Dire cricketers who had a successful test career

[tooextracool]

Then you compare that to two all-time greats in Warne and McGrath, backed up by McDermott, Hughes, Reiffel, Gillespie, Kaspa, Macgill...and it's a non-contest.

Reiffel and Kaspa over Fleming has to be a strange choice IMO.

 

[Top_Cat]

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.

Honestly, what is this based on? That Hayden was wrecked by Ambi when he was nowhere near the same player he's been for 8 years? It's all so difficult to tell. Hayden post-2000, would have annoyed the crap out of Ambi and if there was one way to guarantee some loose deliveries and easy runs off Ambi, it was to do exactly that. It's far from taken as a given that Ambi would have dominated Hayden because for all his great bowling, there were long stretches of some series where he was economical but not terribly penetrative too. If there's one ball which has troubled Hayden, it's the ball swinging back in. Guess which ball Ambi rarely ever bowled?

My personal opinion is that it would have been a great contest. A pretty even one too, in my view. No-one can say with any certainty that Ambi would have dominated Hayden.

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.

So not that simple. Langer's more aggressive side came out well before 2000. Aside from the fact he's always been able to hit the ball miles, I distinctly remember him playing too aggressively in the mid-90's when he was recalled to bat at 3 against the WI. Aggression was more his natural game before he got picked for WA, believe it or not. They picked him to open and he batted accordingly, restricting his shots, and scored some good runs, including a big ton in the Sheffield Shield final in '91.

Was picked for Aus on that basis but wasn't terribly good at it so was dropped. Came back swinging and failed again. The consensus was that he was, rather than being attacking, was just going for everything in the same way as he had been doing for WA at the time and getting out to far better bowlers. It took a few years for him to pare back the aggression enough to do it for long periods, hence the more successful and attacking batsman we saw in the 00's. It just took him and Hayden a long time to find the balance between their attack and defence.

It's not as simple as '90's bowlers good, 00's bowlers bad' because the 00's bowlers haven't been as bad as they're portrayed nor were all the 90's bowlers as good as their figures would suggest. What's been the really big change? Pitches.

 

[Top_Cat]

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?

Merv had crippling knee troubles from about 1992 onwards, really.

 

[Ikki]

Reiffel and Kaspa over Fleming has to be a strange choice IMO.

Fleming is a bowler of the 90s, how did I pick them over him? I left .... implying there were more. But yeah, probably should have listed him ahead. Further establishes my point.

I just remembered another Richard whopper: Ian Bishop is better than Warne and Murali.

 

[Uppercut]

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.

You think there's more freebies today? I think there's more flat pitches, certainly, but i don't think there's more half-volleys. Hayden just makes anything below waist-height look like a half volley.

I don't think he could've driven repeatedly so well off the back foot in another era, but he would've adapted his game to do otherwise anyway. In fact, by all accounts in FC cricket in the 90s he was a reasonably defensive opener who preferred to play his way in and see off the new ball. His current style is itself an adaption to the pitches and attacks he's come up against. We don't really know how his game would've adapted in another era, in truth.

 

[tooextracool]

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

Thorpe might not have been better than Atherton during the time when their careers crossed, but I dont think there is much doubt in my mind that Thorpe was better and arguably the best batsman we've had since Gooch.

 

[Uppercut]

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.

What's changed that's made swing bowling easier? Were the clouds a bit angrier in the 80s? Balls a bit shinier?

 

[Ikki]

What's changed that's made swing bowling easier? Were the clouds a bit angrier in the 80s? Balls a bit shinier?

Must have been the lollies. Everything is sugar-free these days.

 

[tooextracool]

What's changed that's made swing bowling easier? Were the clouds a bit angrier in the 80s? Balls a bit shinier?

I dont think anyone has truly been able to figure out for sure what really influences the amount of swing. Of course there are theories and many have established that certain conditions are more conducive to swing than others, yet there are times when there is plenty of cloud cover, lots of humidity, a brand new ball and yet we see two genuine swing bowlers unable to get the ball to move from middle to off.

I find it interesting to say the least that Andrew Gale in his recent column answered one of my questions saying that the Duke ball in 2007 seem to swing more than the Duke ball in 2008. This explanation would seem to fit in with what we saw in the International series as well in both summers, Sidebottom and Zaheer swung the ball literally around hoops last year while Dale Steyn and Anderson didnt manage to get much movement in the air this past summer.

Regardless, whatever has changed, I honestly believe we see less swing these days than we did in the 80s. A player like Hoggard or Anderson might very well have had an illustrous career had they played back then, and yet in this era they can barely hold a place down in the side.

 

[Perm]

CW would be better off without Richard and Ikki if they keep this **** up. FFS lads, just ignore each other.

 

[tooextracool]

You think there's more freebies today? I think there's more flat pitches, certainly, but i don't think there's more half-volleys. Hayden just makes anything below waist-height look like a half volley.

I don't think he could've driven repeatedly so well off the back foot in another era, but he would've adapted his game to do otherwise anyway. In fact, by all accounts in FC cricket in the 90s he was a reasonably defensive opener who preferred to play his way in and see off the new ball. His current style is itself an adaption to the pitches and attacks he's come up against. We don't really know how his game would've adapted in another era, in truth.

Well he does lose some brownie points having played in the 90s and struggled to cope with the attacks of that era. Maybe he wasnt the player he is today but we wont ever know for sure if he would have adapted or not. This is why comparing players across eras is rather baseless IMO, players adapt to suit the current conditions and therefore it is difficult to say that so and so is successful only because of the kind of conditions that he has come to face. Even for players like Bradman, how can you realistically convince yourself that he is better than anyone else in the history of cricket when the kind of pitches he played and the quality of bowlers he played are not comparable to the kind you see today? Bradman was undoubtedly the best player of his time, its hard to see how anyone is ever going to have a better statistical record than him purely because of the standard at which the game is today. You can only do as well as the conditions you are given and Hayden will similarly go down as a quality opener in his era.

Personally, I wouldnt say that there are more poor balls today than they were in the 90s. I think the quality of batting has improved to an extent, but I think with the quality of pitches these days, even ok deliveries are usually made to look poor and punished. The style of batting has also obviously changed which means that players are more scathing of anything that is short and wide. Ive heard some in this thread suggest that 'defensive' openers will struggle in this era, but thats gibberish IMO, the reason why we see few of them these days is because players with the virtues of concentration and mental ability of a player from yesteryear are gone.

 

[tooextracool]

Honestly, what is this based on? That Hayden was wrecked by Ambi when he was nowhere near the same player he's been for 8 years? It's all so difficult to tell. Hayden post-2000, would have annoyed the crap out of Ambi and if there was one way to guarantee some loose deliveries and easy runs off Ambi, it was to do exactly that. It's far from taken as a given that Ambi would have dominated Hayden because for all his great bowling, there were long stretches of some series where he was economical but not terribly penetrative too. If there's one ball which has troubled Hayden, it's the ball swinging back in. Guess which ball Ambi rarely ever bowled?

My personal opinion is that it would have been a great contest. A pretty even one too, in my view. No-one can say with any certainty that Ambi would have dominated Hayden.

Its irrelevant IMO. Do you honestly think that players didnt try to hit Ambrose out of his metronomic bowling rhythm? Im struggling to think of anyone who has taken the attack to Ambrose and gone on to raise his bat after that in any form of the game. The fact is no one was capable of doing it with any sort of success and I fail to see how anyone can suggest that that is the best strategy to have used against him. Aggressive players like Slater have poor records against him and even players like Tendulkar had to temper their aggression when they scored runs against him.

Whether Hayden would have succeeded against Ambrose is a matter of pure speculation, however in the one series they played together in Hayden was dismissed 3 out of 4 times by Ambrose and guess what, Hayden scored his maiden test century in the game in which Ambrose didnt play. No Ambrose didnt swing the ball into the left hander, in fact he didnt swing the ball much at all, but coming down the track to one of the tallest bowlers in the game who could land the ball on a dime was never likely to result in much success. He was much harder to get after than Glenn Mcgrath.

So not that simple. Langer's more aggressive side came out well before 2000. Aside from the fact he's always been able to hit the ball miles, I distinctly remember him playing too aggressively in the mid-90's when he was recalled to bat at 3 against the WI. Aggression was more his natural game before he got picked for WA, believe it or not. They picked him to open and he batted accordingly, restricting his shots, and scored some good runs, including a big ton in the Sheffield Shield final in '91.

Was picked for Aus on that basis but wasn't terribly good at it so was dropped. Came back swinging and failed again. The consensus was that he was, rather than being attacking, was just going for everything in the same way as he had been doing for WA at the time and getting out to far better bowlers. It took a few years for him to pare back the aggression enough to do it for long periods, hence the more successful and attacking batsman we saw in the 00's. It just took him and Hayden a long time to find the balance between their attack and defence.

It's not as simple as '90's bowlers good, 00's bowlers bad' because the 00's bowlers haven't been as bad as they're portrayed nor were all the 90's bowlers as good as their figures would suggest. What's been the really big change? Pitches.

The pitches and the conditions are obviously the biggest changes. However, I cannot see how we have witnessed pace bowlers jointly of comparable caliber of Donald, Ambrose, Walsh, Mcgrath, Fleming, Pollock, DeVilliers, Bishop, Waqar and Wasim. It is perhaps true, that the worst bowler now, is probably better than the worst bowler from the 90s simply because theres less for him to work with these days.

As far as Langer is concerned, I have always thought that he made an attempt to be more aggressive during his stint in 99 than he had been when he had played earlier in the decade. Only really saw this side of him post 99 at the international level at least. Its interesting to hear about his aggressive side well before then, personally always thought that post 2001 he became too aggressive and while there were times when he did knuckle down and play some fine innings there were plenty of brain explosions and cut shots that were hit in the air to backward point for me to rate him very highly.

 

[Top_Cat]

Its irrelevant IMO. Do you honestly think that players didnt try to hit Ambrose out of his metronomic bowling rhythm? Im struggling to think of anyone who has taken the attack to Ambrose and gone on to raise his bat after that in any form of the game.

Dean Jones did a few times. But that's just one example of what Hayden would probably have tried. I just baulk at the suggestion that Hayden would be a walking wicket against Ambi purely because he was in the 90's.

I mean, just think about the pressure he must have put on himself; he finally gets picked in 1997, having missed out for years and had all the 'give Matt a bat' stuff behind him, was only picked due to an injury to Elliott so he knew he didn't have many chances, etc. You could tell by the way he got out his decision-making was feeling the pinch, bowled leaving in Melbourne and LBW leaving a straight ball from Hooper in Perth for example. I know Test cricket is all about that but having all that on top of facing an in-form Ambi would have been too much for a lot of players. Incidentally, his 40-odd in the second dig of the Perth Test was a brilliant knock under the circumstances where, on a ridiculous track, he was the only batsman who looked like getting runs and not getting out. That little knock showed he could do it (even if too little too late) and had he been given a longer run after that series ahead of Elliott, might have shown it and we wouldn't even been having this debate.

Hayden was very unlucky with selection in the 90's. Probably broke his mental shackles a lot and ultimately paid-off, though.

Whether Hayden would have succeeded against Ambrose is a matter of pure speculation, however in the one series they played together in Hayden was dismissed 3 out of 4 times by Ambrose and guess what, Hayden scored his maiden test century in the game in which Ambrose didnt play. No Ambrose didnt swing the ball into the left hander, in fact he didnt swing the ball much at all, but coming down the track to one of the tallest bowlers in the game who could land the ball on a dime was never likely to result in much success. He was much harder to get after than Glenn Mcgrath.

Was no coincidence that Hayden scored that ton when Ambi missed the Test, indeed. But, Hayden just wasn't the same player when he was picked again in 2001. Far more aggressive play built upon his OD success with QLD. If he'd faced Ambi then and any time in his run-scoring peak, even in Ambi's prime, I'd back him to be right in the contest. Ambi was too good for anyone to consistently dominate him but, like I said, hayden wouldn't just lie down either.

The pitches and the conditions are obviously the biggest changes. However, I cannot see how we have witnessed pace bowlers jointly of comparable caliber of Donald, Ambrose, Walsh, Mcgrath, Fleming, Pollock, DeVilliers, Bishop, Waqar and Wasim. It is perhaps true, that the worst bowler now, is probably better than the worst bowler from the 90s simply because theres less for him to work with these days.

Most of those guys you over-rate, in my opinion. Walsh, particularly. For all his 519 wickets, he was dropped by the WI so many bloody times and only got a regular gig when there was no-one other than Ambi left. Excellent Test bowler but not an all-time great, I reckon. Ditto Pollock and I'd definitely rate Fleming, DeVilliers and Bish as being a couple of rungs below the rest of that list. Good on their day but far from being awesome Test bowlers.

As far as Langer is concerned, I have always thought that he made an attempt to be more aggressive during his stint in 99 than he had been when he had played earlier in the decade. Only really saw this side of him post 99 at the international level at least. Its interesting to hear about his aggressive side well before then, personally always thought that post 2001 he became too aggressive and while there were times when he did knuckle down and play some fine innings there were plenty of brain explosions and cut shots that were hit in the air to backward point for me to rate him very highly.

Always had a rep as a bloke who could hit a long ball. Was a real surprise when he was picked for Aus and batted the way he did. Was rated far more highly than Mike Hussey was when they were at the academy from what I recall. Hussey's report was pretty funny; "Basically, has no shots and needs to put some weight on."

 

[Precambrian]

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

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.

There is absolute horse crap to suggest Atherton would have averaged 50+ had he been playing today. He would have at the maximum averaged (like Ganguly) in the early 40s. WTF, An increase of 13 points in 8 years??? (Hate to use the smiley but inevitable)

 

[Precambrian]

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.

41 is 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.

Laughable because Atherton would have failed to make the first XI of the teams in which Sachin and Richards played.

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.

By that argument, a certain Matt Hayden was not test class before India 2001, and if you discount all those performances, he'd be miles ahead of Athers.

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.

He had one or two series where he rose above average. For the other series he was utterly mediocre.

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

Ok. He was test class for a mediocre team like England.

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.

A little late Athers was. He was a professional and should have known better. Fail.

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.

AWTA. Exactly why I said Athers personified England of the 90s. Just mediocre that they had to play such a (overused I know) mediocre batsman for 100+ tests, when in actuality shouldnt have played more than 50 tests at max.

 

[Precambrian]

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 it is a professional sport at the highest level. Lame.

 

[Precambrian]

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.

World's best openers from 1990-2000

Source

[B]Player			Span		Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	100	50	0	[/B]
GA Gooch (Eng)		1990-1995	38	70	2	3571	333	52.51	10	15	1	
Saeed Anwar (Pak)	1990-1999	43	70	2	3271	188*	48.10	9	21	7	
ST Jayasuriya (SL)	1994-1999	29	49	4	2084	340	46.31	5	9	7	
DL Haynes (WI)		1990-1994	31	55	8	2132	167	45.36	6	8	3	
NS Sidhu (India)	1990-1999	36	54	0	2443	201	45.24	7	12	6	
MJ Slater (Aus)		1993-1999	58	103	5	4425	219	45.15	13	16	9	
AJ Stewart (Eng)	1990-1999	45	77	2	3348	190	44.64	8	17	4	
MS Atapattu (SL)	1997-1999	21	34	4	1277	223	42.56	3	3	4	
G Kirsten (SA)		1993-1999	56	100	9	3792	275	41.67	10	18	8	
MA Taylor (Aus)		1990-1999	93	166	12	6306	334*	40.94	15	35	5	
MA Atherton (Eng)	1990-1999	86	158	5	6072	185*	39.68	13	37	16	
M Prabhakar (India)	1990-1995	21	28	3	932	120	37.28	1	5	1	
SL Campbell (WI)	1995-1999	35	63	3	2184	208	36.40	4	12	6	
Aamer Sohail (Pak)	1992-1998	45	75	3	2608	205	36.22	4	13	4	
AC Hudson (SA)		1992-1997	31	56	3	1855	163	35.00	4	12	6

Mr. Atherton is 11th even in his decade.

 

[Precambrian]

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.

Another "oh those 90s" post. Plz note the statistics in the above post, even Jayasurya averaged around 46 in that period. He was not attacking? Anwar was an aggressive batsman. Gooch was moderate. Haynes, Sidhu and Slater were aggressive. Sorry dude, stats doesnt support what you say and considering the fact that Hayden and Sehwag are much better test bats than Jaasurya, there is nothing to suggest they wouldnt have done what they did in the 2000s.

Freebies and half volleys were more in 2000 as compared to 1990s?

 

[Precambrian]

Honestly, what is this based on? That Hayden was wrecked by Ambi when he was nowhere near the same player he's been for 8 years? It's all so difficult to tell. Hayden post-2000, would have annoyed the crap out of Ambi and if there was one way to guarantee some loose deliveries and easy runs off Ambi, it was to do exactly that. It's far from taken as a given that Ambi would have dominated Hayden because for all his great bowling, there were long stretches of some series where he was economical but not terribly penetrative too. If there's one ball which has troubled Hayden, it's the ball swinging back in. Guess which ball Ambi rarely ever bowled?

My personal opinion is that it would have been a great contest. A pretty even one too, in my view. No-one can say with any certainty that Ambi would have dominated Hayden.



So not that simple. Langer's more aggressive side came out well before 2000. Aside from the fact he's always been able to hit the ball miles, I distinctly remember him playing too aggressively in the mid-90's when he was recalled to bat at 3 against the WI. Aggression was more his natural game before he got picked for WA, believe it or not. They picked him to open and he batted accordingly, restricting his shots, and scored some good runs, including a big ton in the Sheffield Shield final in '91.

Was picked for Aus on that basis but wasn't terribly good at it so was dropped. Came back swinging and failed again. The consensus was that he was, rather than being attacking, was just going for everything in the same way as he had been doing for WA at the time and getting out to far better bowlers. It took a few years for him to pare back the aggression enough to do it for long periods, hence the more successful and attacking batsman we saw in the 00's. It just took him and Hayden a long time to find the balance between their attack and defence.

It's not as simple as '90's bowlers good, 00's bowlers bad' because the 00's bowlers haven't been as bad as they're portrayed nor were all the 90's bowlers as good as their figures would suggest. What's been the really big change? Pitches.

Fun thing is how 90s bowling = Ambrose, Walsh, or the WWs, Donald. Even if a batsman is owned by one or two of them, he'd be still good to make runs of the others.

eg- Ponting has been owned by Harby and Ishant (15 dismissals between them). His avg in India is 20. But does it have any effect on his overall performances? Or the fact that he is one of the greatest modern batsmen? To suggest Hayden would not have been successful in the 90s because there were bowlers like Ambrose, etc is ridiculous. He might be owned by Ambrose, but would have made tons against the others.

 

[honestbharani]

Would he get in the current England team? Too right he would - he'd be the first opener selected.

Lol.. I can see it now.. Atherton and Cook.. 60/0 after every first session..