Strauss

RobI.

Two Questions about Stewart...

A) Did he have chronic back pain?
B) Is he a "decent bloke"?

WTF? Stewie had a f*cking good sample of Tests as an opener, a reasonable amount in more testing conditions that you'll find today against the likes of McGrath, McDermott, Gillespie, Reiffel, Fleming, Wasim, Waqar, Aaqib, Srinath, Prasad, Donald, Pollock, De Villiers, Bishop, Walsh, Ambrose, Patterson, Benjamin, Nash, Doull etc.

Most of those bowlers would stroll into today's sides and would be a little less effective due to the negative pitches in place.

All of that and he averaged > 45 and people are wanking about Athers? That's cool, but let's not try and cheapen Stewie. Deadset opening ledge.

Stewart was worth his money . . . .

McGrath, McDermott, Gillespie, Reiffel, Fleming, Wasim, Waqar, Aaqib, Srinath, Prasad, Donald, Pollock, De Villiers, Bishop, Walsh, Ambrose, Patterson, Benjamin, Nash, Doull etc

Softy McSoftSoft doesn't belong in that company...

DJ_Smerk wrote:RobI.

Two Questions about Stewart...

A) Did he have chronic back pain?
B) Is he a "decent bloke"?

A) Don't know.
B) Yes, IMO.

What's your point?

Australians never really saw the best of Stewart (or Atherton, for that matter).

Very true, lardy ........ and as we all know, you've 2GM to thank for that. Its no co-incidence that one of the top 10 world openers of his generation ( I'm talking in particular about Athers here BTW) usually needed one of the top 10 bowlers to remove him - very few change bowlers ever got him out regularly.

Brass Monkey - nobody's decrying Stewies place in the scheme of things - just pointing out that Rob is talking guff about Atherton.

" ....... He was a moderate-to-good opener, nothing more " is tripe and the whole forum knows it.

As an opening partnership the two of them were one of the most successful pairings we've had - who knows how much more successful we may have been if AS could have played purely as an opener. Fact is, they complimented one another in playing style and were as good as one another. IMHO, both would have much better averages had they been playing against todays crop of piemen bowling on roads posing as test wickets.

Growler wrote:Its no co-incidence that one of the top 10 world openers of his generation ( I'm talking in particular about Athers here BTW) usually needed one of the top 10 bowlers to remove him - very few change bowlers ever got him out regularly.

probably because he didnt last too long against the best. cant think of any good bowler who you could say atherton had the better of

The One wrote:

Growler wrote:Its no co-incidence that one of the top 10 world openers of his generation ( I'm talking in particular about Athers here BTW) usually needed one of the top 10 bowlers to remove him - very few change bowlers ever got him out regularly.

probably because he didnt last too long against the best. cant think of any good bowler who you could say atherton had the better of

Donald would be the first to spring to mind - already mentioned in this thread.
I remember he struggled against McGrath and Ambrose, but who didn't?

Well Stewart learnt his cricket in Perth...no wonder he was better than your average pom.

Didn't he score more runs in the 90s than anyone else?

TO, Atherton's average of 37+ included 16 tons and 46 halves in 212 innings. That's almost one in three innings. I think you're missing the point buddy.

He was dismissed 205 times. 96 of those dismissals were against just 9 bowlers ( for the record McGrath, Ambrose, Walsh, Donald and Warne account for 74 of them, with Waqar & Pollock 6 dismissals each, Vaas and McDermot 5 each). In addition another 6 got him 4 times, and a further 7 three times. Be honest, who's bowling today fit to be mentioned in the same breath as the first six of them ?

Those figures show that, far from being unable to last against them - half his 50s & 100s came v Aus WI and SA - his was a wicket to be worked for and earned by the best bowlers, not one given away to part-time dobbers by loose shots or impatience when the scoring rate was strangled.

He was just shy of being a great - but to be dismissed as mediocre to good, nothing more - with a record like that has to be one of the daftest things posted on here for a long time.

Growler wrote:

He was just shy of being a great - but to be dismissed as mediocre to good, nothing more - with a record like that has to be one of the daftest things posted on here for a long time.

What utter bollo. To be "great" you need a test average of 50, not 38. "Just shy" would therefore be..... about 46, like Stewart.

Sorry Rob .... read the comments.

The only one speaking bollo is you. Nobody's disputed what you say about Stewart, but I don't see anyone siding with your views on Atherton.

Also, I think you'll find that in the late 80's to mid 90s, an average of 40 was close to great. Very few averaged 50 in those days ....... now its commonplace with the modern pitches and pop-gun bowling attacks - hence my "just shy" remark.

I'd temper Growlers suggestion by saying 50 was still the mark for greatness in the 80's & 90's. Think IVA Richards for example

40-45 was definitely a top test player though.

atherton was a decent opener, but he was a long way away from being a great. half his 50s came against aus, wi and sa only because he played almost 70% of his matches against them, not because he was any good against them. he averaged 30 vs aus and the windies and a decent but hardly world-beating 44 vs sa

an old-fashioned opener who had his few moments in the sun, but lets not build him up to be a greenidge or haynes, let alone a boycott or hanif

The One wrote:atherton was a decent opener.. half his 50s came against aus, wi and sa only because he played almost 70% of his matches against them

Genius.

I remember Atherton playing a BRAIN numbing innings in that infamous test match at Karachi.....

England had no right to win that series but Pakistan also deserved to lose because the pitches were sooooo poor! Its that kind of pitches which have all but killed test cricket in Pakistan.

oh and Moin made his bowlers bowl 10 overs/ hour....another reason why PAK deserved to lose.

this innings of 51 should have been series winning one as well

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/63933.html

but the 2 Ws stung England for one last time.

Jontyh wrote:

The One wrote:atherton was a decent opener.. half his 50s came against aus, wi and sa only because he played almost 70% of his matches against them

Genius.

you might want to read growler's post at the top before reading mine

In terms of pace attacks of the 90s

1- WI(Bish, Walsh and Ambrose)

2- SA( Donald, Pollock, Fanie)

3- PAK ( Zahid/Shoaib/Aaqib/Nazir, Waqar, Wasim)

4- AUS( Mcgrath, Fleming/Kasper, Dizzy)

OVERALL i would say Pakistan had the best attack because the 2 Mushtaqs.


this deserves a sep thread

best bowling averages in the 90s (by team)

The One wrote:

Jontyh wrote:

The One wrote:atherton was a decent opener.. half his 50s came against aus, wi and sa only because he played almost 70% of his matches against them

Genius.

you might want to read growler's post at the top before reading mine

I did. His makes sense, and you're still an idiot.

Athers did have his good days against the West Indies. His record was good against Australia until McGrath came to prominance, until when McGrath absolutely dominated him. A great bowler and he completely dismantled Atherton - possibly because he didn't have the shots to knock McGrath off his metronomic length (e.g. Vaughan, Astle, Lara or Tendulkar?).

FWIW this innings of 45....

link

Is possibly the finest innings ever (where the batsman didn't score many runs!) The pitch had wide cracks and deliveries were shooting in all directions. Ambrose was absolutely immense that day, and Walsh kept producing magic deliveries but for 3 and a half hours Athers doggedly stuck in there and ultimately won England the match. Perhaps that sums up Atherton, he never would destroy a bowling attack, but often he would make the key contribution and win England matches. The opposition bowlers always seemed to target Athers rather than the batsmen like Stewart, Smith and Thorpe with higher batting averages.

Jontyh wrote:

The One wrote:atherton was a decent opener.. half his 50s came against aus, wi and sa only because he played almost 70% of his matches against them

Genius.

I once had this argument with TO, with regards to Andy Flower & Graham Thorpe.

Flower played 10% of his tests against the top 3 sides, whereas Thorpe played 70% of his against Pak,AUS & WI of the early 1990's

Despite Flower averaging 5 runs more - Thorpe was easily his equal.

TO, basing his theory on the fact that Flower once had a sensational series against India therefore his runs count quadruple