Dire cricketers who had a successful test career

[Son Of Coco]

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.

Because otherwise you're extracting poor performances to suit yourself. Players will play injured for a multitude of reasons (keeping their spot in the side for one) and to suggest we should overlook someone's bad performances due to them being supposedly injured means there're a lot of other circumstances where we might have to do the same. Who knows how bad Ricky Ponting's elbow is going into the SA series!? If he gets two ducks in the first test and has a poor series how much leeway does he get for being affected by something like that? If his bad back plays up occasionally do we know when this happens and can we then allow for this? Was McGrath fully fit when he came back in the 2005 Ashes series for the 3rd test? To we take out Warne's performances when he first came back from shoulder surgery? The list could go on and on.

 

[Ikki]

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

So we're starting and stopping again as we choose? 2000s+ neither were in the 70s. They may have for a year or two and maybe even 3, but not overall.

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

No, you're having delusions. I wasn't told to stop saying you are deluded. Thinking Nasser Hussain is better than Matthew Hayden is deluded. Thinking Mike Atherton would average in the 50s "with little trouble" is deluded.

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.

No, realistically he would have averaged in the mid 40s, maybe something like a Justin Langer, but I wouldn't even put Atherton even on Langer's level.

To put him on the level of someone like Hayden though...is truly a joke. It could only be due to ignorance or bias that you have such an opinion. Neither variable flatters you. I'd stick to the ****amamy theories about how Lillee is not a scratch on Ambrose than trying to say that Atherton would be averaging in the 50s in this era.

 

[Ikki]

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.

You and I then have very little in difference. I think Atherton would have at most been in the mid 40s had he played his career currently, without injury and having not been thrown in unready. And having said all that I think we're still flattering him somewhat merely because of the perception that he was a sort of battler.

As for bias, well I was talking about Richard. And it's becoming a tad silly how he seems to overrate some of the more average English batsmen of yesteryear.

 

[zaremba]

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

TBH I had completely forgotten about Gillespie - and when reminded of him by Ikki I conceded the point.

Reid, Hughes et al I only mentioned because Ikki had forcefully suggested that no-one from the 80s could compare with the personnel from the 90s, which led me to the obvious response that a lot of the personnel were in fact the same.

As for Alderman, he was quite simply one of the best bowlers I've ever seen. I realise that my perspective is skewed by the fact that I only ever saw him bowl in English conditions, and he was absolutely made for English conditions. But if he had played for England (and therefore played half or more of his Tests here), and if he had not tackled that pitch invader, he would have taken many more wickets at a much lower average and been recognised now as an all-time great, up there with Bedser, Statham and Trueman.

 

[Ikki]

Actually, only two of them were the same (Hughes and McDermott) and they were much better in the 90s also. Even without McGrath and Warne the Aussies in the 90s were better. With them, it's just not a contest.

 

[Richard]

Because otherwise you're extracting poor performances to suit yourself. Players will play injured for a multitude of reasons (keeping their spot in the side for one) and to suggest we should overlook someone's bad performances due to them being supposedly injured means there're a lot of other circumstances where we might have to do the same. Who knows how bad Ricky Ponting's elbow is going into the SA series!? If he gets two ducks in the first test and has a poor series how much leeway does he get for being affected by something like that? If his bad back plays up occasionally do we know when this happens and can we then allow for this? Was McGrath fully fit when he came back in the 2005 Ashes series for the 3rd test? To we take out Warne's performances when he first came back from shoulder surgery? The list could go on and on.

I've always treated Warne of Mar1998-Mar2000 as completely different to Warne for most of the rest of his career. Ponting we'll only be able to judge in hindsight and when we find-out some more.

No amount of extracting poor performance is ever done to suit anything other than trying to work-out the truth of what actually happened. The idea of doing it to suit one's own prejudices is merely an expedient for those who want to believe prejudice exists where it does not.

 

[Richard]

So we're starting and stopping again as we choose? 2000s+ neither were in the 70s. They may have for a year or two and maybe even 3, but not overall.

They both averaged in the 60s and 70s for quite a few years from September 2001 onwards, with negligable downtime.

No, you're having delusions. I wasn't told to stop saying you are deluded. Thinking Nasser Hussain is better than Matthew Hayden is deluded. Thinking Mike Atherton would average in the 50s "with little trouble" is deluded.

No, you'd just like to think it is. And calling someone deluded is direct abuse, which is banned as per forum rules. So I'd suggest you pack it in. Well, no, actually I'd suggest you keep doing it and get banned, because CW would be so much better without you.

No, realistically he would have averaged in the mid 40s, maybe something like a Justin Langer, but I wouldn't even put Atherton even on Langer's level.

To put him on the level of someone like Hayden though...is truly a joke. It could only be due to ignorance or bias that you have such an opinion. Neither variable flatters you. I'd stick to the ****amamy theories about how Lillee is not a scratch on Ambrose than trying to say that Atherton would be averaging in the 50s in this era.

No-one's ever said Lillee wasn't a scratch on Ambrose.

BTW, Langer averaged more than mid-40s from 2001/02 onwards. Quite a bit more. Almost 50 IIRR.

 

[Richard]

As for bias, well I was talking about Richard. And it's becoming a tad silly how he seems to overrate some of the more average English batsmen of yesteryear.

Not really. I simply rate good batsmen of the 1990s and before as generally better than quite a few exceptional batsmen of the 2001-onwards time. Nationality is utterly irrelevant.

 

[Ikki]

They both averaged in the 60s and 70s for quite a few years from September 2001 onwards, with negligable downtime.

Exactly. You're picking and choosing again. Post 2000 neither were much above mid 50s - and these are two all-time greats. Could care less that for a few years they were superlative. I care about the decade as a whole.

No, you'd just like to think it is. And calling someone deluded is direct abuse, which is banned as per forum rules. So I'd suggest you pack it in. Well, no, actually I'd suggest you keep doing it and get banned, because CW would be so much better without you.

No, I am calling you deluded because your opinion is so far off base it seems to be the only real reason. I can't respect someone that deludes himself into thinking non-sense and then trying to post 1000 times to try and make sense of it.

CW would be better without me? Haha, right back atcha.

No-one's ever said Lillee wasn't a scratch on Ambrose.

BTW, Langer averaged more than mid-40s from 2001/02 onwards. Quite a bit more. Almost 50 IIRR.

You said it, I called you on it not far back quoting you. You say a lot of foolish things. Like I remember one time you said it was stupid to suggest Warne was better than Murali.

See, unlike a lot of posters here who've gotten so used to your ****amamy theories that they just filter out the non-sense, I actually remember...and I judge you for what you've posted.

Not really. I simply rate good batsmen of the 1990s and before as generally better than quite a few exceptional batsmen of the 2001-onwards time. Nationality is utterly irrelevant.

Sure, Mike Atherton and Nasser Hussain are better than Matthew Hayden or even a Mohammad Yousuf. Hmm. Couldn't have anything to do with nationalism...maybe ignorance about the sport or the players?

 

[Uppercut]

You said it, I called you on it not far back quoting you. You say a lot of foolish things. Like I remember one time you said it was stupid to suggest Warne was better than Murali.

That's a terrible, trolling, facepalm of a post, but it was in 2006 so i don't really think it's a fair dig.

 

[Ikki]

That's a terrible, trolling, facepalm of a post, but it was in 2006 so i don't really think it's a fair dig.

How about this? Richard has done this time and time again. I don't know, are there rules for being banned because you post relentlessly inane crap?

 

[tooextracool]

Decent for an Englishman during the 90s. Mediocre on an overall scale.

Interesting that. I feel that some of the younger generation is so used to seeing players like Sehwag and Hayden bully poor bowlers around that they've forgotten about the fact that there used to be a time when players were hiding behind the openers who essentially were the glue that held the side together.

Im not sure I agree with the fact that an average of 41 is 'mediocre' A quick stats check would prove that, with the exception of Saeed Anwar, there wasnt an opener in the 90s who averaged over 45 and that includes players of the caliber of Slater, Taylor and Gary Kirsten. It was ridiculously hard to score runs against bowling attacks that had not 1 but often 2 or 3 bowlers who would either go on to be great or were already great. Its completely different to what we see these days where the best bowlers are Flintoff and Ntini who would struggle to make most sides of that era for their bowling alone.

Back on the topic of Atherton, it was fairly obvious to many that he was one of the most talented players around in England and was tipped to be captain well before he even made the side. He wasnt a prodigy, but he definetly had a lot of talent and whilst injuries robbed him from having a better statistical career I dont see how he could be classified by anyone as 'mediocre'. Bar Australia, I cannot see how he would have opened the batting for every other side in the world and as someone has already said, he was better than the current crop of openers that we have today.

 

[Uppercut]

How about this? Richard has done this time and time again. I don't know, are there rules for being banned because you post relentlessly inane crap?

That's still well over a year ago. I'm not that interested really. I've never seen him post anything quite so dismissive, arrogant and trolling more recently. He still has some stubborn opinions he refuses to change against all evidence but at least he doesn't call everyone a dickhead for disagreeing with him.

 

[tooextracool]

The way Atherton batted conjured up visuals of great defensive vigils. However, with one or 2 special examples, the truth was often far from that.

He was technically deficient in defence on the front foot (where he opened the face and almost gave catching practice to the slips) and on the back foot (where he squared up and was all at sea). He also became a compulsive hooker. Some on cricketweb think he wasnt but his hooking was a real issue that was taken advantage of.

When he was in form his concentration and dedication could cover these inadequacies to a certain extent.

However, if not in top form, no level of mental skills could paper over the technical problems.

Some get confused between the terms technical and defensive. Atherton was defensive but not technical.

So despite a defensive style and strong mental skills, he could never be consistent as he didnt possess the technique to carry him through troughs in form.

Whilst I agree with you about Atherton's technical deficiencies, I dont really agree on the compulsive hooking. Personally, always thought that he was one of the best when it came to hooking and pulling as he got into position early and rolled his writsts over. Hes often put down as a compulsive hooker by many, but I think that was largely because of his back spasms that he suffered from later in his career where he started to prefer playing shots to balls that he would have normally ducked under.

 

[Ikki]

That's still well over a year ago. I'm not that interested really. I've never seen him post anything quite so dismissive, arrogant and trolling more recently. He still has some stubborn opinions he refuses to change against all evidence but at least he doesn't call everyone a dickhead for disagreeing with him.

He just posted in another thread, right now, that Nasser Hussain is better than Matthew Hayden. He came in the Hayden tribute thread and basically called him crap and "lucky" to play in such an era. If that's not trolling, what is? The example I gave you was a year ago and I am sure if I were to bother hard enough I'd find you more examples.

Richard doesn't have to curse or insult, he does that by purporting ridiculous arguments over and over and over to the extent that it disrupts every thread because no one/grand majority disagrees with his logic. Now, I will put my hand up and say I've probably also hi-jacked threads because of what I think is right, etc, and I know others have their own special topics that they are fervent about...but EVERY single god damn topic?

Richard posts about 35 times a day (on average) if he took even 10 minutes in between each post he is on this site about 6 hours a day. It's just lunacy; having him post this kind of stuff on end for years. Thank the lord someone like C_C no longer posts. Thank your lucky stars you joined late enough to not have met him.

 

[tooextracool]

Not at all. There is absolutely nothing in his batsmanship that suggest he'd have averaged more than 50 had he played in the 90s. And Gibbs was an attacking player whereas Athers was purely a defensive player who always lacked the 3rd and 4th gear. Rather in these days when aggressive openers set the tone for the innings, he'd been a colossal misfit and against stronger teams, his defensive play would be almost suicidal.

And similarly aggressive openers like Sehwag and Hayden wouldnt have scored a run in the 90s. I can only imagine the chaos that would ensue if Matty Hayden were to walk down the pitch to Curtly Ambrose to cover drive him, it really would have been disastrous.
Comparing players across eras is almost always ludicrous. Odds are Atherton would have adapted to the standard of cricket today and would have been a bit more aggressive with the number of freebies and half volleys on offer today. This is not too different from the transformation seen in players like Langer and Vaughan who came into test match cricket as 2 of the most defensive batters in the land.

 

[Son Of Coco]

TBH I had completely forgotten about Gillespie - and when reminded of him by Ikki I conceded the point.

Reid, Hughes et al I only mentioned because Ikki had forcefully suggested that no-one from the 80s could compare with the personnel from the 90s, which led me to the obvious response that a lot of the personnel were in fact the same.

As for Alderman, he was quite simply one of the best bowlers I've ever seen. I realise that my perspective is skewed by the fact that I only ever saw him bowl in English conditions, and he was absolutely made for English conditions. But if he had played for England (and therefore played half or more of his Tests here), and if he had not tackled that pitch invader, he would have taken many more wickets at a much lower average and been recognised now as an all-time great, up there with Bedser, Statham and Trueman.

Reid was definitely a good bowler, but unfortunately couldn't stay together. Merv was good to in that he'd be as fast at the end of the day as he was at the beginning and never stopped trying. Had some ability too. Alderman was brilliant in the 89 Ashes (I think!?) and English conditions certainly suited him.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I've always treated Warne of Mar1998-Mar2000 as completely different to Warne for most of the rest of his career. Ponting we'll only be able to judge in hindsight and when we find-out some more.

No amount of extracting poor performance is ever done to suit anything other than trying to work-out the truth of what actually happened. The idea of doing it to suit one's own prejudices is merely an expedient for those who want to believe prejudice exists where it does not.

So I assume we can expect a detailed list of the adjusted averages of every player that was injured at some stage to accurately compare their abilities. Merv Hughes played much of the back end of his career injured, so what do we do with players that managed to perform one way or the other whilst having an injury?

 

[tooextracool]

Uhh, fast bowling certainly, i don't think there was an equivalent of Warne or Murali though. Also the standard of fast bowling is a lot worse today than it was even five years ago, and i blame flat pitches to an extent. While bowlers like Marshall and co. could've clearly coped anyway, it's pretty soul-crushing for international quicks to run in full-blooded all day and see every ball bobble gently through to the wicket keeper.

We're seeing swing bowling becoming very prominent lately too, with bowlers trying to take the pitch out of the equation.

Personally, whilst Im not too familiar with bowling quality in the 80s having never watched a full game from back then, I would be interested in seeing the likes of Hadlee, Dev and Lillee in this era. My personal opinion is that swing bowlers in general, particularly those bowling at 80 odd mph would struggle in this era whereas it wouldnt be too far fetched to see the ball bend around corners even in lands like Australia in the 80s.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Interesting that. I feel that some of the younger generation is so used to seeing players like Sehwag and Hayden bully poor bowlers around that they've forgotten about the fact that there used to be a time when players were hiding behind the openers who essentially were the glue that held the side together.

Im not sure I agree with the fact that an average of 41 is 'mediocre' A quick stats check would prove that, with the exception of Saeed Anwar, there wasnt an opener in the 90s who averaged over 45 and that includes players of the caliber of Slater, Taylor and Gary Kirsten. It was ridiculously hard to score runs against bowling attacks that had not 1 but often 2 or 3 bowlers who would either go on to be great or were already great. Its completely different to what we see these days where the best bowlers are Flintoff and Ntini who would struggle to make most sides of that era for their bowling alone.

Back on the topic of Atherton, it was fairly obvious to many that he was one of the most talented players around in England and was tipped to be captain well before he even made the side. He wasnt a prodigy, but he definetly had a lot of talent and whilst injuries robbed him from having a better statistical career I dont see how he could be classified by anyone as 'mediocre'. Bar Australia, I cannot see how he would have opened the batting for every other side in the world and as someone has already said, he was better than the current crop of openers that we have today.