Best match saving innings you have seen

[Richard]

You used the description of "a very good Test opening batsman for a decade." and now if someone diagree you put the accusation that he was "not a Test-standard batsman" in to their mouhs.

Baffling. There is a some place between the two.

What would you consider said place between to be then?

"Decent middle-of-the-road Test batsman"? Can use that term if you prefer. For me very good and decent-middle-of-the-road is largely the same thing, just one is more complimentary than the other. A couple I'd describe as likewise would be Damien Martyn and Hansie Cronje.

 

[Uppercut]

So you consider he was not a Test-standard batsman then? Baffling. How on Earth can you reach that conclusion?

You didn't say "test-standard batsman", you said "very good opener".

EDIT: I see that's been pointed out.

Athers was decent. That's a level below good, and another level below very good.

 

[Sir Alex]

If you consider 41 mediocre (and if you consider 90-odd Tests as a "peak", and refuse to accept that calibre of bowling makes a huge difference to how relatively good a batsman's average is) then all that remains to be said is you've different word meanings than I have.

For me 90-odd Tests (ie, the vast majority of Atherton's career, with only the first 2 and last 10 Tests knocked-off) is a plateau period (a peak would be more 1993-1996 where IIRR he averaged about 47 or so) and a mediocre average would be about 35.

Sidhu is a fair-ish comparison (Atherton was a bit better); to compare him to Ramesh is laughable as he was several million miles better.

Good test batsmen average more than 50 atleast in their peak periods (which is generally around 3-4 years around their 30s). This guy even at his peak could not average in the 50s. His plateau is simply one of mediocrity. He was a useful option for England not because he was indispensable but because they didn't have quality replacements. He was the epitome of English cricket in the 1990s, prolonged bouts of utter mediocrity marked with occassional spurts of brilliance.

 

[Richard]

Good test batsmen average more than 50 atleast in their peak periods (which is generally around 3-4 years around their 30s). This guy even at his peak could not average in the 50s. His plateau is simply one of mediocrity.

Only if you define mediocrity as over-stringent. There's hundreds of good Test batsmen who couldn't average 50+ in their peak years.

He was a useful option for England not because he was indispensable but because they didn't have quality replacements.

The reason they didn't have quality replacements is because most batsmen aren't as good as him. Of those who've debuted in the last 40 years there've been perhaps 3-4 better than him (one of whom is South African raised). Atherton was indispensable, and he was indispensable because for the most part he was a quality player.

He was the epitome of English cricket in the 1990s, prolonged bouts of utter mediocrity marked with occassional spurts of brilliance.

He was indeed something of an embodiment, but more that potentially pretty good turned-out merely decent and very up-and-down. Atherton had much more up than down, unlike the team, however.

 

[Richard]

You didn't say "test-standard batsman", you said "very good opener".

EDIT: I see that's been pointed out.

Athers was decent. That's a level below good, and another level below very good.

For openers of his time, he was very good. For batsmen in general, he was reasonable-middle-of-the-road.

 

[Sir Alex]

Only if you define mediocrity as over-stringent. There's hundreds of good Test batsmen who couldn't average 50+ in their peak years.

The reason they didn't have quality replacements is because most batsmen aren't as good as him. Of those who've debuted in the last 40 years there've been perhaps 3-4 better than him (one of whom is South African raised). Atherton was indispensable, and he was indispensable because for the most part he was a quality player.

He was indeed something of an embodiment, but more that potentially pretty good turned-out merely decent and very up-and-down. Atherton had much more up than down, unlike the team, however.

Hundreds of "good" batsmen in the same era as he played? Mind quoting some examples? Atleast 10 will do.

Atherton was of course indispensable only because there werent pushers for his place. He largely went uncompeted and never was in danger of gettting dropped. A similar parallel can be seen in Alistair Cook these days. Although I think Cook will come good because he is still very young. He trudged his plateaus and marshy rivers of mediocrity till guys like Tresco came along.

That England had only 3-4 players better than him in the last 40 odd years (till the 2000s I presume) indicates why england's record remained poor in the said period particularly in the 1990s. England lost more than they won when it featured Atherton. A win % of less than 30% is testimony to this fact.

 

[Uppercut]

That England had only 3-4 players better than him in the last 40 odd years

Which 3-4 out of Stewart Willis Botham Gooch Thorpe Gower Boycott Underwood Barrington Knott Cowdrey Edrich Smith Snow D'Oliveira Fraser Gough Trueman Dexter were these guys, out of interest?

 

[Sir Alex]

Which 3-4 out of Stewart Willis Botham Gooch Thorpe Gower Boycott Underwood Barrington Knott Cowdrey Edrich Smith Snow D'Oliveira Fraser Gough Trueman Dexter were these guys, out of interest?

You got to ask Richard that mate.

 

[Richard]

Hundreds of "good" batsmen in the same era as he played? Mind quoting some examples? Atleast 10 will do.

Nope, you can find them yourself if you want, you're the one claiming that all good Test batsmen had some period of some reasonable length of averaging 50.

Atherton was of course indispensable only because there werent pushers for his place. He largely went uncompeted and never was in danger of gettting dropped. A similar parallel can be seen in Alistair Cook these days. Although I think Cook will come good because he is still very young. He trudged his plateaus and marshy rivers of mediocrity till guys like Tresco came along.

Cook could yet outdo Atherton though I'm beginning to despair of him as however young he remains he's shown no signs of correcting the faults which have always been there; Trescothick is of course not even close to being as good as Atherton and never was.

That England had only 3-4 players better than him in the last 40 odd years (till the 2000s I presume)

No, until the current time. "The last 40 years" means 1970-2010.

indicates why england's record remained poor in the said period particularly in the 1990s. England lost more than they won when it featured Atherton. A win % of less than 30% is testimony to this fact.

And win percentages featuring players are completely worthless statistics, they're merely symptomatic of people's attempts to project team failings onto individual players.

England have not had a particularly good Test side for more than the odd game at a time since the late-1960s and early-1970s; so what?

 

[Richard]

You got to ask Richard that mate.

No, you're the one who needs to be asked, as you somehow translated "batsmen" into "players" and misled someone else.

What I said was there are probably 3-4 batsmen better than Atherton who've debuted in the last 40 years, one of whom is South African raised.

 

[Uppercut]

No, you're the one who needs to be asked, as you somehow translated "batsmen" into "players".

Even then, Gooch Stewart Cowdrey Barrington Dexter Boycott...

 

[Sir Alex]

Nope, you can find them yourself if you want, you're the one claiming that all good Test batsmen had some period of some reasonable length of averaging 50.

Cope out I see how you back up your claims with proof. Remember you made the assertion and it's up to you to prove it, not me.

Cook could yet outdo Atherton though I'm beginning to despair of him as however young he remains he's shown no signs of correcting the faults which have always been there; Trescothick is of course not even close to being as good as Atherton and never was.

That's just silly fanboyism. However I cannot change the mind of a fanboy and I leave it here.

No, until the current time. "The last 40 years" means 1970-2010.

Please answer Uppercut's question (the preceding post)

And win percentages featuring players are completely worthless statistics, they're merely symptomatic of people's attempts to project team failings onto individual players.

A team is made up of individuals. Atherton lasted about 120 test matches which is much more than what ideally a player of his calibre (or lack of it) deserved to. Nobody is putting blame on Atherton that he is the cause of England's travails in the 1990s, but him being a constant presence, a poster of mediocrity that engulfed England in the 1990s, it is fair enough to look at Atherton and say, "Well if that man could last 119 tests, surely that speaks volumes of England's state of affairs".

England have not had a particularly good Test side for more than the odd game at a time since the late-1960s and early-1970s; so what?

So, Atherton is just the better one among mediocre cricketers. He cannot be classified as good or very good. He was not bad either but he ended up playing more test matches than he should have.

 

[Richard]

Even then, Gooch Stewart Cowdrey Barrington Dexter Boycott...

Only Gooch and Stewart of those names debuted in the last 40 years; I'd not put Stewart as better than Atherton, though I would put Thorpe as such - in the end.

Of home-raised England batsmen to debut since 1970, I'd have Gooch, Thorpe and possibly (just possibly) Gower before Atherton, and no-one else. Strauss and Cook could potentially add themselves to that list in time, but Atherton could potentially have been better than he was as well.

 

[Richard]

Cope out I see how you back up your claims with proof. Remember you made the assertion and it's up to you to prove it, not me.

No you made the assertion - "Good test batsmen average more than 50 atleast in their peak periods (which is generally around 3-4 years around their 30s)".

That's just silly fanboyism. However I cannot change the mind of a fanboy and I leave it here.

What's just silly fanboyism?

A team is made up of individuals. Atherton lasted about 120 test matches which is much more than what ideally a player of his calibre (or lack of it) deserved to. Nobody is putting blame on Atherton that he is the cause of England's travails in the 1990s, but him being a constant presence, a poster of mediocrity that engulfed England in the 1990s, it is fair enough to look at Atherton and say, "Well if that man could last 119 tests, surely that speaks volumes of England's state of affairs".

Atherton deserved to play 101 of his 119 Tests (would've been more with a stronger body as well - probably more like 130-135), and would have played them for all bar the strongest of Test sides in history. A player of his calibre playing at a time where the Test schedule is intense will always last that long.

So, Atherton is just the better one among mediocre cricketers. He cannot be classified as good or very good. He was not bad either but he ended up playing more test matches than he should have.

As I say, very good and mediocre are pretty similar, or very different; mediocre has an automatic negative connotation, so I don't use it very often and AFAIC you're mistaken to do so here.

Atherton was a very good opening batsman in his time, and a perfectly reasonable Test batsman. What time he played at is totally irrelevant.

 

[Uppercut]

Only Gooch and Stewart of those names debuted in the last 40 years; I'd not put Stewart as better than Atherton, though I would put Thorpe as such - in the end.

Of home-raised England batsmen to debut since 1970, I'd have Gooch, Thorpe and possibly (just possibly) Gower before Atherton, and no-one else. Strauss and Cook could potentially add themselves to that list in time, but Atherton could potentially have been better than he was as well.

Thought you meant 40 years back from Athers's career.

 

[Richard]

Nope - that'd stretch back to 1949, which is a loooooooong way and encompassed two very-good-to-superlative England sides, and was long enough before both to see the debuts of many of those who featured.

My point was essentially that since the side of ~1967-1972 there have been no England batsmen of the utmost excellence and precious few who could even be said to be obviously better than Atherton. Of course, since 1972 or so there's been no England side which has been very good for more than a few Tests at a time (as for instance those of 1976/77-1977, 1990, 2000-2000/01 and 2004-2005 were). Thus the premise of Atherton being only-there-until-something-better-came-along is a ridiculous one.

 

[Goughy]

The reason they didn't have quality replacements is because most batsmen aren't as good as him. Of those who've debuted in the last 40 years there've been perhaps 3-4 better than him (one of whom is South African raised). Atherton was indispensable, and he was indispensable because for the most part he was a quality player.

He barely makes the top 5 England batsmen that played in the 90s (when we were ****) and just makes the back end of the top 10 openers that played in the 90s.

He was a decent/good player that had remarkable longevity, a number of impressive achievements and did a decent job as a long serving captain. I wouldnt use the term 'very good' though.

 

[Goughy]

Of home-raised England batsmen to debut since 1970, I'd have Gooch, Thorpe and possibly (just possibly) Gower before Atherton, and no-one else. Strauss and Cook could potentially add themselves to that list in time, but Atherton could potentially have been better than he was as well.

I have him in the discussion for a top 10 place:

Certainly behind:
Gooch
Gower
KP
Thorpe
Smith
Stewart

Not including:
Cook
Strauss

In the mix with:
Trescothick
Vaughan
Gatting
Hussain
Lamb
Botham

At best 7th, at worst 15th. I could se Atherton being better than the 'in the mix' and 'not included' groups but I could also make a very strong case why it also isnt true. He certainly doesnt challenge the top 6

 

[Top_Cat]

Nah truth is it was. Anyone seriously contending that Kirsten would've caught that thing which flew straight off the face of the bat to short-leg without some freakish luck hasn't watched it or is just one of these people who insists that something which hits a fielder's body before it's bounced is a chance.

In reality Kirsten had no realistic chance of catching that and there was no point in the innings where Atherton seriously looked like getting out.

Luckily, I wasn't seriously suggesting it.

Althought it (no, no, no, stop it, stop it, STOPPPP!! DON'T DO ITTTTT!!!) does fly in the face of previous posts of yours regarding first-chance averages.

 

[Richard]

Of openers between 1990 and 2000 (ie, those who played at least 7 of those 10 years - so the likes of Haynes, Shoaib Mohammed and Gooch excluded), who'd you place above him?

Personally I'd have Kirsten (G) and Saeed Anwar as better, and Atapattu, Slater, Sidhu and Taylor (M) as on the same plane (anything which may divide them is marginal and pointless to fuss over). I'd have him clearly ahead of Jayasuriya, Aamir Sohail, Campbell and Hudson. And clearly he's far ahead of the likes of Young, Flower (G) and Mahanama.

Also to describe England as "****" in the entire decade of the 1990s would in my book be revisionist and\or wrong. There were indeed times when they were precisely such, but there were many times also when they were nowhere near that bad, and very occasionally and very briefly they were actually very good - if this sounds familiar it's because they were in fact exactly the same in the 2000s. Of England batsmen who played a decent amount in that decade I'd rank Gooch ahead and Smith, Hussain, Stewart and (at that stage) Thorpe as roughly equals, as well as Hick for a time. In terms of Tests he's notably ahead of Ramprakash and Crawley.