Richardson vs. Atherton (Tests)

[Athlai]

Atherton 7728 @ 37.69
SR 37.31

Richardson 2776 @ 44.77
SR 37.66

Discuss.

 

[zaremba]

Inexplicable.

Here's another:

Richardson average 44.77
Fleming average 40.06
Discuss


And another:

Richardson 44.77
M Crowe 45.36
Discuss

And:

Vic Richardson: 23.53
Richie Richardson: 44.39
Mark Richardson: 44.77
Discuss

 

[Richard]

I always thought Richardson a thoroughly average player, same as Matthew Hayden. A flat-track bully who scored notable numbers of runs only because of the weakness of the bowling and flatness of pitch at the time which composed his run-scoring.

Just like Hayden, anyone who could bowl a decent lot of inswingers would in my view get him out without great difficulty.

Some people have trouble accepting that a slow scorer can be a flat track bully mind.

So yeah, in my view Atherton >>>>> Hayden & Richardson in equal measure.

 

[Days of Grace]

Mark was no flat-track bully. He succeeded on all types of pitches and had guts and concentration sorely lacking in NZ batsmen today.

But Richie was better. And his sunhat made him seem even more so. But he would have been frustrating to watch, holing out off the hook shot on many occasions.

 

[_Ed_]

I don't remember this being a flat track: http://nz.cricinfo.com/link_to_data..._IN_NZ/SCORECARDS/IND_NZ_T1_12-16DEC2002.html

 

[Days of Grace]

I don't remember this being a flat track: http://nz.cricinfo.com/link_to_data..._IN_NZ/SCORECARDS/IND_NZ_T1_12-16DEC2002.html

Great example.

See how Richardson batted for almost twice as long as anyone else, only the Wall getting within half of his time spent at the crease.

 

[Richard]

I don't remember this being a flat track: http://nz.cricinfo.com/link_to_data..._IN_NZ/SCORECARDS/IND_NZ_T1_12-16DEC2002.html

Being a flat-track bully doesn't mean he never scored on seaming\turning decks (he did once or twice) but merely that mostly you won't.

And in my view Richardson wouldn't have. However, the number of the things he actually played on was pretty minimal.

 

[Days of Grace]

Being a flat-track bully doesn't mean he never scored on seaming\turning decks (he did once or twice) but merely that mostly you won't.

So basically every batsmen in the history of the game is a flat-track bully?

 

[Spikey]

So basically every batsmen in the history of the game is a flat-track bully?

No.

Every batsmen bar Atherton is a flat-track bully .

 

[Ikki]

Pretty close, but Richardson was better. Apart from his performances against the Aussies and the Saffies, he has a pretty neat record across the board.

 

[Ikki]

So basically every batsmen in the history of the game is a flat-track bully?

No. Nasser Hussain and Mike Atherton weren't.

 

[Richard]

So basically every batsmen in the history of the game is a flat-track bully?

Nope.

 

[Richard]

No. Nasser Hussain and Mike Atherton weren't.

Them and countless hundreds of others.

Two examples of people who were were Mike Denness and Keith Fletcher BTW.

 

[Ikki]

Them and countless hundreds of others.

Two examples of people who were were Mike Denness and Keith Fletcher BTW.

oh man, my stomach hurts...I've laughed so much.

 

[Athlai]

Note this thread was made due to a comment by our dear Rich. Wanted to see the public's opinion on the matter.

 

[Athlai]

Richard how on earth do you justify Richardson being a flat track bully while Atherton was not?

In matches where New Zealand lost the toss and were sent in (meaning that the opposing team chose to bowl) Mark averages 50.93, Atherton on the other hand averages 35.12.

Flat Track?
Flat Track?
Flat Track?

And those are the extreme ends of the spectrum where nobody else barring him made a score. There are plenty of instances where either a member of his team or the opposition stood up on a troubling pitch.

At the same time you could find plenty of occasions in where Atherton cashes in on a flat pitch, its hypocritical to point out how Richardson cashed in on flat pitches while ignoring the fact Atherton naturally did the same. And your point in how a flat track bully can also sometimes play well on seaming wickets is ridiculous, if they can do that then how the hell are they are flat track bully?

 

[Nutter]

Can't see Richardson as an any track type of bully. He never got out, but he never scored massive double hundreds either.

 

[Perm]

Richardson was solid, but I didn't really rate him too highly. Atherton's career spanned far longer and he produced knocks of far greater quality than Richardson, so I'll have to agree with Dicko on this one.

 

[Flem274*]

Richard how on earth do you justify Richardson being a flat track bully while Atherton was not?

In matches where New Zealand lost the toss and were sent in (meaning that the opposing team chose to bowl) Mark averages 50.93, Atherton on the other hand averages 35.12.

Flat Track?
Flat Track?
Flat Track?

And those are the extreme ends of the spectrum where nobody else barring him made a score. There are plenty of instances where either a member of his team or the opposition stood up on a troubling pitch.

At the same time you could find plenty of occasions in where Atherton cashes in on a flat pitch, its hypocritical to point out how Richardson cashed in on flat pitches while ignoring the fact Atherton naturally did the same. And your point in how a flat track bully can also sometimes play well on seaming wickets is ridiculous, if they can do that then how the hell are they are flat track bully?

AWTA.

 

[Perm]

In matches where New Zealand lost the toss and were sent in (meaning that the opposing team chose to bowl) Mark averages 50.93, Atherton on the other hand averages 35.12.

Drops down to 44-odd once you exclude Bangladesh tho, so that figure is a little misleading.

He did average 50 in drawn games though, which I think is something that must be taken into consideration. Not sure what the equivalent figure for Atherton is.