Richardson vs. Atherton (Tests)

[Goughy]

He's the only good opener we've had since...John Wright. So I think we're allowed to stick up for him against what IMO is an unfair and inaccurate label.

I think Richardson desrves a lot of defense from the labels of being a useless tailender turned batsman that was a flat track bully.

Ive Ive said a lot recently, Atherton has a number of glaring technical issues.

However, and please dont hurt me , I can only conclude that Atherton > Wright and Richardson

 

[Precambrian]

Mark Richardson's response when he read Richard Dickinson say Atherton is better than him

http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxaHVr0pcYQ

 

[NZTailender]

I think Richardson desrves a lot of defense from the labels of being a useless tailender turned batsman that was a flat track bully.

Ive Ive said a lot recently, Atherton has a number of glaring technical issues.

However, and please dont hurt me , I can only conclude that Atherton > Wright and Richardson

Agree with everything said here. Richardson was a good player, but I rate Atherton higher.

Atherton's stats may look a bit mediocre, but as a player he wasn't. He was fallible, like everyone else. While I don't agree that he'd probably have averaged over 50 in the current day, because I don't really like to speculate in that sense, I do think his poor looking stats would be better if he hadn't played when injured and if he had retired early.
Simply put, he's a better player than his stats suggest. Definitely not mediocre IMO.

 

[tooextracool]

I personally think Atherton stayed on too long (possibly to the detriment of our development too, Strauss was into his late 20s before he debuted) and to my way of thinking Richardson went far too early.

By the time Atherton retired, Strauss had done little to merit inclusion in the England squad, barely had a good season by that time so I dont think Atherton's late retirement had a detrimental effect on anyone. Personally, until the Ashes series, always thought Atherton did just about a good enough job to be part of the side. He wasnt brilliant, but he was no worse than our other opener Trescothick.

 

[tooextracool]

Love how defensive the NZ'ers are getting.

'tis true that Richardson played on some awesomely bad tracks, though.

In terms of pure averages, one would think Richardson would have to be amongst the their top 3 batsman ever? In fact for most of his career he had the distinction of being the highest averaging NZ ever, averaging over 50 for a period. Not sure if hes deserving of that, but you have to respect the man for whatever he accomplished considering that his only offensive shot was the cover drive.

 

[Flem274*]

No tailender can be a good batsman

If you happen to score big runs on flat decks, or are just unfashionable in the eyes of an admittedly nice bloke that is a bit strange nonetheless, you are a flat track bully.

No batsman can be better than somebody Richard likes.

 

[Ponting Man]

i think that Richardson is the better player

 

[Matt79]

i think that Richardson is the better player

@ Ponting Man, so what is Tabletop famous for?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Shastri was never a completely clueless batsman, the way Richardson apparently was (batted nine or ten). Nor was he an opener of any particular excellence, just a decent one. Same as Richardson.

Why do you have such an obsession with what batsman used to be? I remember you arguing that Justin Langer wasn't an opener because he started his career batting at three. Three! Then he got promoted one spot up to open, and played there for more than 50 tests, and he was still a manufactured opener in your eyes right to the end of his career.

Gary Sobers started his career as a spin bowler, Mark Richardson was a tail ender and Shane Warne was a mediocre AFL player. None of these things have any relevance at all to what they turned out to be later in their careers. If you think Richardson was nothing special, then by all means have your opinion, but arguing that he wasn't a good opener at the end of his career because he wasn't a good opener at the start of his career is just a waste of time.

Your circular logic is very circular and is therefore circular because it goes in a circle.

 

[Matt79]

Why do you have such an obsession with what batsman used to be? I remember you arguing that Justin Langer wasn't an opener because he started his career batting at three. Three! Then he got promoted one spot up to open, and played there for more than 50 tests, and he was still a manufactured opener in your eyes right to the end of his career.

Gary Sobers started his career as a spin bowler, Mark Richardson was a tail ender and Shane Warne was a mediocre AFL player. None of these things have any relevance at all to what they turned out to be later in their careers. If you think Richardson was nothing special, then by all means have your opinion, but arguing that he wasn't a good opener at the end of his career because he wasn't a good opener at the start of his career is just a waste of time.

Your circular logic is very circular and is therefore circular because it goes in a circle.

Whoa, whoa, slow down egghead!

 

[Uppercut]

Richard's accidentally trolling. He doesn't realise his logic is fallacious.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Richard's accidentally trolling. He doesn't realise his logic is fallacious.

Think the "accidental" bit is rather too charitable, myself. Would be more inclined to believe it if he didn't feel the need to reply to every post with the same old arguments (presented, irritatingly, as fact) rehashed slightly.

I don't think he's dim enough not to realise he annoys a lot of otherwise fairly reasonable posters (self included), so one must ask the question why he does do it?

 

[NZTailender]

so one must ask the question why he does do it?

Simple; because other people are keen to argue with him.

 

[Richard]

Embarassing

You can't be embarrassing for me.

 

[Richard]

Richard are you a Yorkshireman?

Yes, though not as much as some.

 

[Richard]

Rate them pretty close to evenly to tell the truth. One can't help but wonder whether it is Atherton's defiance of THE WORLD'S GREATEST BOWLER A. Donald that has placed him on the pedestal for Rich. Ignoring that McGrath dominated him.

Nah, one innings proves little, even when it's as good as that one was. It's doubly annoying that Atherton is so often judged to have played that good innings and next to nothing else.

 

[Richard]

No tailender can be a good batsman

If you happen to score big runs on flat decks, or are just unfashionable in the eyes of an admittedly nice bloke that is a bit strange nonetheless, you are a flat track bully.

No batsman can be better than somebody Richard likes.

For such a normally high-quality poster, posts like this are irritating.

1, I don't "like" or "dislike" players (with the occasional exception); 2, there are plenty of players who I did inherently like who are obviously inferior to others that I didn't especially (YES, RATE AND LIKE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!!!!!!!!!!!); 3, if I rate a player higher than another player, yeah, obviously the one I rate lower can't be better than the one I rate higher to my mind, else my rating of them would be different.

 

[Richard]

It's threads like this where the old ignore button really pays for itself.

Think the "accidental" bit is rather too charitable, myself. Would be more inclined to believe it if he didn't feel the need to reply to every post with the same old arguments (presented, irritatingly, as fact) rehashed slightly.

I don't think he's dim enough not to realise he annoys a lot of otherwise fairly reasonable posters (self included), so one must ask the question why he does do it?

One must also ask the question of what use is an ignore-list to the wider forum if the poster is just going to continue to comment on the ignored poster.

And one can conclude that, yes, there is no intention (as oft-professed) to use the things for the good of the forum, and the purpose is purely self-serving, to make oneself feel superior.

 

[Richard]

I think Richardson desrves a lot of defense from the labels of being a useless tailender turned batsman that was a flat track bully.

Richardson was a useless tailender and did turn himself into a batsman. I doubt many would dispute that. That he was a flat-track bully is of course more debateable. However, no-one is calling him a useless batsman, which is an inference plenty are trying hard to make for themselves.

 

[Richard]

Why do you have such an obsession with what batsman used to be?

Because believe it or not if you only started to be something later in life that means there's a fair chance you aren't as good at it as someone who's been doing it since their early-teens or even earlier.

Now, this isn't a rule that applies invariably, or even close to. However, you won't notice the cases where it doesn't apply, because I won't mention it. You'll only notice it in the small number of cases where I do. So hence you'll get the wildly mistaken impression that a minority is in fact a majority. Same as people who believe in "tempting fate", believing utterly unrelated comments and actions can influence something they have zero bearing on.