Strauss

The One wrote: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

Nobody's doing that ......... just pointing out how misguided Rob I's dismissal of him as "mediocre to good" was so silly.

i was pointing out he was nowhere close to being a 'great'. i wouldnt call him mediocre as well, he did a job for england. probably more of a pop figure for england in their poor 90s, which makes people rate him higher than he really was

Growler wrote: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 .......

Richards, Miandad, Border and SRT all did. They are "great" in my book.

And Atherton didn't average 40, did he? So even by your own criterion, he fails to be "close to great".

Growler wrote:
just pointing out how misguided Rob I's dismissal of him as "mediocre to good" was so silly.

It might be, if I'd used the word mediocre.

But I didn't.

Do me the favour of not creating a straw man to attack me with, or put words in my mouth, please.

Apologies Rob, but lets not split hairs heh ?

Moderate / mediocre tell us all the difference.

Nobody's disagreeing with you about Stewart, as I said before - only about your assessment of Atherton's attributes. Neither I nor anyone else called him great. Its my opinion that, all things considered, including the state of his back for the majority of his carreer and the fact he played over 115 tests - that he wasn't far off greatness. you don't agree - I'll live with it.

Still nobody bar The One agreeing with you though, is there ?

Of Recent times I would go with these in order:


Gooch
Atherton
Stewart
Tresco
Strauss

Removing Gooch, Atherton irrespective of average of stats and all that crud was our second best opener in recent times.

All sides targetted his wicket as being the one they wanted as he was the batsman that would create the glue for England to build a decent total.

holcs wrote:Of Recent times I would go with these in order:


Gooch
Atherton
Stewart
Tresco
Strauss

Removing Gooch, Atherton irrespective of average of stats and all that crud was our second best opener in recent times.

All sides targetted his wicket as being the one they wanted as he was the batsman that would create the glue for England to build a decent total.

Apart from the scandalous ommission of Tim Curtis, I think that's a pretty decent ranking

Ooops.

Sorry Bas....

Wayne Larkins also appears to have been overlooked ... and Lathwell

Phuck off holcs. Stewart was easily better. The problem with him was when the spinners got on.

Growler wrote:Apologies Rob, but lets not split hairs heh ?

Moderate / mediocre tell us all the difference.

Moderate implies a worthy sort of fellow, mediocre is more insulting, in my book.

Still nobody bar The One agreeing with you though, is there ?

TO understands that 37 < 46. He also appreciates that many English overrate Athers because of one innings in South Africa.

The man spent 60 of his 115 tests averaging 29 against Australia and 31 against WI. That is a serious taint on his record, IMO.

Rob I wrote:
Moderate implies a worthy sort of fellow, mediocre is more insulting, in my book.

Semantics. There's scant difference to be arguing the toss.

Rob I wrote:
TO understands that 37 < 46. He also appreciates that many English overrate Athers because of one innings in South Africa.

The man spent 60 of his 115 tests averaging 29 against Australia and 31 against WI. That is a serious taint on his record, IMO.

The sample period is less great, and whilst I agree with you : AJS > MAA, I think you're underrating him slightly.

Athers also spent a good deal of his career trying to captain a shit side whilst his back was giving him gyp, against a quality of bowler conspicuously absent at the moment. The only thing stopping him from being great was the fact that he's a red not a blue.
And I'll twat anyone who says different.

[quote="Rob I"]

Growler wrote: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 .......

Richards, Miandad, Border and SRT all did. They are "great" in my book.

And Atherton didn't average 40, did he? So even by your own criterion, he fails to be "close to great".

Growler wrote:


Do me the favour of not creating a straw man to attack me with, or put words in my mouth, please.

Didn't see Richards, Miandad, Border, SRT, Lara, Waugh etc. ever volunteer to open the batting in test cricket. You should at least compare him to openers.

Eric Air Emu wrote:
Didn't see Richards, Miandad, Border, SRT, Lara, Waugh etc. ever volunteer to open the batting in test cricket. You should at least compare him to openers.

I have compared him to openers many times on this thread already - unfavourably.

Better than Kirsten, Anwar, Taylor, Slater?

Phurt he's not better than Anwar.

spangler wrote:Better than Kirsten, Anwar, Taylor, Slater?

no. no. no. no

slater and Anwar...what a combo

spangler wrote:Better than Kirsten, Anwar, Taylor, Slater?

I can't honestly say as I recall any of those fine players ever opening the batting for England.

Growler wrote:

spangler wrote:Better than Kirsten, Anwar, Taylor, Slater?

I can't honestly say as I recall any of those fine players ever opening the batting for England.

Give that Growler a Bone.

Can we at least agree that he was a fine slips fieldsman?

Paul Keating wrote:Can we at least agree that he was a fine slips fieldsman?

So was Mark Waugh...


He was a fine slipper....assuming he'll lose his good hands soon Ponts?

Paul Keating wrote:Can we at least agree that he was a fine slips fieldsman?

What was it - 87 catches in 115 tests? Good, but hardly Bothamesque.

Stewart belongs in the Anwar/Tubby/Slats/Kirsten group. Athers doesn't.

Danny - I wouldn't argue with that.

Rob I - the thing I was trying to say was that, to my mind at least, he's comparable to Fred, in the sense that he was better than pure numbers might suggest regarding his value to the side.

Chas was quite right saying that Athers was always regarded as the prize wicket, even though Stewie, Nasser & Thorpe had better stats.

I'm in no doubt at all that England would generally have been even easier to beat than we were for those years if Athers wasn't playing - would you disagree?

Do agree with you regarding his slipping - but then, we were hardly awash with world class bowlers to give him the chances were we?