Michael Vaughan v Michael Atherton

[Perm]

Haha, best gag. Won't ever get old

We'll get told to stop soon enough

 

[Richard]

Hmm, I'd consider Atherton and Gooch reasonably equal but I find it hard to beleive you rate him as highly as you do. Saying he is comparable with Haynes, Greenidge and Fredericks is overrating Atherton quite a bit IMO. I know you rate him, but that highly surprises me. I don't think fast scoring comes into it either, TBH.

What else is there?

They all averaged in the early 40s. Greenidge I suppose was 44 so was a bit better, but as I say - bowling in the 1990s was categorically stronger than in the 1980s, especially given that the strongest attack of them all was the attack Fredericks, Greenidge and Haynes all played with so never faced (and FTR I tend to rate Fredericks the best of the West Indian trio).

I think it's the "they dominated more so they must be better" thing coming into it again, TBH, though I do know you're not a big subscriber to that. I don't know how much you've read of the West Indian trio, though, obviously, as I've never discussed them with you before now.

 

[Richard]

Haha, best gag. Won't ever get old

We'll get told to stop soon enough

Well Gelman's the big boss now and if he's still subscribing he can't exactly tell himself to stop...

Anyway - I'm beginning to take it as a compliment TBH.

 

[Perm]

What else is there?

They all averaged in the early 40s. Greenidge I suppose was 44 so was a bit better, but as I say - bowling in the 1990s was categorically stronger than in the 1980s, especially given that the strongest attack of them all was the attack Fredericks, Greenidge and Haynes all played with so never faced (and FTR I tend to rate Fredericks the best of the West Indian trio).

I think it's the "they dominated more so they must be better" thing coming into it again, TBH, though I do know you're not a big subscriber to that. I don't know how much you've read of the West Indian trio, though, obviously, as I've never discussed them with you before now.

The thing is though, Atherton only averaged in the 40's once you adjusted his stats to exclude some parts of his career where he did not perform, for any number of reasons. I am sure if you did the same thing for Greenidge, Haynes and Fredericks you will find out that their respective averages should increase, probably to over 45 (in Greenidge's case I am almost certain). I did notice you always rate Fredericks as the best of the trio, although I've limited knowledge of the players I haven't heard a lot of people with the same opinion.

I don't think at all that domination comes into play that much, I just beleive that those three batsmen were all better than Atherton, who, it must be said, was limited with his scoring rate. I do respect him for his mental ability, but there are occasions when quick scoring is needed. Anyway, the basis of my argument doesn't come from that fact.

 

[Richard]

Thing is, though, there's no good reason to remove parts of the career of any aforementioned batsmen. None played when 1\4 fit (or so) at any point that I'm aware of (indeed, Greenidge was famous for playing better when not fully fit), and all hit the ground running. Fredericks and Haynes did not decline much either.

TBF, though, I'll admit my error here (and will modify the original post). Greenidge averaged in the high 40s for most of his career and had quite a bit of comedown at the end (not surprising given that he played on to 40), and was probably quite a bit better than Atherton.

 

[Perm]

Thing is, though, there's no good reason to remove parts of the career of any aforementioned batsmen. None played when 1\4 fit (or so) at any point that I'm aware of (indeed, Greenidge was famous for playing better when not fully fit), and all hit the ground running. Fredericks and Haynes did not decline much either.

TBF, though, I'll admit my error here (and will modify the original post). Greenidge averaged in the high 40s for most of his career and had quite a bit of comedown at the end (not surprising given that he played on to 40), and was probably quite a bit better than Atherton.

(Y) Good man.

Am I wrong or have you not excluded part of Atherton's career when he either wasn't ready for Test cricket or shouldn't have been selected due to his age? Because I'm fairly sure you've done that before, in which case the same could be applied to the trio of West Indians.

 

[howardj]

Can't believe there are so many Athers fans.

I'm really proud of CW.

 

[Richard]

(Y) Good man.

Am I wrong or have you not excluded part of Atherton's career when he either wasn't ready for Test cricket or shouldn't have been selected due to his age? Because I'm fairly sure you've done that before, in which case the same could be applied to the trio of West Indians.

Yeah, I have. I tend to completely ignore the first 2 Tests of Atherton's career in 1989, when he should never, ever have been picked (regardless of the fact he obviously had potential) and wouldn't have done had it not been that most catastrophic of all summers (twenty-nine players in 6 Tests). I actually do the same for Graham Gooch - for me, the meaningful part of his career starts in 1978. I also knock off his last 10 Tests, in which he did not-much, as this doesn't really matter to the other 90-odd games. I do the same, again, with Gooch - there are two periods to his career, the first (and by a large distance the longest) where he was a good Test opener, and the second where he was a fair sensation (and my first true cricketing hero, as a result of that), averaging 70-odd over 4 years which is nothing short of astonishing, at 36 years of age.

As I say, though - all of Fredericks, Greenidge and Haynes hit the ground running, which, to me, says that none of them were really picked too early. All of them were ready when they got their first go.

As I also say, though, Greenidge (unlike the other 2) did decline, quite a bit in fact, and his overall career average isn't an accurate reflection of the truth of most of his career.

 

[Richard]

Can't believe there are so many Athers fans.

I'm really proud of CW.

Does that mean you are or aren't one? Can't even remember whether we've discussed this one before...

 

[howardj]

Does that mean you are or aren't one? Can't even remember whether we've discussed this one before...

Am one mate. Love Athers like a brother.

 

[GIMH]

Why so howard?

 

[The Sean]

Seriously, how many openers in the 1990s did miles better? I've never equated Atherton with a Boycott, Turner, Gavaskar or Greenidge, but seriously, the league behind those two is not great in its numbers.

Atherton is perfectly equable IMO with the likes of Gary Kirsten, Tubby Taylor, Michael Slater, Saeed Anwar, Aamir Sohail and Marvan Atapattu, if not better than some. And from the previous 2 decades the likes of Rick McCosker, Bruce Laird, John Edrich, Dennis Amiss, Graham Gooch, John Wright, Roy Fredericks, Dessie Haynes, etc.

Atherton and Donald (like Ambrose) traded blows and came-out equally. Donald and Ambrose both caused Atherton problems, but plenty often enough he came through and scored runs against them. Unlike in the case of McGrath.

Rich, I love the footage of McCosker coming out with a bandaged jaw, and Stumpy Laird's courage against the WI quicks, as much as the next red blooded Aussie male but I don't reckon they're on the same planet as Athers or most of those other blokes you mentioned there.

 

[Richard]

Atherton had to face some awesome bowling attacks in his time, but then again Vaughan scored 3 big centuries against imo one of the top 4/5 test bowling attacks of all time

You rate Brett Lee, Andrew Bichel and Stuart MacGill as such?

 

[Richard]

Rich, I love the footage of McCosker coming out with a bandaged jaw, and Stumpy Laird's courage against the WI quicks, as much as the next red blooded Aussie male but I don't reckon they're on the same planet as Athers or most of those other blokes you mentioned there.

Possibly not, but neither of them had careers of any real length (which was a great shame) and I struggled to think of any other openers who did even what they did in the 1970s and 1980s.

Please name me a few if you can think of 'em.

EDIT: after Lawry and Stackpole, did Australia have any particularly notable openers unti first Marsh (who declined later on) and Taylor?

 

[The Sean]

Possibly not, but neither of them had careers of any real length (which was a great shame) and I struggled to think of any other openers who did even what they did in the 1970s and 1980s.

Please name me a few if you can think of 'em.

Well from Australia the only one who really stood out in that era was Ian Redpath. Probably our one world class opening bat in the era between Simpson-Lawry and Taylor.

 

[howardj]

Why so howard?

For me, his style just encapsulates why I love Test cricket - the graft, the grind, the application.

I just love the grafters like Athers and Kallis.

 

[Richard]

Well from Australia the only one who really stood out in that era was Ian Redpath. Probably our one world class opening bat in the era between Simpson-Lawry and Taylor.

Never even knew Redpath was an opener, TBH always thought he was a number-three.

 

[The Sean]

Never even knew Redpath was an opener, TBH always thought he was a number-three.

Spent a fair bit of time at no.3 as well I believe, but played much more often as an opener than anywhere else.

EDIT - shame on me but I forgot to mention Keith Stackpole. Not as consistent or accomplished as Redders, but much, much better to watch by all accounts.

 

[open365]

For me, it's a bit of a difficult comparison. Only as openers can they be compared, once you get onto Vaughan the middle-order batsman (and I much, much prefer him in the middle to the top and always have done) it's rather a danger to compare.

I've said it many times, Atherton is vastly underrated by pretty much most people. Too many are simplistic, look at his overall career average and say "not that good". Well, frankly, that's just wrong. A better summation of Atherton's worth is an average of 41, and I've shown why many times. I couldn't care less, either, for the view that "McGrath got him out loads of times, so he couldn't hack it against the best". Apart from the fact that there were 2 contemparary bowlers better than McGrath (Donald and Ambrose, both of whom he scored plenty of runs against) for me, that argument has always been nonsense to me in any case, every bit as much as the "he performed against the best, who cares about the rest?" one.

But that's the exact same argument you used when sayign that Hussain was better than Hayden.

 

[Zinzan]

Yeah, I have. I tend to completely ignore the first 2 Tests of Atherton's career in 1989, when he should never, ever have been picked (regardless of the fact he obviously had potential) and wouldn't have done had it not been that most catastrophic of all summers (twenty-nine players in 6 Tests). I actually do the same for Graham Gooch - for me, the meaningful part of his career starts in 1978. I also knock off his last 10 Tests, in which he did not-much, as this doesn't really matter to the other 90-odd games. I do the same, again, with Gooch - there are two periods to his career, the first (and by a large distance the longest) where he was a good Test opener, and the second where he was a fair sensation (and my first true cricketing hero, as a result of that), averaging 70-odd over 4 years which is nothing short of astonishing, at 36 years of age.

As I say, though - all of Fredericks, Greenidge and Haynes hit the ground running, which, to me, says that none of them were really picked too early. All of them were ready when they got their first go.

As I also say, though, Greenidge (unlike the other 2) did decline, quite a bit in fact, and his overall career average isn't an accurate reflection of the truth of most of his career.

The old convenient manipulation of players stats. Oh if you take out his first 4 tests, and his 21st test, oh and the 10 at the end of his career etc etc