Sorry Corey, but that's absolute bollocks. Thorpe plays a **** shot and it's Ramprakash's fault for not scoring quickly enough chasing 480 in a game they couldn't possibly win? Hick throws his wicket away and it's excusable because Ramps was playing too defensively after conceding a 120 run first-innings deficit? What the hell are you talking about?
You still haven't answered my question - apart from Hussain, Stewart, Thorpe and Pietersen (after his time) who was doing better against Australia in the time in question?
Nah, no cherry-picking is involved - I'm not going through and selecting only the deliveries where Atherton hit fours and ignoring all balls that got him out. That'd be cherry-picking; anything else isn't.
Stewart was a better batsman-wicketkeeper than Healy or anyone else Australia have ever had except Gilchrist. Simple as that. Someone who doesn't rate his Ashes performances much is wrong. Anyway, with regards spin, Australia had an advantage over everyone except Sri Lanka because they had a once-in-several-generations talent - on that isn't going to be repeated any time soon. Mostly, spin is redundant in both England and Australia in the absence (majority of the time) of a Warne.
Atherton himself says "I was not ready for Test cricket" ("my opinion and many others'") to sum-up his career at that stage. He was a month or so out of uni. He was indeed a hugely promising player (not, it turned-out, anywhere near as good as some people were apparently expecting - I only realised these expectations existed pretty recently) but there's a difference between promise (which his Cambridge and Lancs performances, and his second-innings debut 47, did indeed hint at) and calibre. Atherton in 1989 had the former but not yet the latter.
Rubbish that they couldn't win it. They were absolutely in a position to at least reach the Aussie total before the Ramps slow-down. The pitch had completely flattened out and there was plenty of time in the match.
Did you see the match? England were behind on first innings but on that deck (bouncy but no lateral movement) after scoring just over 100 in their first dig, they should have been behind by a hell of a lot more. Tudor bowled them back into the match. Again, had they taken the initiative, I'm guessing they'd have been ahead by a lot more than they eventually ended at. Hick and Ramps were out there for a long time and only one of them was seriously trying to score runs. The match was evenly poised when Hick and Ramps were out there after day 2 and Hick's batting put England slightly ahead. That momentum was killed the next day when, again, Mr Cautious refused to take the attack to the Aussie bowlers and instead let Gillespie, who'd bowled pretty badly to that point, to settle in and run through the tail. Again, you obviously can't hold him directly responsible but you also can't seriously suggest the way one player is batting has no effect on what the guy at the other end does.
It's a ridiculous question. That's basically the entire middle-order! That's like saying "Apart from virtually all the other batsmen in the order, who was doing better." or course there aren't going to be many but then, not many others were tried. Crawley was worse of course as was Atherton.
As I said above, Gillespie was bowling rubbish to that point, he was just coming back from injury and having his action totally rebuilt after all. The batting on day 3 essentially let him bowl back into form and he blew away the tail with a burst of wickets. You just cannot give a quality bowler that sort of chance because they'll take it. No way of knowing this for sure but I'd argue had the England batsmen come hard at him, they'd have hit him out of the attack. A 'foil' also has to score runs, if nothing else just turning over the strike. That way, you score with little risk and don't allow the bowlers to settle. Just blocking, that's for if you're playing for a draw as far as I'm concerned.
Thanks for that, I hadn't heard that Atherton quote before.
I don't doubt the importance of such moments but you're horrendously overrating aggressive batting. Ramprakash played the way that maximises his run-scoring ability. More runs win test matches, not quicker runs. There's no reason why, had Hick and Thorpe not thrown their wickets away, Ramps couldn't have went on batting and won England the match like Rahul Dravid did here with a scoring rate just as slow. I'd be more inclined to agree if you were to say that Ramps failed to accelerate adequately with the tail, which is what Flintoff did to great effect at Edgebaston. Criticising him for scoring slowly is a little bit unfair given those situations- but pinning the blame for Thorpe and Hick getting themselves out is utterly ridiculous.
You know, I never knew Atherton only became an opener in 1990.
No, three shouldn't be that much of a problem for an opener, but if Atherton had been an opener I'm rather surprised room couldn't be found for him given the merry-go-round in 1989.Well yeah, 28 in 1988 (inc. 4-and-a-half captains) and 29 in 1989 - those two combined (following-on from 1986 and 1987 which were also wretched) kinda blend perfectly into the two most wretched years in English cricket history, but I tend to regard 1989 as just slightly worse because it had been preceded by 1988!
Exactly. Basically the entire middle-order - but not absolutely the entire middle-order. There's one place left. I'm saying Ramprakash is the best man for that place. You're saying he's not. So tell me - who is?
Not many others were tried for good reason - there was no-one else who had a prayer in hell.
I see it differently. The bowler controls the game. Gillespie bowled rubbish at Hick on the second evening, allowing Hick to play like that, and he then bowled far, far better on the third morning - it's not like he was bowling the same crap and Ramprakash was just letting him get away with it. Gillespie had tightened-up, so he couldn't be whacked around as he had been the previous day, and he got his rewards when he blew through the tail. Hick had to keep playing in the same manner because it was England's only chance, but if Gillespie bowled well it was not going to work. And Gillespie did, because he was indeed a quality bowler.
Ramprakash did score runs - it's not like he finished on 24* off 140 balls. Way I remember it Hick was cracking it all over everywhere and Ramprakash was nurdling it nicely (to what extent it's possible to do that on a bouncy, short-boundaried WACA - which is not all that much).
I am sorry.... you seemed to have picked Hussain over Trescothick?!
So, given your attitude towards non-openers being turned into openers, eg Justin Langer, does that affect your regard for Atherton?You know, I never knew Atherton only became an opener in 1990.
Tresco never tonned up against them, whilst he was a key man in 05 I felt Vaughan & Strauss deserved the opening spots more, Nasser at 3 was a must
They were far ****ter in the previous one. It's just that in the second half of the 1980s Australia were even worse.God, England were **** in this period being discussed now. Thinking about it turns a mediocre day into a good one.
Nah. Atherton had always opened at club, age-group level etc. - he saw himself as an opener. That's why it rather surprises me that he hardly ever opened pre- Test career.
