shielding the tail but I thought he was also guilty of chasing a personal landmark when he went for the 400 score.

  • Paulk on May 18, 2012, 15:36 GMT

    This is a strange article. While there may be a grain of truth in what the writer says somewhere in there it is unduly harsh on the one batsman that has been holding up the WI for so long. Where would the WI batting be without him ? Plus cricket is an individual sport to an extent within a team context. The more runs you score for yourself the more it helps the team. Especially when you are pretty much the only consistent batsman in the side. Some batsmen are more adaptable to changing circumstances within play and others are more "in the zone or bubble" players". Batting at No. 5 and playing his own way in his own style is what Shiv does best so just let him be. And how do you define selfishness ? Was Viv Richards selfish when towards the end of his career he would bat lower down the order and play little cameos seemingly for fun rather than try to construct an innings ? Or was he selfless because he never bothered about records and played the same way right to the end ?

  • Bobby_Talyarkhan on May 18, 2012, 15:28 GMT

    @Mr_Anonymous conspiracy theories are entertaining but rarely illuminating. Read the article carefully and you will see that what is being criticised is not Shiv's "selfishness" but the inability to harness it to the interests of the team.

  • Maroon11 on May 18, 2012, 15:15 GMT

    Couldn't be be happier to see the "DOBELLS" in the very insignificant minority. I'm quite certain that it is the modus operandi of the WI Selectors and Gibson that has influenced the way Shiv plays. I think that shiv is furthest away from being selfish, But you know what even if he were, I say its the best approach...remember Gibson is royally upset for not having him out of the team as yet. It was actually funny hearing Gibson commend Shiv at the close of play of the first day. Love to see a man eats his own words....

  • Javiq on May 18, 2012, 15:06 GMT

    George... You have written some wonderful articles in the past and being neutral.. specially for the team like Pakistan.. but on this one, you got it wrong mate. For decades it has been a trend or tectic to protect your best batsman in last few over of the day. In Cricket you have to take the risk, had Fidel survived and I have seen him batting well at times, WI would have added may be few more runs. Either its a cheap tactic to put the opposition's best player under pressure or lack of playing professional cricket showing here... Sorry!

  • mgzak on May 18, 2012, 14:43 GMT

    Chanderpaul is not a team player. He never was. He is for himself. Rememeber the incident when SA visited the WI in 2005 and Lara declined to play because Gayle, Sarwan and Bravo were not picked? What did Chanders do? He abandoned his mates and took over the captaincy from Lara.

    # 1-4 are inexperieced and he should bat higher, why would you want to bat with the score at less than 60/3? Simple....so you don't face the new ball or fresh bowlers, come in at # 5, end your innings not out and carry your average above 50.

  • on May 18, 2012, 14:40 GMT

    Why don't you say that besides Bharrat the others WI players were/ are selfish individuals. Chanders was on his way to score another century at L O R D S. Has any one of them tried to emulate him. Stay at the crease the runs will eventually come. Even the GREAT RAHUL DRAVID would admire the courage of CHANDERS. Shame on YOU TO CALL HIM SELFISH. Don't you think the WI selectors and management has done wrong by selecting the wrong team? They have other good players languishing to be in the team- but because of their selfish attitude they prefer to leave good players out just because they look like Chanders or are not from their little cove. A test match is supposed to last ot least five days , how many other batsman has been batting like they have all the time in the world to score runs except Chanderpaul?

  • on May 18, 2012, 14:33 GMT

    Exactly Thomas, why should he shelter people who are playing as professional batsman-who should be capable enough to play at a test level.

  • rkannancrown on May 18, 2012, 14:18 GMT

    An article just to criticise Chanderpaul. Let us not forget that he could arguably have scored faster and got his hundred earlier. All these arguements ignore that he has always been a slow scoring batsman.

  • on May 18, 2012, 13:52 GMT

    You are right about one thing for sure: by not shepherding the lambs before the wolves, by leaving Edwards to fend for himself, the great Chanderpaul denied himself another century at Lords. Poetic justice? Being the senior and best batsman in the team, it is for Chanderpaul to take charge and guide the less experienced batsmen, but by himself remaining in his shell and scoring only when it is really a gift ball, he places strain on the others to keep the score moving; while therefore they get out batting for the WI cause, Chanderpaul remains not out batting for himself.

    scoring

  • on May 18, 2012, 13:50 GMT

    This is most ridiculous. You want to pick run-out stats and question the commitment of a player like Chanders? More often than not Chanders runs are what make the WI score respectable. As for leaving Edwards to face last 5 balls of the day, I can't support that. But wouldn't call that selfish either. A person who has played as mush as Chanders and on diff wickets wouldn't be scared on 5 bals. In a career as long as Chanders, you will find many instances which when looked at will provide a different view of the player. Can only define a player by how much he has contributed to the team over the years.

  • on May 18, 2012, 13:29 GMT

    its unwanted run by darren ,shiv is wall fr windies

  • on May 18, 2012, 13:26 GMT

    tis is disappointing article abt shiv .. bcz of him oly WI is middle order is bit strong

  • on May 18, 2012, 13:20 GMT

    The team's best batsman should decide where he wants to bat. He shouldn't be forced to change his position to cover the failures of mediocre teammates. People are also acting as if Bravo didn't play a part in his own run-out... but any excuse to criticise Chanderpaul just because he's different from the norm.

  • on May 18, 2012, 13:15 GMT

    @mrhamilton Your comment should apply to you, Kallis is INFAMOUS for being selfish as per his critics for most of his career.

  • Mr_Anonymous on May 18, 2012, 13:14 GMT

    Brilliant strategy.

    First, the English will say that Test Cricket is the epitome the "only" form of "real" cricket. Then, what I consider is a less than perfect 11 (in the sense of missing atleast Gayle and likely Narine which would have the Test matches so much more interesting) arrive and as usual their main competition is Chanderpaul, the no. 1 Test batsman in the world. And true to his form, he obstinately dodges the attack with 87 with little support on the other side.

    So, what do the English writers do? They start by psychologically attacking what they believe is the only threat to their dominance in this test series (which despite Chanderpaul, they should be able to establish) after the first day's play. They could have easily written about how the other West Indians could have supported Chanderpaul at the other end and shown respect to a great cricketer who has the world no. 1 ranking in the "only real" form of cricket but they care more about winning than about the game.

  • on May 18, 2012, 13:13 GMT

    Herein has been expressed the view of so many a West Indian cricket lover and I support your your claim of lack of management and the ability to utilize resources so as to maximize advantage.At the end of the day, management is translated into result. One also may have noted some key moments in the just concluded series in the Caribbean where key tactical and decision moments were lost to he opponents and translated into a narrow three wicket loss in Bridgetown. For instance in the chase when the two left handers began to attack the spin we reluctantly resorted to our pace and by then it was too late. I believe that if Kirk Edwards is to play he has to learn this game by opening the innings. That would do him the world of good at this stage of his career.

  • Bluntman on May 18, 2012, 13:00 GMT

    Chanders is my fav cricketer but you really can't deny this article. I just think it's just all the years of underappreciation and mismanagement by the WICB and caused him to play more for himself. These days, I don't blame him. You can't say Lara didn't do the same. 400* is an individual goal, not for the team.

  • wilecoyote on May 18, 2012, 12:56 GMT

    That is nonsense... firstly, Bravo ran himself out, he was the one watching the play. Two, if he was being selfish, he definitely would have tried to get to 100 at all costs.That said, of course he's a selfish batsman, batsmen are supposed to be selfish, preserve your wicket at all costs!

  • pt333 on May 18, 2012, 12:56 GMT

    really liked the thought "In good teams, the needs of the individual are managed to ensure that they correspond to the needs of the group. In poor teams, the desires of the individual are allowed to come first. " - it applies everywhere right from home to office to stadium to parliament to anything .. great thought :) .. how much can a entity change as a whole if this thing is taken care of :)

  • Khali_Singh on May 18, 2012, 12:44 GMT

    Disappointing article i expected more from a long standing cricket follower. Firstly what ever happen to the simple notion to wait until the ball past the fielder, wait for a call for a run and most importantly sacrificing your wicket for the better batsman? Secondly it seem that Bravo is the new Brian Lara so every one especially Michael holding wants him to perform above anything else. This is not T20 or ODI when you need to be running mad this is test cricket where better judgement has to prevail. Mr. Chanderpaul will never get the respect he deserve because of article like this and past cricketers like holding.

  • StatisticsRocks on May 18, 2012, 12:42 GMT

    I was watching when Chanders was batting yesterday and Atherton asked Holding 'Is Chanders a great WI batsmen' Holding answered he is a great batsmen but he has not won many matches for WI like Sir Viv, or Greenidge/Haynes combo and many others. He stays in his own groove and only focuses on what he alone can do and will not give his wicket if that means running other batsmen out. I will not call ChanDarren Bravo's run out was Bravo's fault as there was no single there. This is a test match and ODI. I agree that what he did late in the day exposing the tail to the new ball was thoughtless. It's tough as the line is very thin between being selfish and playing for the team. Can Broad be called selfish coz he alone took 7 wickets and did not leave much for Jimmy / Bresnan / Swan

  • freddieraghu on May 18, 2012, 11:58 GMT

    mad or what??? A ball glanced to short fine leg is Who's call mate??? Non striker's call. And it is Bravo who decided to run for a non existent single. Not Chanderpaul's fault anyway. And the fina; over of the Day must be negotiated by a tail-ender or nightwatchman (depends on the case). But Do u think Chanderpaul taking single of the first ball of final over of the day as Selfish. Oh Dear.. Did u ever play professional cricket??? or at least street cricket??? Do u think Chanderpaul must face the last over like tha way Virat Kohli tried to retain strike in Ind-Aus series and was Run Out by Hilfenhaus??? Truly unprofessional article.

  • Copernicus on May 18, 2012, 11:55 GMT

    About a month ago, cricinfo published [http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/562904.html], describing Chanderpaul as "The epitome of selfless striving". Swings in roundabouts doesn't it?

  • on May 18, 2012, 11:52 GMT

    I feel the article is too harsh on Chanderpaul .. Though the second seems good but yea would still say its harsh on the player of caliber of Chanderpaul... Some players are not comfortable to adjust outside their comfort zone ... take for tendulkar... he too needs to bat at 3 now .. but will he .. no he wont ...

  • on May 18, 2012, 11:47 GMT

    I think Chanderpaul, when his team is in a difficult situation, as was the case yesterday, exercises extreme caution - maybe overly so. And that probably was at the back of his mind when he made that stroke. To say the run out of his partner was due to selfishness on his part may be a stretch. Seems to me it was a mistake caused by such extreme caution, and Chanderpaul may do well to review the tape and engage in some soul searching. But his decision to take that single in the final over and expose Edwards to Broad, who was on a tear and doing everything right, baffles me. It was a devastating lack of judgment by one of the world's greatest players and, as it turned out, resulted in the final nail in the coffin. Hopefully, his decision to score that run was not to insure enhancement of his average by remaining not out. If such was the case, then there would be some merit in his being accused of selfishness.

  • on May 18, 2012, 11:07 GMT

    The faster Chander retires the better. Not his fault. In good days of WI he will struggle to find a place in this team. No talent. No flair, all dedication. But surely that is not enough to win a test match against a top side when rest of the team is weak. He does not give any compitition to opponent. No threat. Just selfishly protects his wicket. Good to see his record. But it wont tell the story of the ugliness with which it is achieved. Some times u feel proud of sports men. Like watching flintoff and kevin in ashes, like warney.. like many others. has anyone felt that while watching Chander.. He is a wicked evil. Windies do not know where to go. Their coach is the most mediocre player of last century. So Chander will operate. Where is Gayle, Bravo, Narine and Russel. Russel I saw many a times , is one hell of a batsman. Probably he loves to live in style, so he does not feature in gibson's scheme. The ultimate rot has set in. There is no way out.

  • on May 18, 2012, 10:55 GMT

    The bottom line is cricket is a game where the individual performances of 11 players affect the team's does that make it a team game? When Chanders is batting he is batting for himself and the team when Broad is bowling he is also bowling for himself and his team. I am wondering if this man has watched this team before this tour because all Shiv has been doing is batting for days on end while his team mates give their wickets away with very few exceptions but the point you made about the board is a good one. The Administrators have continually but themselves above the team and blame the players for their failings, case in point they refused to pick Gayle because he exercised his freedom of speech in a way they did not like and refused to pick Sarwan for fitnesss reasons despite the fact he has been making runs consistently in the caribbean tournaments. I dont even have enough time to tackle the issue of captain

  • on May 18, 2012, 10:54 GMT

    A well written article with loads of truths. Cricket is a team sport that relies on individual contributions more than other team sports. Selfishness can be encouraged but has to be managed by the individual player himself. Let us look at the W I two highest scorers. By comparison Chanderpaul's selfishness has allowed for him to average above 50 by virtue of a stunning amount of not outs....almost 40. Lara has only 3 and still averaged above Chanderpaul. I have always argued that a not out inning is a completed inning as no more runs can be scored. Chanderpaul never gets out with the last batsmen in because he sets himself to come not out. Lara by comparison got out with the last man in because he was always trying to protect him and add to the team score.

  • SouthPaw on May 18, 2012, 10:52 GMT

    @Thomas Cherian: May I direct your attention to the recently retired cricketer Rahul S. Dravid who went up and down the order and even opened the batting!

  • on May 18, 2012, 10:45 GMT

    You have said what I have felt about Chanders! A great individual batsman who has not made his talent and application count for his team. As the senior batsman I expect Chanders to take on a mentor's role (hope the young fellas are willing to listen to him!) off field and escort the batsmen at the other end while on field.

  • on May 18, 2012, 10:42 GMT

    I wibson and Sammy would love to see him fail.ould love to be as selfish as Chanderpaul'if playing and excelling and being th world's No. 1 in the game.Don't blame him for other peoples blunders.Gibson and Sammy and others would love to see him fail battinng at No.1 or No.3.

  • on May 18, 2012, 10:42 GMT

    This article kinda bums me out. Firstly, runouts are part of the game. You can't cry and whine over it. Secondly, a nightwatchman is sent out to protect the well set batsman and not the other way around. What Chanders did was absolutely right and its even ridiculous to comment on someone who is playing for his nation for like 15 years and you bet, he knows what to do. Sure, this is one of those few disappointing articles on espncricinfo. Looks like a local newspaper material. Period

  • on May 18, 2012, 10:32 GMT

    Harvey - he wasn't a nightwatchman, he was batting at 10. I think the events of this morning prove George to be bang on. 'Chanders' (nice one) has cost himself the chance of 100 through his actions. A bigger man would have seen out the over benefiting himself and the team. He bottled it.

  • on May 18, 2012, 10:01 GMT

    wow...this englishman do know how to write and twist things up (and ofcourse how to demotivate their opponents). No doubt they ruled the world for so long. World of cricket is moving onto a new battelground. worthless article and wish all the best to WI wins this match.

  • mrhamilton on May 18, 2012, 9:53 GMT

    @Rev Al. I think u have been either watching too many episodes of the apprentice or reading too many Darwin books. Where is it written you have to be selfish to be succesfull? Are other ATG's Ponting or Kallis selfish? No they have always put team before self. Was Gilchrist selfish? when he confessed he was out v India?

  • on May 18, 2012, 9:49 GMT

    I think Edwards is right for 3, he's got the attitude at the very least. Chanders should consider opening. Barath is too aggressive and Powell is a sad joke.

  • joseyesu on May 18, 2012, 9:45 GMT

    Exposing Fidel is it a bad idea? - Remember Malinga has ODI - HS 64 and test 56 and McGrath 61 and 11. Any idea on why mcgrath has 11 - to me it is because he is not exposed to the bowling...and malinga has the courage to win against Aus with Mathews after fall of 120/8. Even Vettori who as a descent batter comes in the position of 7, this gives somebody to taken as an opportunity and unfortunate it is not happening to WI now and remember all peoples are selfish in some way.

  • mrhamilton on May 18, 2012, 9:44 GMT

    Gayle should definetly have been in the test team. Narine i feel is overrated. This isnt India and I think Bishoo and Shillingford if needed could have done the same job. But people are looking thru rose tinted glasses at Sarwan. He failed time and time again v pak and india in last years carribean series. If the WICB is to suddenly employ a horses for courses pragmatical approach than yes Sarwan should be in at no 3 for edwards who lacks experience in eng, and the trouble 6 spot should be nash's as he is already playing in england but going against the three youngsters at the top for anyone but Gayle or moving chanderpaul right now from 5 to 3 (if it aint broke dont fix it) is silly. I feel only gayle and Nash at no 6 were needed here but the damn incompetent stubborn WICB dont wna b seen to recall seniors they had issues with b4

  • Yevghenny on May 18, 2012, 9:37 GMT

    And as for the debate of #3, Chanderpaul isn't going to be around forever. It is time Windies looked to the future, backed the talent they've got and give them the time to make these spots their own

  • Yevghenny on May 18, 2012, 9:35 GMT

    I'm a bit confused by the criticism of Chanderpaul for the run out - any batsman would have done the same, if they didn't they shouldn't be in the side. And let's be honest, Chanderpaul hasn't had much else to play for except personal records for the last several years

  • anantxv on May 18, 2012, 9:32 GMT

    wasted my time reading the article. three coincidental observations on this 'one particular occasion' will not substantiate the author's views on the otherwise committed legendary west indian. shiv, never mind this and keep going.

  • on May 18, 2012, 9:22 GMT

    just to clarify, a nightwatchman ought to face the last over(s) to protect the proper batsman....Chanders was right to take the single. Who would you prefer to be out at that time? Also, while a team sport, cricket is a game of individual performers, just look at the important stats: centuries, 50s, 5 foes, wickets, catches...they all register against the individual; even ICC rankings are based on individual performances. Eleven guys doing their individual games with a team goal will win matches. 'Team men' usually carry drinks!

  • on May 18, 2012, 8:54 GMT

    you were bang on in that last para- "in good teams personal deires are well managed to put the team goal ahead."

  • on May 18, 2012, 8:46 GMT

    there have been many cricketers prone to run outs( inzy,yousuf laxman) but that does not mean they were all selfish... playing chanerpaul at no 5 according to me is a very good move..it will prepare talented palyers for the future and also strengthens the midle order....if he gets out at no 3 it will create a huge pressure on team

  • JuggyBear on May 18, 2012, 8:25 GMT

    A good article, if only for the analysis of West Indies cricket. I know we've been beating this horse for months now. But it was good that someone reminded me of why I dismiss the zealots who call Gayle selfish, unprofessional and unpatriotic, why Sarwan and Nash are out of the team, and why mediocrity in general is being accepted. Mismanagement. In addition, we should be reminded that, as the writer pointed out, the game of cricket is an innately selfish sport. Not that the run out of Bravo didn't destroy my day. I simply thought: well Shiv owes us a hundred now because Bravo looked set to make one himself. I'm sure no one in the West Indies viewed Lara batting for two and a half days to get his 400 to be selfish but in actuality, it sort of was. Last point, batting as a nightwatchman in the past doesn't necessarily mean that you are a capable batsman. Fidel was used a a nightwatchman in the Lions game and he was bowled second ball

  • zafarsmu on May 18, 2012, 7:56 GMT

    I fail to understand why there's one article that talks about the selfishness of individual success, while at the same time there's another piece about Stuart Broad's achievement of becoming the 5th English player to have his name on both the batting and bowling honors board at Lords. The fact is, individual statistics are not just prioritized by the player...they are prioritized by the media, by the cricket boards, and indeed the fans as well. Yes Shiv was involved in a controversial runout, but that does not take away his brilliance under such extreme pressure...Dobell was careful not to be too critical, and I respect that. However, one must understand how such articles give mixed signals, that a player like Shiv, who has been under a lot of pressure to keep his place as well as move the team forward, has no choice but to adopt such an approach. WI Cricket escaped from the precipice numerous times because of him, and he should receive due credit.

  • Big_Bat on May 18, 2012, 7:39 GMT

    Hmmm, an interesting point of view. While I agree that Chanderpaul can be selfish, it is a trait that the other Windies players could learn from. The majority of the wickets that fell were due to poor shot selection, lack of concentration and the apparent inablilty to protect their wicket, (Powell can be excused for getting a good delivery Anderson has crowned many better players).

    So it is a criticism and a correct one, he is selfish but without his stubborn batting Windines would consistently struggle to post decent totals. Lets hope that the bowlers can back him up. England to be 148/7 at stumps this evening???

  • Simoc on May 18, 2012, 7:34 GMT

    It seems not many commenters read the article. But it was a mistake by Chanderpaul not to run when there was a run there on Bravos call and Bravo was running to the danger end. It looked bad but not in comparison to the likes of Boycott , who is the worst batsman, runner and commentator of our time. Anyway Bravo can save money by crossing Chanderpaul off his Christmas card list.

  • randikaayya on May 18, 2012, 7:26 GMT

    So Chanders should have got out instead of Fidel last night?? I don't see any sense in this argument, usually teams bring is a lesser batsman (called the night watchman) to take the final stressful overs of the day so that the proper batsman can resume on next day. The author argues to the contrary here and doesn't seem to employ much cricketing logic in them. Fidel and Shannon together won't make much of a difference but Chanders might for WI. Good luck from Sri Lanka!

  • on May 18, 2012, 7:13 GMT

    I wish West Indies would win this match if only so that this article is proved meaningless.

  • Snick_To_Backward_Point on May 18, 2012, 7:09 GMT

    You know, I don't get these pundits who raise criticisms about players who consistently perform. We had the same sort of debate in ODIs over Trott who also averages in the 50s but apparently his SR is no good for the team. I guess it comes down to this: no matter how selfish the batter, the runs he scores are put towards a team total. If your selfish bat, is adding 50 each innings to the total EVERY innings, year in year out, then that is helping the team. If he is indeed selfish, it is probably this attribute that has enabled Shiv to perform consistently over 17 years while his team mates have achieved consistency but in the other direction. Don't knock the one player who has given the Windies a semblance of respect please. Next you'll be criticising Geoff Boycott and other greats for their minor flaws. Seem churlish and pointless IMO.

  • pink_pv on May 18, 2012, 6:58 GMT

    I believe the Author has took on a batsman known for his calmness on critics and let only his work speak, to become popular. Even if Chander was selfish, there is no wrong since only bcoz of his selfishness and hungry to score as many runs, WI could manage to keep their head up in defeats. And there are a lot of examples, most tellingly Sachin, for being selfish. Not many dare to tell the truth for then to earn their bread to live.

  • on May 18, 2012, 6:54 GMT

    Mr. Dobell, i've not come across any article from ur side on cricinfo before this. Its a common practice now a days, if u write what every other writer does, you will not be noticed. So why not do the opposite?! Shame on you. Shiv is the only recognised batsman left and fidel has the history of some useful contribution with bat. So it was not required for shiv to protect him. By writing against shiv you will not get more readers. Learn to appreciate good cricketers like shiv.

  • brittop on May 18, 2012, 6:43 GMT

    Mr Dobell is right that we laud high scores. How often does a discussion of how many games the team has won whilst a player is in the side (unless you're Tim Bresnan!) or how he got out for a couple of small scores when playing for the team, when considering a player's worth. It's nearly always about stats - averages, conversion rates etc.

  • mhb1 on May 18, 2012, 6:37 GMT

    best bowling attack in the world LOL make him out first :P btw shiv just played his role iam very certain and quite sure sammy and the coach asked him to dug his feets in lords because they have to out 5 ahead & 5 behind shiv LOL

  • on May 18, 2012, 6:37 GMT

    When it comes to shifting to No. 3 ---, George, Don't ring the Do(or)bell, Shiv wouldn't open. Even the great Lara tried and failed in that respect. Recently, Lara started even "wondering" loudly, why Shiv does't move up to No. 3 ? Lara added, "I just don't understand"

  • creekeetman on May 18, 2012, 6:34 GMT

    So chanders should've run himself out for bravo to stay? Is'nt fidel used as a night watchman to protect the batsmen? So then why was it a problem yesterday for him to face the last over? Batsmen were picked for certain positions, why now does anyone expect chanders to move to number 3 when he performs best at 5? All foolish expectations, truth is, chanders and bravo aside, there are no other test batsmen on the team, players who are more capable were omitted... deal with it, and leave chanders at 5.

  • brittop on May 18, 2012, 6:23 GMT

    @simon_w: but didn't James Anderson get pilloried when, as night watchman, he took a single off the first ball of the last over, and Paul Collingwood got out?

  • brittop on May 18, 2012, 6:19 GMT

    @Rawle Goodridge: if his plan was to get a not out century, how did leaving himself with just Gabriel to bat with help?

  • KazaLN on May 18, 2012, 6:17 GMT

    I would say that the author is selfish to fill up cricinfo space with his junk. I am sure that any other author could have done justice to cricinfo just by typing A,B,C to Z

  • on May 18, 2012, 6:15 GMT

    i think Dobell was looking for this kind of opportunity to write about the great batsman, in this way every player is a selfish and big example in front of us is Sachin 100th Century in Asia Cup, which cost them match, and asip cup too, Where was you then Dobell at that time

  • lenedwards96yahoo.co.uk on May 18, 2012, 6:07 GMT

    There is no point in criticizing Chanderpaul. If all the other major batsmen took their cue and try to learn from him, WIndies batting would be in a better state. Look at the dismissals at Lords. Powell, Edwards, Barath, Samuels, Sammy, NO FEET MOVEMENT. These players have never asked him for his experience, because that has been the culture of the WInides team for the last 17 years and until this nonsense is drummed out of the WIndies team they will carry on losing. The wicket was not doing much and ONE of the other batsmen should have gone on and got a big score. I predict that all the other batsmen with the exception of Chanderpaul will not get a SINGLE FIFTY during the series because they lack the technique.

  • Stone-Aamir on May 18, 2012, 6:06 GMT

    What a great analysis, these guys are really magician. In couple of paragraphs he turned a good and devoted player into a selish evil. It appears that only motivation behind Chander's effort is to mantain his average and record. I think if he had moved up the order then someone may claim that he does not want to bat with the lower order so that he can get a chance to score more hundred rather than running out of partners and stranded in 80s or 90s. Our friend gave a license for throwing wickets to al otherWI players if Chander is the partner. I think IPL is not willing to pay Chander a good amount otherwise such a selfish man must have following his other WI teammates and play on featherbeds in IPL rather than facing England on seaming tracks.

  • rohan024 on May 18, 2012, 6:01 GMT

    Many readers are talking about Lara shielding the tailenders and Chanderpaul not doing that. Well, Lara was the sole exception in that regard primarily because he could hit fours and sixes if the wickets are falling. I have never seen Tendulkar, Kallis, Dravid, Ponting doing that simply because Lara was special and had the confidence to hit boundaries to make up for lost singles...

  • ajay912 on May 18, 2012, 5:53 GMT

    Wat a stupid article first of all u don't fix something dat is not broken tiger scoring runs at 5 let him stay wen Edwards d scoring runs at 3 nobody complained its a team Shiv not the only one playing personally y is sarwan not playing hardly anything being said about that and the one good thing that's tiger being critics how ironic.the run out was not all chanderpsul fault bravo should have been watching tiger wat happened to run wen the ball has passed the fielder?with Fidel dismisal in the final over why is Shiv being blamed I wonder at the end of day play why there is something called night watchman?his job is to see the establish batsman through at the end therefore taking more strike.Shiv is selfish lol not many can get knocked completely then get up and still be determined to carry on

  • jmcilhinney on May 18, 2012, 5:52 GMT

    @deepak_sholapurkar on (May 18 2012, 03:33 AM GMT), this is a series between England and WI so why would George Dobell be writing stories about Tendulkar or any other India cricketer? If I point out the fact that someone is wearing a blue shirt, does that inherently suggest that noone else is wearing a blue shirt? Of course not. If George Dobell wants to write a story about a particular trait that he believes that Chanderpaul displays, he doesn't have to qualify it by pointing out every other player who may or may not display the same trait.

  • sachin_vvsfan on May 18, 2012, 5:40 GMT

    I do not agree with the last point. It is now becoming a tradition to expose the 10th or 11th batsman often because they have the chance to add some quick runs. (I remember IND vs SA game in 2006 that we won when the last batsman had some 40+ partnership) Also there is another instance of mohali game against Australia where ishant's contibution was more critical than laxman.

    Also gavaskar's 36 runs is a poor example of being selfish as there was nothing achieved there :)

  • Busie1979 on May 18, 2012, 5:30 GMT

    This article confuses selfishness with valuing his wicket and doing the best thing for the team. Chanderpaul is the best batsman in the world at the moment. He should not be the guy run out in a weak batting line up when he is the only guy in the line up who has held everything together on a consistent basis. Darren Bravo may assume that mantle one day, but he is not there yet. This has been the case for most of Chanderpaul's career - other than in his first couple of years, only Lara has been a dependable colleague. I don't think he should be move up the order either - he has never been a top order player, and if he struggles at the top then West Indies have nobody who can reliably reconstruct the innings. Also, why expose Chanderpaul at the end of the day with just one over left? He could peel off 20-30 runs tomorrow, but can't do so in the pavillion. Exposing the tail ender at that stage was a risk worth taking - while it backfired this time, he'd be justified to do it again.

  • soorajiyer on May 18, 2012, 5:26 GMT

    Anybody with little common sense would say that the best batsmen should be protected in the last over of the day. You lost it my dear author.

    You might be right with respect to Bravo dismissal, but then Chandy hasnt done badly after that correct? Just because stats say there are more number of run outs, does it make a batsmen selfish. It definitely makes him a bad runner, but not sure if it makes him selfish....

    Well done chandy, I would never mind having a SELFISH player in my team as well..

  • gan_sub on May 18, 2012, 5:15 GMT

    I have read most of the articles on cricinfo every day and none has forced me to take up the task of registering myself to comment. Mr Dobell I think it is audacious from your side to think that Chanderpaul is a selfish player who doesn't play for the team. Just because of a Bravo run out or Edwards getting out in the final over does not provide you an opportunity to generalize on such a thing.I would think twice because saying the same statement for Chris gayle you have taken sides using too little statistics. Only 3 ties out in 23 run outs can also imply various things like better runner and the better batsman at that point hence the runner gave himself up for the team. And for tail enders VVS Laxman the best batsman with tail I know of takes singles in the first ball of the over. And one more thing I am not a West Indian but an Indian who loves test cricket and wouldnt like a great test batsman being subjected such stupid conclusion. Sorry for being harsh but truth is harsh!!!

  • satish619chandar on May 18, 2012, 5:13 GMT

    Well.. The run out of Bravo can be called selfish but certainly not Fidel.. Had Chanders been dismissed in the last over, there is equal chance of this quote - "Chanders should have taken single.. Edwards is a known blocker and Chanders could have taken a single and allowed Edwards to block it".. In support of Bravo incident, Bravo ran when Chanders showed no response to his call.. As per situation, we usually demand that the lesser bat should sacrifice his wicket for the team.. Isn't it? So on ideal definition of team spirit, Bravo should have sacrificed but when Chanders protects his wicket for team, he is blamed as selfish! Doesn't it sound funny? No batsman shields tail these days actually except if he is a big hitter and that is the last wicket.. Not even VVS, Neither Steve who are the guys who come immediately to mind when thinking of batting with tail.. The guys like Gilly, Freddie or Lara are natural dominators and they do shield but i dont see anyone doing it these days..

  • claudyrayan on May 18, 2012, 5:13 GMT

    I wont think this article is in good taste, If you think Chander is selfish what about the great Indian batsman ? Does the author have the courage to write similar article about the big man ??

  • eZoha on May 18, 2012, 5:12 GMT

    I've been a fan of Chanders for a long time. And yes, consciously or unconsciously, he has become a selfish player. It seems only in recent years he has found out that being not-out is a great way to increase one's batting average. And he should bat at number 3 if team requires that. His batting at 3 can do wonders for the budding batsmen and the team. It is rubbish to say that he should not change position because Tendulkar doesn't. At the end of the day, it is a team game.

  • pm80 on May 18, 2012, 5:05 GMT

    Looks like the writer is a rookie with limited cricketing knowledge.Fidel Edwards is a capable tailender, case in point , when India toured west indies in 2011, Edwards and Chanderpaul, put on a huge partnership on a 5'th day wicked and saved the game. I don't think the argument about Chanderpaul protecting Fidel Edwards holds good.

  • on May 18, 2012, 5:05 GMT

    This article has perfectly hit the mark. I have always wondered why Chanderpaul doesn't bat at no.3 instead of no.5. He was recently asked to move up to no.5, but he refused. The thing is, he likes to bat slowly (and "correctly"), like Dravid. But the other WI batsmen are not good enough to last that long. So by the time Chanderpaul gets a chance to score any significant amount of runs, the others get out, and he runs out of partners. This innings is a good example of that. On the contrary, if he comes in at no.3, he will get more time. Moreover, the others can then bat around him, and play strokes freely, and contribute more. Chanderpaul can be "The Wall" for WI; if he dares; that is.

  • Krooks on May 18, 2012, 5:04 GMT

    I have never really appreciated Mr.Dobell's articles as they are too much stuck in English sensibilities... i hope he gets a broader perspective cos' the writing can definitely improve a bit

  • on May 18, 2012, 4:53 GMT

    Much of the problem facing Chanderpaual is the uncanny ability of the lower order to invariably crumble . No. 6 and 7 (keeper) ...must contribute more with the bat especially when the top order has failed...they must hang around more to ensure a competitive toatal is posted...when the bowlers are in, Chanderpaul has a difficult task at times to decide if the run is more important than shielding. The comments made against Chanderpaul here are unjustified as a single player...regardless of superiority...cannot win matches on his own.

  • RyanHarrisGreatCricketer on May 18, 2012, 4:51 GMT

    @deepak_sholapurkar can u give an example of laxman and dhoni's selfishness? if laxman is selfish who won the test match against australia at mohali in 2010? if dhoni is selfish who saved the test match at lords in 2007 when other so-called batting legends got out so quickly?

  • Geeva on May 18, 2012, 4:51 GMT

    This is a silyl article.Not sure if Dobell played TEST CRICKET??Atherton discussed this with Michael Holding.Holding stated that Shiv is best at No5!The writer should rather focus on Barath Samuel all got starts and didnt kick on!!Shiv was leading scorer against Aus and against Eng yday!I really hope he gets a 100!And people forget that when India beat Aus in Mohali,Laxman gave allot of strike to Ishant Sharmab so does mike hussey(trusting the tail).Hoping Shiv gets his 100!!!Shame on the writer and WI fans that critic shiv!!!!

  • on May 18, 2012, 4:42 GMT

    Posted by cricketdebator on (May 17 2012, 22:03 PM GMT) seems like u forgot about one of those many time he saved matched for the WI just one example thought 10 of 2 balls against SL vaas was bowling to b exact 4 off the second to last ball in the over n 6 off the last ball

  • rienzied on May 18, 2012, 4:42 GMT

    There are plenty of points brought up, some valid and some rather biased, however I feel Chanderpaul, is a truly great and effective batsmen. He has shown the right temperament. While he has to save the side 9 out of 10 times, there are plenty more cricketers who also need to step up. Darren B , Kirk E and Samuels are decent cricketers however, the opening slots are too fragile. In terms of shielding the tail, he does a very average job, he does tend to get in a shell at times HOWEVER you just cannot knock the man. after 2009, many people had written him off, he is enjoying another good summer, my statement is PLEASE give him a break. He has so much thrusted on him and after Lara's retirement he has done a great job. It is easy to point out the dust on the paper but there is a lot more to him than those minor specs. Chanderpaul, you are a true legend, and to note, just have a look at his 2nd innings stats, they are a lot better than the so called greats playing the game today..

  • IamDan on May 18, 2012, 4:40 GMT

    I totally agree with your comment, Jayco, spot on.

  • on May 18, 2012, 4:13 GMT

    Chanderpaul might be selfish... but check what he has done for West Indies while Australia was in the Caribbean. Dobbell you have a lot of facts and is making a point but selfish makes you number 1. Check Gayle in the IPL he is selfish going out there and scoring and not giving any other people the chance. If that's what makes you number one so be it!

  • on May 18, 2012, 4:13 GMT

    It seems Mr. G. Dobell likes to experiment as a writer: experiment with provocation and character defamation. Calling Chanderpaul selfish, and then trying to paper it over with irrelevant allusions is not only a violation of public trust but poor writing. If Mr. Dobell ever had the role of a leading batsman in a team, he would have known a little more about the mindset of leading batsmen: for the team's sake, protect your wicket at all cost. As for shielding tail enders, I think Chanders needs to reflect on this more. That he doesn't is not a mark of selfishness, but concentration on his single purpose: bat to the end. While this may not always be the best focus from a team perspective, with a coach like Gibson who likes to send out notes to tell you what to do, and a Board like WICB who calls for your premature retirement, you focus on YOUR batting. Mr. Dobell seems to have forgotten what makes good writers: it is not provocation but public trust. Or maybe he never learned this.

  • on May 18, 2012, 4:07 GMT

    could not agree more with the author..when batting with your 10th batsman if you expose him to 5 deliveries to the best opposition bowlers it has large streak of SELFISH written on every part f it and thats why perhaps he is not respected among the fans despite being so good..the running out of Bravo was also another thing..comparing Gayle with Chanders is simply futile...gayle is a much better batsman and has a triple century to prove it

  • anver777 on May 18, 2012, 4:03 GMT

    One man show by ever reliable Shiv !!!!! only last man to come, wish he can get his 100 !!!!!

  • Sidcrico on May 18, 2012, 3:41 GMT

    Something is working...Chanderpaul is the best batsmain the world...West Indies are definitely improving as a test side under Gibson...Stop criticizing everything just for the sake of it. Look for the positives.Dravid keeping wickets, Nayan Mongia opening...stop this absurd practice of putting the best players in uncomfortable positions.A ninety from his present batting position is much more likely than one from No. 3 for Chanderpaul.LET HIM BE...YOU CYNICS.

  • on May 18, 2012, 3:37 GMT

    Thank you Mr Dobbell. Time somebody told the truth although it has been a bit late coming. Chanderpaul is a great batsman and his contribution to WI cricket can never be in doubt but the fact of the matter is that Chanderpaul NEVER shields the lower order batsmen when batting with them, whatever might be the state of the game at the time and it is infuriating and frustrating to see that. I cannot help but draw comparisons with Lara who not only shielded but also inspired the tail to bat with him.

  • deepak_sholapurkar on May 18, 2012, 3:33 GMT

    is it not the the whole cricketing world is selfish? why to blame Chandrapaul only? Examples:

    1)Why Sachin will never open in test..? He is a very regular opener in one-day. and even there was a national calamity when he was asked to move down to middle order by Greg Chapel.

    But in Test cricket what ever may be the occasion he will never open. In England when short of openers Poor Dravid has to do that. Sachin will not even move up a place. He is a dedicated 2-down player. Why is that..

    2)Laxman/Dhoni batting with tail enders. You can observe this multiple times. They will never protect the tail. Always try to remain not out and increase the average.

    3)Just before the test match(Against Australia) After seeing the green pitch, Ganguli withdraw from the team and captaincy.

  • on May 18, 2012, 3:27 GMT

    Chanderpaul is right to refuse any change in his batting position. He was treated as a yo-yo for long. And what about Bravo's culpability as well in the run out? Wasn't he ball watching too...instead of watching his partner? But, yes, it was insane to leave Edwards for the last over. And yes, sometimes Chanderpaul does seen to forget the context.

  • Devadatta_Rajadhyaksha on May 18, 2012, 3:17 GMT

    Funnily enough, I don't recall anyone blaming Steve Waugh for taking singles of first balls of overs to expose McGrath to the likes of Donald and Akram.

  • KathmanduNepalSandeshLamsal on May 18, 2012, 3:13 GMT

    just bring all the performer gayle,bravo,russel,smith,sarwan,ben quick to the w.indies team other wise it will be toooo late that there will be any w.indies supporter left for the team.

    and the blame will be to the GIBSON.

    just fire "GIBSON"..............so sick of him and current policy of w.indies board.

  • VivGilchrist on May 18, 2012, 3:13 GMT

    Anyone defending Shiv has never watched Hussey bat with the Aussie tail ... a true team man. Also Shiv not moving up could be the difference between winning and losing. One should always do what is best for the team.

  • mngc1 on May 18, 2012, 3:07 GMT

    One part of me is wishing Gabriel bats well on his debut. The other is wishing Chanderpaul does not make his century as he should have protected Edwards to bat on the 2nd day. I can't feel good either way.

  • Jayco on May 18, 2012, 2:49 GMT

    This is the guy who was knocked out by a brett lee bouncer, couldn't move his arms and legs, and went on to make 118, and despite that head injury he shielded Edwards who batted for 63 minutes and faced only 19 balls in 12 overs. And you think he's selfish? Read the stories of the drama surrounding that 118, or even the Chanderpaul article by Rob Steen on Cricinfo a couple of weeks ago entitled "The epitome of selfless striving" (got a little contest with Rob have you?), or the recent summary of his 5 best innings. I really think you've got him wrong. P.S., you spelled Gavaskar incorrectly.

  • on May 18, 2012, 2:48 GMT

    What a nonsensical article. He builds up a case against Chanderpaul as being selfish and in the end says that he understands why Chanderpaul and others are individualistic. Cricket, he says is a game like that. Mr. Dobell journeys into more choppy waters when he says, " the honours boards at Lords record not victories and losses, but individual successes." This is more nonsense. We remember Bernard Julien at Lords making a century just as we do West Indies winning that Test. Some fans may remember the latter even more. The final point of Mr. Dobell shows a novice a at work. He argues that Gayle was badly managed. Really? Try managing Gayle or even Sunil Narine in the face of the millions that are offered in the IPL. West Indies cricket is managing to do well with the limited resources that it has and the cupboard is not bare at all. More talent will emerge and it for Chanderpaul and others to share their experiences with these budding players.

  • Jayco on May 18, 2012, 2:35 GMT

    I'm sorry George, I really think you'll regret this article when you've had more time to think it through. Having watched Chanders since debut he really has never seemed like a selfish player. It's really pretty obvious it's not his go and he's put up with a lot of crap to serve the west indies. Maybe he is guilty of misplaced trust in a tailender, but that sort of faith has been the trend ever since steve waugh pioneered that approach in order to build grit and determination in his team. And the guy averages 34 at 3, and 50 at 5, so where should he bat?

  • on May 18, 2012, 2:30 GMT

    If you look carefully to the 80-86 overs, there were opportunities to take singles early in the over and shiv didnt take them. So why suddenly in the last over ? Brain freeze ??? But another way to look at it is to protect one's wicket for the good of the team. But then, there is only one wicket left. So anyways we dissect this, I feel taking the single in the last over was a bad idea. Shouldnt the coach have sent this message across ? I am not sure if this is selfishness or stupidity or brain freeze.

  • Guyanese2Dbone on May 18, 2012, 2:18 GMT

    Very disappointin artical. Does any1 remember tht the said pair of chanders n edwards stave off defeat from the very same england here in the caribbean n there was no shieldin of edwards then as a matter of fact of any of the other tail enders. As 4 the bravo incident bravo is 2 b blamed bcoz any cricketer knows tht the first call is 2 wait n then if it's possible u run but tht wasn't the case here, he just hare down the wicket witout waitin or lookin. Kirk shud not b in the team bcoz he's not in form, bravo shud b at 3 n chanders shud b left 2 do wat he does best, SAVE WEST INDIES FROM A TERRIBLE DEFEAT!

  • jmcilhinney on May 18, 2012, 2:17 GMT

    @RAMKI2404 on (May 17 2012, 20:07 PM GMT), plenty of people have written similar things about SRT, especially when he stayed at #4 while Laxman moved up to #3. George Dobell is English though, and England are currently play WI, so why would George write about an Indian player?

  • jmcilhinney on May 18, 2012, 2:15 GMT

    @Thomas Cherian on (May 17 2012, 19:39 PM GMT), if you can't work that out for yourself then I pity you. Let me explain. The theory is that Chanderpaul is capable of scoring the same number of runs, possibly more, batting at #3 or #4 as he is at #5. If he moves up then those who are currently failing at the top can move down and come in after he has worked his magic so there is less pressure on them and they score more. As a result of that, the team benefits. That is the whole point and the answer to your question of why: because it would benefit the team.

  • vj3478 on May 18, 2012, 2:14 GMT

    The author reminds me of Sharda Ugra. So negatives thoughts all over the article - about such a great player. The author did some digging into statics about the number of run outs Chanders was involved. Did he even care to check the number of partnerships he was involved in free-fall WI middle/lower order? What would have been WI batting without him over the years?

  • ramgoat on May 18, 2012, 1:55 GMT

    shiv is not a baby sitter ,he is a cricketer ,why sammy not take some responsible for this .cricket is a selfish game , if you dont make runs the selector will find away to drop you ,so why shiv should protect the tail ,they have a bat in their hand.

  • Selfishkar on May 18, 2012, 1:48 GMT

    On the topic of selfish cricketers, never forget Tendulkar's 100th ton which caused India the Asia cup.

  • on May 18, 2012, 1:37 GMT

    I am not the biggest Chanderpaul fan but what more can you expect from an English sport writer concerning the only resistance England faced today. Criticism can be made about everyone and anyone but the bottom line is whether or not that person benefit or hurt the team and if Chandra's performance today is anything it was resistance when his teammates fail and I don't see how that's a bad thing. I guess the English boys confidence is dented and needed an scapegoat, Chandra fits the bill to George Dobell!

  • on May 18, 2012, 1:34 GMT

    i have been saying this for years that shiv plays for himself not for the team at all.once he makes runs it doesnt matter what the others does. The team could have done better over the years since he could have added 40-50 more runs with the tail.wake up shiv.

  • nafzak on May 18, 2012, 1:24 GMT

    How can Shiv not look out for no. 1 when the WICB has dropped Gayle, Sarwan, Nash and Deonarine.... all batsmen who could have provided some relief. Nash was going pretty good with Shiv a couple of years ago. He scored a double century in WI 1st class cricket a couple of months ago. Sarwan is in form and apparently don't have a fitness problem in County cricket. Deonarine showed promise against Australia. Gayle.. well everybody knows what he brings to the table. We would not have this conversation if those players were in the team. Surely you cannot expect Shiv to protect the other 10 batsmen.

  • cristo on May 18, 2012, 1:17 GMT

    Not sure of him being selfish, or the run out or moving up the order at this age in his career, but I just can't figure out the logistics in him giving the strike to the tailenders so early in the over. He does it repeatedly…lacks reasoning

  • SomeCents on May 18, 2012, 1:12 GMT

    You need to appreciate Chanderpaul's history with WI cricket and treatment by the powers. Took him quite a while to understand that you trust no one but your stats! Chanderpaul was chopped from the ODI team. One poor run in test cricket and guess what? TOAST! Welcome to the real world! And by the way, what about that Johnathan Trott? And bowlers dropping each other's wickets??? And how keen was Bravo to save his wicket over the best test batsman in the world? And is there a popular theory going around that the tail needs to take care of themself? I guess when an Aussie says it, it's wise.

  • satspeare on May 18, 2012, 1:11 GMT

    @Mr DoBell, go ring somewhere else! Chanderpaul is performing best at #5 than any other number he played. Most centuries, four, sixes, 100's, 50's, highest score, most not out. Actually percentage-wise , he has performed better at 6th rather than higher than 5. play him where he is at his best! Please leave him be or drop him! Please see below before you talk! Position Span Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave SR 100 50

    2nd 1997-1998 2 2 1 74 58* 74.00 43.02 0 1 3rd 1995-2001 18 29 2 925 137* 34.25 41.47 1 6 4th 1998-2010 26 40 6 1197 166 35.20 37.97 2 7 5th 1996-2012 76 117 19 5309 203* 54.17 43.62 14 29 6th 1994-2011 35 46 10 2414 147* 67.05 43.58 7 16 7th 1994-2003 5 5 1 219 109 54.75 47.92 1 1 8th 1994-1994 1 1 0 4 4 4.00 22.22 0 0

  • sugars on May 18, 2012, 1:00 GMT

    i think this article is quite accurate and mark you i'm a big chanderpaul fan..it has always baffled me why he constantly takes singles of the 1st ball of and over when he bats with the tail enders..i've seen it time and time again..this is one thing the great Brian Lara was good at,batting with the tail.its okay if they have faced a few balls and have gained some confidence to let them face more balls but common chandy.

  • on May 18, 2012, 0:31 GMT

    Shiv is the only pride that West Indies cricket has at the moment, he is no.1 in the world and alot of plp has a problem with that.

  • the_evil_weevil on May 18, 2012, 0:25 GMT

    I'm sorry George, but even as an Englishman I call bull on this article. He's culpable for running out a partner who has a lesser record than him? I wonder what Nasser Hussain's (another man I respect hugely as a fighting cricketer) record on that is. He's the only man in these conditions with any Test caps in this WI side, and a fine record at that. As for leaving the tail exposed, may we be consistent on this? Steve Waugh was commended for saying he trusted nine, ten and jack to hold out for him. Chanderpaul trusts in Fidel Edwards, who as a tailender has survived 30+ balls on 10 occasions, to see out the final over, and because Fidel fails you blast Chanderpaul? That's weak reasoning. Sorry.

  • on May 18, 2012, 0:22 GMT

    Get a grip people. He may be your favorite batsman or be world number 1 or the Wi version of the wall standing between Wi and otal collapse... but he is also guilty as the article describes. Chanderpaul has maybe 2 or 3 good years left...he is defening a team which he captained in the past and during which period the players gave him a difficult time of it.....As one of the "Old Guard" ( since Lara. Sarwan, Gayle are no longer there ) he knows that if he does not pile up the runs that he woudl be out of the team.....

  • satspeare on May 18, 2012, 0:18 GMT

    This article is a whole lot of nonsense. Shiv has served the West Indies faithfully and even tried his hand at captaincy, which he relinquished when he realized that he was not good enough! Shiv has been up and down the order before and no one has acknowledged that fact. If these younger players are not good enough for test, then they don't belong in the team. if they need coaching, then why did Desmond Haynes disappear from the scene? What more do we want this one man army to do? He is right to protect his wicket because runs cannot be scored when you are back in the pavilion. I do agree however that he should bat higher for his own benefit and that in turn will help the younger batsmen. If the bowlers are never exposed to batting, how are they going to ever learn to bat in test cricket? the last I looked, there are 11 "batsmen" on the team and everyone has to bat. I f the opposition bowlers can put runs on the board, then so can ours too! They actually have done decently of recent.

  • crikectfan on May 18, 2012, 0:00 GMT

    What a poor article, I guess top sport-persons always have their detractors. Anyway here is what I think- I am a firm believer that all 11 cricketers should be able to hold up an end with the bat. Why should an international player need another to shelter them from bowling. It is only exposure to good quality bowling that will make them learn and increase their competencies. Also, one important statistic left out is how many valuable runs Shiv has added whenever an unfortunate run out incident has taken place...and when as you put it selfishly he holds on to his wicket. I don't have the time to look those statistics up but I am very sure that on most of those occasions Shiv has gone on to score many vital runs. Vital runs, that have saved huge embarrassment for the West Indies in numerous occasions.

  • on May 17, 2012, 23:59 GMT

    He plays for his own selfish stats...I have seen many matches where he has always taken a first ball single and leave the tail enders to the mercy of good bowlers....if he is this good, why can't he bat higher up the order..and give the newer guys a chance to settle in under less pressure...His option is to come not out century or not...that is not team cricket...

  • macadamnut on May 17, 2012, 23:39 GMT

    I'm curious, does anyone else think Darren Bravo played a big part in running Darren Bravo out? The Sky analysts all had a good chuckle at Chanderpaul's quickness getting himelf back and at the goofy throw by Matt Prior, but nobody made any observation or comment about what Bravo was doing; Why did he run all the way down without noticing where the ball or his partner were? Why didn't he take off back to his end while the throw was coming in and Prior was bobbling it? The throw might always have gone wrong, it did in fact. What about overthrows? Has anyone else ever seen Bravo space out or quit on a play before it's quite over? Because I saw it once or twice against Australia. I don't think it's fair to say Chanderpaul is in a bubble, unmoved by the game situation, when young Bravo and then Marlon Samuels were sporting pretty opaque bubbles of their own today.

  • rket on May 17, 2012, 23:33 GMT

    Show me somebody in current West Indies team that can match Shiv in talent and temperament. He's the savior for the West Indies team. I agree that the West Indies team management failed miserably in managing players and processes. That's why it's important that you manage yourself in right way and I think Shiv is doing that in perfect way.

  • Kemisetti on May 17, 2012, 23:30 GMT

    Looks like the author wanted to write a negative article about Chanders and ended up writing this. It is not uncommon to involve in an runout. It happens to any professional cricketer. I dont think there is a big deal. Also, if a batsman is playing well at a certain batting position, i dont think any captain/batsman would want to change that, unless everyone else in the team is playing well. Kirk Edwards is a promising batsman and started doing well at No.3. There is no need to change his position either.

  • on May 17, 2012, 23:21 GMT

    Shifting Chanderpaul from #5 to #3 is digging a hole to fill a hole.

  • on May 17, 2012, 22:48 GMT

    I'm surprised that you consider 23 run out from 239 innings and a multitude of partnerships and hundreds of hours at the crease damning statistics. I'm surprised that running down the wicket and not looking at your other batsman is not considered a brain freeze. It's mediocre cricket to allow yourself to be run out and 3 run out from 23 indicates from 239 innings young players can learn how not to throw your innings away from undisciplined running. As for the No 3 discussion why not Bravo he's clearly a class act and a very skillful batsman.

  • on May 17, 2012, 22:39 GMT

    why should he move up the order>you have sawan scoring ceenturies in english county cricket and west indies dont want to piclk him.give me a break.shiv should bat where he wants to bat.

  • gtzshotta on May 17, 2012, 22:39 GMT

    This is a brilliant article. I love chanderpaul as a player, he is our rock, our backbone. However, I've seen countless times (because he's bat with the tail so much) that he's left the tail-enders with many balls in an over to face. Fidel Edwards on day 2 could have ensured Shiv's hundred, but now he has only Gabriel to string along. At that Gabriel even has to face the first 3 balls. Shiv could have easily played out that last over, he knows it.

  • on May 17, 2012, 22:37 GMT

    "Selfish gene fails shallow talent pool" - Strike against Shiv and the team that he strives to protect. Too many run outs with Shiv in teh middle. As a senior player he needs to demonstrate more maturity by coaching the younger players through technique and discipline.....stats show the reverse. Perhaps the only blemish in Shiv's resume....

  • mngc1 on May 17, 2012, 22:36 GMT

    Chanderpaul playing for country instead of IPL is not important because no IPL team would buy him. His game is not suited to the fast T20 pace and WI should bear that in mind. Today Fidel Edwards was not a nightwatchman protecting a higher batsman from facing a few deliveries. It was a matter of extending the innings for as long as possible, to get more runs and give the opposition less time to win. Taking the single off the first ball was not selfish - it was the shirking of his responsibility as the senior batsman at the wicket. It was not the first time that he has done that. In fact I do not recall even one occasion when he tried to do it when rearguard action was required. He may be a very good batsman that contributes but does not play one for the team

  • on May 17, 2012, 22:35 GMT

    This report is absolutely top class. Oh the joy of reading class cricket writing! George Dobell is a very good writer.

  • on May 17, 2012, 22:35 GMT

    English cricket writers are such an angry bunch

  • b4u8me2 on May 17, 2012, 22:31 GMT

    Why do people continue to say Gayle turned his back on the WI in chase of IPL money? When has Gayle ever been selected for the WI and he refused to play because of the IPL? Gayle played in IPL 2011 and 2012 because the WICB left him out of the team. Should Gayle have sat there doing nothing? Would we also say that Sarwan and Nash turned their back on the WI for English County money? The truth is that the WICB turned its back on these senior players and they sought to seek a living playing elsewhere.

  • Rev_11 on May 17, 2012, 22:28 GMT

    No one has ever achieved success or greatness in any field of endeavor without being selfish. Of course the great Shiv Chanderpaul is a selfish batsman. He said his goal in cricket was to score 10,000 runs in test cricket at a 50+ average. It took him 18 years of hard work, determination, and laser like focus to achieve his goal. You have to be selfish to achieve greatness. Today Shiv is one of only 10 batsmen in history to be a member of the elite 10K club in tests and he is also one of only 5 batsmen in history be a member of both the 10K club and a member of the ICC 900+ best ever rating club---the 5 batsmen in both clubs are Sunil Gavaskar, Brian Lara, Ricky Ponting, Jacques kallis and Shiv Chanderpaul. Only losers and mediocre achievers would denigrate Shiv Chanderpaul for being selfish. To be successful and great in your field you have to be selfish, or else you will forever be mediocre. Best of luck to the great Shiv Chanderpaul. May he continue to enjoy great success.

    Rev

  • on May 17, 2012, 22:17 GMT

    everyone saying chanders selfish.. let him retire the next test...lets see wat happens.......the runout was unfortunate but everyone make mistakes.. chanders 110% always committed to playin west indies cricket...while others r running behind money. every player has a job in the team to carry out his job is to stay there n bat not fire is bat an wish like other players in the team.... i'm seriously angry about this article... dats all

  • sk12 on May 17, 2012, 22:08 GMT

    Out of his 3 run-outs, 1 was with (late) Runoko Morton. Check that out in youtube, its one of the most bizarre dismissals ever. That also is some proof of how he "not-so-generously" tried to protect his wicket by turnign his back on his partner. But incredibly he was the one who ended up getting dismissed. Oh and btw, he is one of my favourite cricketers by virtue of his other characteristics - hez an epitome of concentration, doggedness and dedication, who always seems to save his best against us Indians.

  • cricketdebator on May 17, 2012, 22:03 GMT

    I give the author an A+ for this article. His summary on Chanderpaul is what I've been saying for year, and it is pleasing to see that someone else has joinned me in condemning Chanderpaul as the most selfish player of all times. To all of his supporters, I challenge you to tell me when has Chanderpaul ever put team ahead of himself in a manner, so as to put the team in a winning position? Ofcourse, never!

  • thegreatwhiteduck on May 17, 2012, 21:58 GMT

    A brilliantly observed and beautifully written article. A pleasure to read. Thank you.

  • on May 17, 2012, 21:49 GMT

    23 Run Outs in 250odd innings. Not too bad considering how much Shiv has contributed. Only 1 every 6 test matches.

  • simon_w on May 17, 2012, 21:46 GMT

    to all those talking about the role of the night-watchman: isn't a night-watchman usually sent out to protect the a batsman who stays in the pavilion? the idea is that you are most at risk when starting your innings -- Chanderpaul had been batting since lunch time, and was well-set. he should have been protecting the newly-arrived and vastly inferior Fidel Edwards. and to those saying "why should Chanderpaul move up?": all you're really saying is "why shouldn't he be selfish? why shouldn't he put his own interests before those of the team?" you may have a point, of course, but the position you will have to argue with is that the interests of the team should come first. Matt Prior, the subject of a recent article here, is the perfect example of this. he's batted anywhere the team has asked him to, and played the situation of the game for the benefit of the team, frequently to his own "personal" detriment.

  • Erebus26 on May 17, 2012, 21:44 GMT

    I think a couple of guys brought this up on Switch Hit a few weeks back (IIRC Dobell was one of them). They basically stated the same during the Australian series - that Shiv was exposing the tail-enders to the strike and wasn't taking enough chances himself. Whilst there may be an element of truth in this, the fact is that if Shiv Chanderpaul didn't make the scores then Windies would find themselves in far deeper trouble than they have been during test matches.

  • Principle on May 17, 2012, 21:29 GMT

    I wish all WI batsmen were as selfish as Chanderpaul. Atleast he has the pride representing the WI instead of off chasing IPL money like the rest. If all the other West Indian played this way we would be No. 1

  • on May 17, 2012, 21:15 GMT

    There are all sorts of characters in the game. As rightly pointed out by you, they need to be managed. Another guy who you forgot to mention would be Pietersen - maybe not selfish but undoubtedly an egotist. I would not put Geoff Boycott and any of the other three in the same league though. Boycott was unashamedly selfish and head and shoulders above any other player in that regard and you can find many of his contemporaries testify to that. Gavaskar was not in the same league and neither are Gayle and Chanderpaul.

  • on May 17, 2012, 21:09 GMT

    If it weren't for Chanderpaul, WI wouldn't be in this position. You must be selfish to a certain extent in order to be successful not only in sports but life in general otherwise you might as well give up and stay at home. In this case, Chanderpaul's selfishness is for the betterment of WI cricket and so far he's been their only hope of getting into a respectable position to take this test match to the 4th day, barring weather intervention.

  • on May 17, 2012, 21:01 GMT

    Excellent article. I'm a West Indies fan and I've watched for years as mediocrity has become acceptable. The players are mentally weak and I think after a while they simply try to pad their own stats in order to remain on the team. Too much on-the-job training.

  • Bukhari on May 17, 2012, 20:41 GMT

    I agree Chanderpal has shown selfishness in not protecting the tail or not going after the bowling when few wickets are left. But Fiedel has has batted many times as night watchman. What if Chanders was out in that last over! Would the writer be critisizing Chanderpal for not taking the single and preserving himself for the next day? In honesty, Chanderpal has limitations and his own menthods which have worked so for WI team. And he is the only test class batsman in the current set of players so I will not be so harsh on Chanders

  • vincy4ever on May 17, 2012, 20:29 GMT

    Very interesting article George but..... As far as the last over goes, have you heard of the role of the night watchman. It is the role of the lesser player to take strike in the last over. As far as moving up the order, if WI do not have a number 3, it is not incumbent on Chanderpaul to move up the order. In fact WI have two decent No 3's Darren Bravo and Sarwan (who made a century yesterday in England by the way). I think think Chanderpaul's selfishness is legendary but please do not blame the current state of WI cricket on him. The latter part of your article goes somewhere to identifying the problem. There is Gayle, Narine, Sarwan, Bravo senior, Pollard not in this team. Poor management and poor leadership troubles the West Indies, not just in cricket, I hasten to add.

  • RAMKI2404 on May 17, 2012, 20:07 GMT

    I pity Chanderpaul. The statistics in the article is damaging the image of this guy who plays for his country. Why cant the author write similar comments on others like SRT, RP etc.. WI is doing bad b/c other then Chanderpaul no one is having a zeal to stay at the wicket. I always respect Chanderpaul for his contribution to the WI cricket.

  • S.Jagernath on May 17, 2012, 20:06 GMT

    Shivnarine Chanderpaul?Selfish?How is he selfish?Darren Bravo cannot realistically expect Chanderpaul to give his wicket away for him.Why should Chanderpaul be expected to do all the difficult work,let Bravo bat at 3!

  • Wabob on May 17, 2012, 19:55 GMT

    Quite an interesting and,..frank expression on the state of WI cricket. As in all successes world-wide,be it sport, business, entertainment,politics..you name it,management of one's assets is the KEY to success. This is spot-on!....Well written George!

  • Baundele on May 17, 2012, 19:50 GMT

    Chanderpaul was dropped by WICB and they will try that again at the first chance they get. So, his approach is perfect for his own position in the team in addition to scoring almost half the runs of the team total. He has his own limitation as well. He is no Lara, he has his own way of doing things. Moreover, it is not Chanderpaul's fault that others do not have enough patience. He does not deserve the criticism attributed to him in this article.

  • on May 17, 2012, 19:39 GMT

    Chanderpaul is not the best runner between wicket but other questions are kind of idiotic...Why should he move up to cover another incompetent batsmen? He has scored runs in that position until they find someone better than him to bat at the number leave him alone

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • on May 17, 2012, 19:39 GMT

    Chanderpaul is not the best runner between wicket but other questions are kind of idiotic...Why should he move up to cover another incompetent batsmen? He has scored runs in that position until they find someone better than him to bat at the number leave him alone

  • Baundele on May 17, 2012, 19:50 GMT

    Chanderpaul was dropped by WICB and they will try that again at the first chance they get. So, his approach is perfect for his own position in the team in addition to scoring almost half the runs of the team total. He has his own limitation as well. He is no Lara, he has his own way of doing things. Moreover, it is not Chanderpaul's fault that others do not have enough patience. He does not deserve the criticism attributed to him in this article.

  • Wabob on May 17, 2012, 19:55 GMT

    Quite an interesting and,..frank expression on the state of WI cricket. As in all successes world-wide,be it sport, business, entertainment,politics..you name it,management of one's assets is the KEY to success. This is spot-on!....Well written George!

  • S.Jagernath on May 17, 2012, 20:06 GMT

    Shivnarine Chanderpaul?Selfish?How is he selfish?Darren Bravo cannot realistically expect Chanderpaul to give his wicket away for him.Why should Chanderpaul be expected to do all the difficult work,let Bravo bat at 3!

  • RAMKI2404 on May 17, 2012, 20:07 GMT

    I pity Chanderpaul. The statistics in the article is damaging the image of this guy who plays for his country. Why cant the author write similar comments on others like SRT, RP etc.. WI is doing bad b/c other then Chanderpaul no one is having a zeal to stay at the wicket. I always respect Chanderpaul for his contribution to the WI cricket.

  • vincy4ever on May 17, 2012, 20:29 GMT

    Very interesting article George but..... As far as the last over goes, have you heard of the role of the night watchman. It is the role of the lesser player to take strike in the last over. As far as moving up the order, if WI do not have a number 3, it is not incumbent on Chanderpaul to move up the order. In fact WI have two decent No 3's Darren Bravo and Sarwan (who made a century yesterday in England by the way). I think think Chanderpaul's selfishness is legendary but please do not blame the current state of WI cricket on him. The latter part of your article goes somewhere to identifying the problem. There is Gayle, Narine, Sarwan, Bravo senior, Pollard not in this team. Poor management and poor leadership troubles the West Indies, not just in cricket, I hasten to add.

  • Bukhari on May 17, 2012, 20:41 GMT

    I agree Chanderpal has shown selfishness in not protecting the tail or not going after the bowling when few wickets are left. But Fiedel has has batted many times as night watchman. What if Chanders was out in that last over! Would the writer be critisizing Chanderpal for not taking the single and preserving himself for the next day? In honesty, Chanderpal has limitations and his own menthods which have worked so for WI team. And he is the only test class batsman in the current set of players so I will not be so harsh on Chanders

  • on May 17, 2012, 21:01 GMT

    Excellent article. I'm a West Indies fan and I've watched for years as mediocrity has become acceptable. The players are mentally weak and I think after a while they simply try to pad their own stats in order to remain on the team. Too much on-the-job training.

  • on May 17, 2012, 21:09 GMT

    If it weren't for Chanderpaul, WI wouldn't be in this position. You must be selfish to a certain extent in order to be successful not only in sports but life in general otherwise you might as well give up and stay at home. In this case, Chanderpaul's selfishness is for the betterment of WI cricket and so far he's been their only hope of getting into a respectable position to take this test match to the 4th day, barring weather intervention.

  • on May 17, 2012, 21:15 GMT

    There are all sorts of characters in the game. As rightly pointed out by you, they need to be managed. Another guy who you forgot to mention would be Pietersen - maybe not selfish but undoubtedly an egotist. I would not put Geoff Boycott and any of the other three in the same league though. Boycott was unashamedly selfish and head and shoulders above any other player in that regard and you can find many of his contemporaries testify to that. Gavaskar was not in the same league and neither are Gayle and Chanderpaul.