Michael Vaughan v Michael Atherton

[Richard]

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

Eh? No it's not.

 

[Richard]

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

FFS, stats tell you nothing of interest (or accuracy) if you don't "manipulate" them, and not in the totally random way you fuffle around with there.

The stats I provide give a far more accurate impression of Atherton's career than those any fool can look-up on CricInfo.

 

[open365]

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

Hiding the truth a bit there Rich, it was only his third hundred he scored in which the attack didn't contain Warne or McGrath.

 

[open365]

Eh? No it's not.

Yes it is, you reasoned Hussain was better than Hayden because you discredited the periods when Hayden scored all of his runs (and conversely Nasser scored none) due to them being in times of rubbish bowling.

 

[Richard]

Hiding the truth a bit there Rich, it was only his third hundred he scored in which the attack didn't contain Warne or McGrath.

Not true. McGrath didn't bowl in the second-innings at The MCG, was injured by then, and Warne didn't play in either the MCG or SCG game. The only truly Test-class bowler he faced was Gillespie in the MCG knock (as I say, at The SCG Gillespie was bowling half-fit).

 

[Richard]

Yes it is, you reasoned Hussain was better than Hayden because you discredited the periods when Hayden scored all of his runs (and conversely Nasser scored none) due to them being in times of rubbish bowling.

Apart from the fact he didn't score "none" (not as many as Hayden, no, but I'd never said he did)...

That's totally different to the argument that someone performed against the best team of their era but not any others (or vice-versa) which has always been one of my pet-hates. This is saying one person is good against rubbish bowling in general but not very good against much better bowling, compared to someone who's pretty good against both.

 

[umop 3p!sdn]

Vaughan for me, when he plays well he is an absolute joy to watch. I never though tof him as a great player, until recently. To be honest I hadn't seen much of him. Beautiful technique.

 

[Zinzan]

FFS, stats tell you nothing of interest (or accuracy) if you don't "manipulate" them, and not in the totally random way you fuffle around with there.

The stats I provide give a far more accurate impression of Atherton's career than those any fool can look-up on CricInfo.

Oh really? Well Cricinfo have it that he scored 7728 runs and 16 test hundreds, How many runs and hundreds has he scored according to you ?

 

[Richard]

I couldn't give a **** about those stats, they're not important.

The more important stats, as I say, are those I show - of the greater part of his career when he was not playing 1\4-fit.

As that's the part that formed the vast majority. However, the irrelevant small minority part is so significantly different that it distorts the important picture, for those fool enough to fail to ignore it.

 

[Zinzan]

Yet you are manipulating Atherton's stats and some how fabricating that he had an average of 41 (when clearly it was 37) and then you have the cheek to compare him to other players using their "real" averages...Isn't that contradiction? or is that suggesting that you do place value on "real" "offical" stats when it suits you.

 

[Mister Wright]

I couldn't give a **** about those stats, they're not important.

The more important stats, as I say, are those I show - of the greater part of his career when he was not playing 1\4-fit.

As that's the part that formed the vast majority. However, the irrelevant small minority part is so significantly different that it distorts the important picture, for those fool enough to fail to ignore it.

This post should go in the Joke of the Day thread, really.

 

[honestbharani]

I once saw a match between England and Windies. I think it was Tresco's debut match, IIRC and the way Athers batted in that match (flat track, over the hill Windies bowling, nothing to scare even a McGrath when batting on that track) made me wince. It is a testimony to how bad the Windies were at that time that they actually lost the match but Athers did a great job of trying to salvage it as much as possible for them by batting time. He was scoring less than 1 run an over in the first day's play and even the new boy, Tresco, was outscoring him comfortably and Tresco was scoring nowhere near as fast as he has sometimes done later on....

 

[Mister Wright]

I once saw a match between England and Windies. I think it was Tresco's debut match, IIRC and the way Athers batted in that match (flat track, over the hill Windies bowling, nothing to scare even a McGrath when batting on that track) made me wince. It is a testimony to how bad the Windies were at that time that they actually lost the match but Athers did a great job of trying to salvage it as much as possible for them by batting time. He was scoring less than 1 run an over in the first day's play and even the new boy, Tresco, was outscoring him comfortably and Tresco was scoring nowhere near as fast as he has sometimes done later on....

Trescothick's debut Atherton scored 1(16) c Campbell b Walsh & 28(63) c Jacobs b Walsh. Trescothick 66(163) b Walsh & 38*(101).

I think you may mean the 2nd test where Atherton scored 1(7) c Lara b Walsh & 45(143) lbw b Walsh.

 

[honestbharani]

Trescothick's debut Atherton scored 1(16) c Campbell b Walsh & 28(63) c Jacobs b Walsh. Trescothick 66(163) b Walsh & 38*(101).

I think you may mean the 2nd test where Atherton scored 1(7) c Lara b Walsh & 45(143) lbw b Walsh.

yeah, not exactly sure which test, but I think the first one was won by the Windies anyway, so def. not that one. I am juz talking from memory there, but I do remember the commentators saying that he was batting ridiculously slow on a good track.... I think I have seen him bat like that quite often.

 

[honestbharani]

http://aus.cricinfo.com/link_to_dat...ENG/SCORECARDS/WI_ENG_T5_31AUG-04SEP2000.html



found it. I guess the pitch wasn't that good as the match went on but initially at least it was a real road.

 

[Richard]

I once saw a match between England and Windies. I think it was Tresco's debut match, IIRC and the way Athers batted in that match (flat track, over the hill Windies bowling, nothing to scare even a McGrath when batting on that track) made me wince. It is a testimony to how bad the Windies were at that time that they actually lost the match but Athers did a great job of trying to salvage it as much as possible for them by batting time. He was scoring less than 1 run an over in the first day's play and even the new boy, Tresco, was outscoring him comfortably and Tresco was scoring nowhere near as fast as he has sometimes done later on....

Trescothick's debut Atherton scored 1(16) c Campbell b Walsh & 28(63) c Jacobs b Walsh. Trescothick 66(163) b Walsh & 38*(101).

I think you may mean the 2nd test where Atherton scored 1(7) c Lara b Walsh & 45(143) lbw b Walsh.

yeah, not exactly sure which test, but I think the first one was won by the Windies anyway, so def. not that one. I am juz talking from memory there, but I do remember the commentators saying that he was batting ridiculously slow on a good track.... I think I have seen him bat like that quite often.

Well I assure you there was only 1 particularly flat deck that series and it was indeed Old Trafford (Trescothick's debut match). Don't know how on Earth anyone could describe Ambrose and Walsh as "over the hill" that series, though, they patently were as good as if not better than ever. West Indies won the First Test of that series, England pulled level - just - at Lord's in IMO the greatest Test of all-time, and dominated the series from Trescothick's debut game onwards.

Atherton, of course, had a poor series for the first 4 games (on, as I say, 3 very lively pitches against 2 superb opening bowlers) but made-up for it big-time with a sizeable double in the final Test of the series of 83 and 108 (the latter in which he almost carried his bat).

 

[Richard]

Yet you are manipulating Atherton's stats and some how fabricating that he had an average of 41 (when clearly it was 37) and then you have the cheek to compare him to other players using their "real" averages...Isn't that contradiction? or is that suggesting that you do place value on "real" "offical" stats when it suits you.

I'm not "manipulating" anything, I'm searching around for - and finding - the true story. An average of 37 is not an accurate reflection of Atherton's worth for the vast majority of his career, one of 41 is. You also seem to be getting certain parts of this muddled with the Bangladesh situation where I refuse to recognise that certain games deserve Test status, which has nothing to do with this here.

There's no reason to look at anything other than a full career for the other cases I've mentioned (bar Greenidge, where you'd do best to knock off his last 10 games or so, as I also said) and unless you can provide a good reason as to why certain games should not be added (and not "because he didn't do well in them", as there were also many games of Atherton's where he did not do well which I've not excluded) then you can complain. Otherwise, you can't.

If people are too stupid to realise why I've knocked-out certain games for Atherton when I've stated very clearly why it should be done that way that's their problem.

 

[iamdavid]

I agree with Richard on his take on Atherton and how some people drum-down his worth because at first glance he only averages 30's, he was the rock around which England batted for nearly a decade and yeah he struggled against McGrath, but so did Lara, Kirsten and to a degree Tendulkar and many other excellent modern day batsman.
To have been captain of a floundering side for a fair period and also suffer from such a debilitating back condition yet still prove so durable and reliable is a great credit to him.

However I dont agree with the notion that Vaughan's golden patch wasnt worth what its made out to be due to his offering of early chances. Dropped catches are a part of cricket and I think it's petty to hold them against the batsman being let-off, I'm sure you cant say with any certainty that Atherton didnt recieve a degree of good luck in some of his 16 hundreds, and the manner in which Vaughan made those runs was priceless.

I really cant split the two as test batsman, Atherton in general faced tougher opposition and he was around much longer than Vaughan has been thus far, Atherton batted more than 60 times against Australia and made only 1 century with an average of 29, which I would hold against him. However for much of his carear South Africa's attack was everybit as good as Australia's and their new-ball paring even better and he came away from 30 odd innings against them with a mid forties average and 3 hundreds.
Cant seperate them...but Vaughan is prettier to watch.

 

[honestbharani]

Well I assure you there was only 1 particularly flat deck that series and it was indeed Old Trafford (Trescothick's debut match). Don't know how on Earth anyone could describe Ambrose and Walsh as "over the hill" that series, though, they patently were as good as if not better than ever. West Indies won the First Test of that series, England pulled level - just - at Lord's in IMO the greatest Test of all-time, and dominated the series from Trescothick's debut game onwards.

Atherton, of course, had a poor series for the first 4 games (on, as I say, 3 very lively pitches against 2 superb opening bowlers) but made-up for it big-time with a sizeable double in the final Test of the series of 83 and 108 (the latter in which he almost carried his bat).

I don't think his first innings 83 was anything special at all and of course Ambrose and Walsh were over the hill... They were comfortably better than the other West Indian bowlers coming up but that doesn't mean they were at their best. I did watch the series with great interest since I would usually come home from school around the time the matches used to start. I haven't really seen Athers whole career and that is why I am not participating much in the debate but from what I have seen, although he has played some good knocks with his back to the wall, esp. that Jo'burg effort and another one against RSA in 98 (even though he was plain lucky in that inning, and so were England to actually win that series thanks to Javed Akhtar), from what I saw of him, he was a guy who was also not very good on a flat track when it comes to adding value to the team. That is why I think the scales should be tilted even when comparing him with Vaughan.


But as I said, I never really followed his whole career and hence, can't be the best judge of this one. Personally, I would rather vote for Vaughan because I think he is as that much off Athers on a difficult track as Athers is off Vaughan on a flat track....

 

[Poker Boy]

I do think Atherton is underrated because he had to face in his career: McGrath, Warne, Donald, Pollock, Ambrose, Walsh, Wasim, Waqar and Mushtaq. Not many freindly bowling attacks there. And the batting around him wasn't as good as Vaughan has - it was often a case of "get Atherton and Stewart and you've got England." I honestly think he'd average at least 45 against today's Test attacks. PS - I know I didn't mention Murali but he only played agaiunst SL four times in Tests and Vaas got him out most of the time anyway.