Dire cricketers who had a successful test career

[Richard]

He would be, considering Tresco's loss and Strauss's loss of form. His defensive play would not be exactly the best option for England these days, and since Cook is reasonably solid at the other end, England could do with an opener who plays his shots.

Atherton is so much better than Trescothick and Strauss it's untrue. Cook might well one day be better than him, but right now he's got even more technical issues than Atherton ever had.

 

[Richard]

Generally, as with zaremba, i believe that the overall quality of any sport improves with time.

I've never agreed with this. I think that there's a peak that the quality of any sport can hit. I doubt cricket has hit it yet, but on the way to that it won't be a constant upward curve; there'll be short periods where it goes down as well.

I believe that September 2001 was emphatically the start of one such thing. When the curve will start going upwards again is not something that can be judged without hindsight. It's possible that it's already happened, but if it has we've still not climbed anywhere near back to the point where we were in 1999 or 2000.

 

[Richard]

Hughes and McDermott both took more wickets and played in more Tests in the 90s than the 80s.

Hughes and McDermott were both pretty useless for much of the '80s. Hughes became a fine bowler in 1989, McDermott in 1990/91.

Reid was also better as of 1990/91 than he had been before, but unfortunately he hardly played from then on.

 

[Ikki]

Didn't say he did, my friend

p.s. To be fair, you have (genuinely) convinced me that Australia's attack in the 90s was stronger than in the 70s / 80s.

My bad. I thought when you said "going back further" you meant further than the 80s.

 

[Uppercut]

I've never agreed with this. I think that there's a peak that the quality of any sport can hit. I doubt cricket has hit it yet, but on the way to that it won't be a constant upward curve; there'll be short periods where it goes down as well.

I believe that September 2001 was emphatically the start of one such thing. When the curve will start going upwards again is not something that can be judged without hindsight. It's possible that it's already happened, but if it has we've still not climbed anywhere near back to the point where we were in 1999 or 2000.

Yeah, obviously there's limits. Ed Smith did some very interesting analysis of it- there's only so fast anyone can do the 100m, for instance. We'll never see a one-minute mile.

However, for the purposes of cricket it's either happened very recently or is yet to happen, so when comparing eras i didn't consider it worth mentioning.

 

[Goughy]

Yeah, obviously there's limits. Ed Smith did some very interesting analysis of it- there's only so fast anyone can do the 100m, for instance. We'll never see a one-minute mile.

However, for the purposes of cricket it's either happened very recently or is yet to happen, so when comparing eras i didn't consider it worth mentioning.

It is pretty obvious that there are limits on what humans can achieve. However, the interesting aspect is that we doont know what the limits are.

 

[Precambrian]

You don't need to be an attacking player to average 50+. Mark Richardson averaged over 50 for much of his career FFS. Surely no-one would possibly contend that Atherton wasn't better than a converted tailender?

There has still been the odd defensive player around since 2001/02 and the really good ones have averaged 60 or 70 (Dravid, Kallis). I see no reason Atherton would've struggled to average 50.

Because not even Atherton would say he was anywhere in the league of Dravid and Kallis! I can't believe I am typing this in reply to such an argument.

 

[Precambrian]

There's a difference between peak, plateau and slide. Atherton's peak was probably about 1996, but a peak is a short time. A plateau, on the other hand, is a long period where a player is broadly the same. For Atherton, this was the 90 Tests where he was fit between 1990 and 2000. In 1989 he was not Test-class; in 1996/97 and 1998/99 he was so unfit no-one of such a fitness level would ever have performed a dime; and in 2001 he was no longer much good.

The thing about Athers was that his so called peak was generally a very good test bat's plateau and Ather's plateau was much below that of a good test batsman.

[QUOTE[I fail to see any reason why all the above should be treated the same. Because, purely and simply, they weren't. Players don't stay the same all career, and I myself happen to think that if a player is as good as Atherton was for 90 Tests, they earn the right to have a few games where they were useless, when most other players have similar things for similar reasons, discounted. I never take the slightest notice of anything Vivian Richards did from 1988 onwards either, nor do I set that much stall by Sachin Tendulkar's first 8 Tests, nor do I even remotely consider the idea of treating his career from 1990 to 2002 as the same as his career from 2003 onwards. Because, once again, they simply weren't

Comparison of Athers with Richards and Tendulkar is laughable. Even by your logic, Athers never managed to average more than 40 in his so called 90 tests, and hence was strictly mediocre.

Which actually equates to just 1 series of significance - 1997. I've already mentioned why he was moderate in 1989, 1998/99 and 2001, and the reason had precisely nothing to do with the fact that the opposition was Australia. He'd have done poorly those seasons whoever he was up against.

Moderate? Not even near that. He was crap to mediocre except for that one good series

You don't have to be exceptional to be Test-class. Atherton was never the latter; he was the former for almost all of his career, and pretty good as well.

Can you please explain? He was never test class, but exceptional for most of his career? He'd never been test class had he been in SA, Aus or India. England lacked an opener during most of his tenure and hence he played so many tests, which ideally he shouldnt have.

Why not? How on Earth can you possibly contend that fit Atherton and unfit Atherton are even remotely close to being the same thing? They weren't. They were spectacularly different and should be put in a different category.

Because, had he been unfit, he never should have played. It shows his lack of professionalism to have played and flopped despite being unfit. Not at all a valid excuse. And it amazes me how you discount it when considering his career, because by that logi a certain Tendulkar would be averaging 60+.

In 1989? English cricket in 1989 was the example of laughing-stock, and yeah, I guess picking lads a couple of months out of uni is such a thing. However, from 1990 onwards, when fit, Atherton was far from a laughing-stock and nor were England.

I never said England was a laughing stock during the 90s, but it was certainly mediocre and rarely rose above the average. Atherton was exactly that, he never was one of the greatest, but did yeo-man service to English cricket and was mediocre for 90% of his career.

Yes, plenty. As I say, you don't have to make 144 for it to be a good knock.

Oh no, but those knocks were far from being regular as compared to the career's longeticity

 

[Richard]

Because not even Atherton would say he was anywhere in the league of Dravid and Kallis! I can't believe I am typing this in reply to such an argument.

Why does that matter? No-one suggested he was. Dravid and Kallis averaged 60 to 70. Thus Atherton, an inferior player to both but still a fine one, would quite conceivably have little trouble averaging 50.

 

[Ikki]

Why does that matter? No-one suggested he was. Dravid and Kallis averaged 60 to 70. Thus Atherton, an inferior player to both but still a fine one, would quite conceivably have little trouble averaging 50.

Dravid averages 53 (49.84 without minnows) in the 2000s and Kallis 59 (56.18 without minnows). These are two of the the greatest batsmen of all-time and realistically they only averaged in the mid 50s.

What you say is plain tripe. Realistically, Atherton would have done well to average 45 in this era, which is still 4 points higher than his so-called "plateau". Just another demonstration of your delusions regarding a few players (not incoincidentally English).

 

[zaremba]

I don't want to be associated with the more extreme claims that Richard makes for Atherton, but his basic point - that Atherton was a mighty fine player - is in my view correct.

Is it just pro-English bias to think so? I'm not so sure. You can eliminate pro- (or anti-) English bias by comparing him with 2 other English openers, Cook and Strauss. Both average over 40 in Tests. And in my view Atherton was a better player than either of them, and if he were playing anywhere near his best today his average would be higher than theirs. Utterly unscientifically, and probably wrongly, I'd say that an average in the mid-40s (in today's money) would be a fair reflection of his ability.

 

[Richard]

Dravid averages 53 (49.84 without minnows) in the 2000s and Kallis 59 (56.18 without minnows). These are two of the the greatest batsmen of all-time and realistically they only averaged in the mid 50s.

For a long time starting from 2001/02, both averaged in the 60s and 70s - excluding substandard sides. As did Ponting.

What you say is plain tripe. Realistically, Atherton would have done well to average 45 in this era, which is still 4 points higher than his so-called "plateau". Just another demonstration of your delusions regarding a few players (not incoincidentally English).

Hahahahaha, nice try on the hometown-bias thing. I have none. And I thought you were told to stop with this "delusions" crap?

Realistically, Atherton could easily have averaged 50 post-2001/02; he could easily have averaged 45 also. However, it's overwhelmingly likely he'd have done better than the 41 of his 1990-2000.

 

[Richard]

The thing about Athers was that his so called peak was generally a very good test bat's plateau and Ather's plateau was much below that of a good test batsman.

It wasn't though. In the 1990s, 41 was a pretty good average for an opener. Not outstanding, but pretty good. 97 (my mistake, it wasn't 90) Tests averaging 41 facing the bowlers he did is a commendable achievement. Not a magnificent one, but a commendable one.

Comparison of Athers with Richards and Tendulkar is laughable. Even by your logic, Athers never managed to average more than 40 in his so called 90 tests, and hence was strictly mediocre.

Why is it laughable? Those players were no different from many others in the pattern their careers took. They just happened to be better than most other batsmen. However, the pattern of a few early bad games, injury impairing them, and a few bad games late-on is still present.

And yes, Atherton did average 41 in the 97 Tests in question. That's pure and simple fact. You can argue if you want that the Tests in which he was injured were the same thing, but, well, they weren't. The vast difference in his performance in them shows that pretty clearly.

Moderate? Not even near that. He was crap to mediocre except for that one good series

He was crap in 1989, 1998/99 and 2001. The reasons for this had nothing to do with the fact he was facing Australia. He was moderate to good in 1990/91, 1993 and 1994/95. He was poor in 1997. Only in 1997 can it be accurately stated that Australia's bowling was simply too good for him because of the excellence of Australia's bowling. In the other series', the reasons had to do with Atherton not being very good. And no, his not being very good then had absolutely nothing to do with what he was on the vast majority of other occasions.

Can you please explain? He was never test class, but exceptional for most of his career? He'd never been test class had he been in SA, Aus or India. England lacked an opener during most of his tenure and hence he played so many tests, which ideally he shouldnt have.

Wrong way around. He was Test-class for most of his career, but pretty well never exceptional. I wrote latter when I meant former.

Because, had he been unfit, he never should have played. It shows his lack of professionalism to have played and flopped despite being unfit. Not at all a valid excuse. And it amazes me how you discount it when considering his career, because by that logi a certain Tendulkar would be averaging 60+.

Yep, I've said such a thing about Tendulkar a good few times. Of course injury is a valid excuse. If you want to know why he played when (with hindsight) he realises he should not have, read his book. He has to live with the mistake he made, but it'd also be a very silly mistake on the behalf of those who assess him to think he was the same player on the rare occasions he was when injured as he was on the vast majority that he was fit.

I never said England was a laughing stock during the 90s, but it was certainly mediocre and rarely rose above the average. Atherton was exactly that, he never was one of the greatest, but did yeo-man service to English cricket and was mediocre for 90% of his career.

He wasn't, he was good for 84% of his career and abysmal for 16%. He was far better than most English batsmen over the duration of his career. The only one who could be said to be clearly better was Gooch of 1990 to 1994.

 

[zaremba]

He was far better than most English batsmen over the duration of his career. The only one who could be said to be clearly better was Gooch of 1990 to 1994.

To which I'd add Gower and, at times, Robin Smith and Graham Thorpe.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Atherton actually had just 1 bad series against WI and Aus when fit and when established as a good Test player. These came in 1997 and 1998.

Atherton simply faced Australia before he was Test-class once (2 Tests in 1989), after he ceased to be Test-class once (5 Tests in 2001; he also faced SL and Pak in this time and did poorly), and when he was woefully unfit once (1998/99 - he also faced Zimbabwe in 1996/97 in a similar condition and did similarly woefully, proving that the calibre of attack was completely irrelevant and the only reason for his poor performance was lack of fitness). This disguises the fact that there were 21 Tests in which he actually performed perfectly respectably against Australia.

Atherton played one hell of a lot of superb knocks against West Indies. The only series that went by without him playing one at the very least was 1997.

If you play, you're fit...otherwise we're going to have to completely redo every player's stats from the beginning of the game.

 

[zaremba]

If you play, you're fit...otherwise we're going to have to completely redo every player's stats from the beginning of the game.

And yes that is (in my respectful opinion) a major flaw in so much of Richard's prodigious output!

 

[Richard]

To which I'd add Gower and, at times, Robin Smith and Graham Thorpe.

There were precious few times when I thought Thorpe was better TBH - maybe briefly in about 1997. Gower was - for a year or so. Sufficiently short for me to neglect to mention it.

Smith, well, he's an interesting one. I have only hazy-ish memories of his heyday but there's no doubt he was a magnificent batsman against seam, better than Atherton for the most part. However, his severe weakness against spin - even if the ball wasn't turning much - means Atherton was in my view almost always more reliable.

 

[Richard]

If you play, you're fit...otherwise we're going to have to completely redo every player's stats from the beginning of the game.

I've no objection to games where a player - any player - had some form of extreme and obvious handicap being excluded from their record. If I ever find-out such things, I take little notice of those games. Jeff Thomson in 1972/73 is another example, for instance.

However, most players don't have such a thing - ever. Mostly, when someone is unfit enough to know their chances of performing are negligable, they don't play.

I just don't see how anyone could possibly argue that the Atherton who turned-up in Zimbabwe in 1996/97 and Australia in 1998/99 is remotely relevant to the Atherton of any other time in his career. You simply have to read the figures and his book to realise this wasn't the case.

I certainly don't see how it makes any sense to suggest if you play, you're fit.

 

[zaremba]

There were precious few times when I thought Thorpe was better TBH - maybe briefly in about 1997. Gower was - for a year or so. Sufficiently short for me to neglect to mention it.

Smith, well, he's an interesting one. I have only hazy-ish memories of his heyday but there's no doubt he was a magnificent batsman against seam, better than Atherton for the most part. However, his severe weakness against spin - even if the ball wasn't turning much - means Atherton was in my view almost always more reliable.

I always rated Thorpe. A truly fine player but had a bad habit, in the first half of his Test career, of failing to convert 50s to 100s.

Smith in his heyday was a magnificent player. I know you're not one for the world rankings but I remember he was No.2 to Gooch's No.1 for a spell. This was unsurprisingly on the back of playing the West Indies (IIRC) where there were many ranking points to be had for performances against top-quality quicks - an area in which he had few peers in the world. He was relatively weak against spin but still made some runs against the spinners - he got runs against India (admittedly not their strongest ever spin attack) in 1990 and I'm pretty sure Warne was among the bowlers he exterminated in the course of that amazing 167* in 1993.

 

[Son Of Coco]

No, I'm not kidding you, but I suggest you re-read what I wrote. I didn't compare Australia in the 80s with Australia in the 90s, I compared Australia in the 70s with Australia in the 90s.

As far as the 80s are concerned, who the **** did they have that compared with their bowlers from the 90s? Well, Reid, Rackemann, Hughes and McDermott for a start...

Going back a little further I'd suggest that an attack formed variously from Lillee, Thomson, Alderman, Hogg, Pascoe, Massie (I'm sure I'm forgetting some but I'm not going to research this) were comparable with an attack comprising, in addition to Warne and McGrath, the likes of Mike Kasprowicz, Brendon Julian, Tim May, et al.

I think you might have conveniently left out Jason Gillespie. I wouldn't call Julian a permanent fixture throughout the 90's and how many tests did Tim May play? Replace him with Stuart MacGill and it looks a little better.

In the 80's Reid was a good bowler, but lucky to last a series without snapping in half. Gillespie had injury problems too in the 90's but he was far more effective than Reid over a longer period of time. Of those mentioned from the 80's only Swervin' Mervin and McDermott had a real go at things. Alderman played through the 80's too and was a very good swing bowler, but not such a good tackler