Best match saving innings you have seen

[Richard]

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.

Nah, seriously, it doesn't. I've always said a chance to my mind has always been something which has a realistic chance of being caught. Something which should not and will not (barring freak circumstances) be caught is NOT a chance and never has been, in my book or in my book the book of anyone with any sense. This "half-chance" nonsense is just baffling and reeks of failure to recognise the significance of a chance.

 

[Goughy]

Also to describe England as "****" in the entire decade of the 1990s would in my book be revisionist.

Nah, I though it at the time as well based on the fact that we were.

 

[Richard]

How then were there just 6 series' out of 25 in the entire decade where we were comprehensively outplayed (being generous here and including the 1999/2000 series against South Africa as one, given that we were indeed comprehensively outplayed there)?

I'd expect a team that was truly **** to be being comprehensively outplayed in half their series', if not more. Yet the only times that truly happened in the 1990s to England was Australia 1990/91, 1993 and 1998/99, India 1992/93, Pakistan 1996 and the aforementioned 1999/2000 series in South Africa.

I've often believed the "1990s was ****" ism comes from the fact that England were often outplayed by Australia, and the importance of The Ashes is disproportionate to plenty of England fans. Whether that applies to you I don't know.

 

[NUFAN]

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).

Yeah Atapattu is a decent example, I would probably have Atherton very sligthly ahead.

I reckon Michael Slater is a way better batsman than Atherton. If you were a Slater fan and were talking about peaks you would say he should have averaged 47.41 his average before he was dropped. He came back to Test Cricket in not the best frame of mind and his average as a result suffered.

I don't suppose you looked at the 90s 00s ban draft, I actually chose Atherton, but I think about 20 openers were chosen ahead of him and that's probably quite fair.

 

[Richard]

I reckon Michael Slater is a way better batsman than Atherton. If you were a Slater fan and were talking about peaks you would say he should have averaged 47.41 his average before he was dropped. He came back to Test Cricket in not the best frame of mind and his average as a result suffered.

I'm, obviously, not as familiar with Slater as I am with Atherton, but I've always believed he returned in 1998/99 and for another 3 years was a good Test batsman, same as he'd been 1993-1995/96.

TBH I've never been entirely sure what to make of Slater - though FTR I am actually a considerable fan of his, as batsman and not commentator (though I do like him with mic as with bat). He was undoubtedly a real rarity in that he is one of the precious few opening batsmen in Test history to have had success by attacking quality new-ball bowlers. But I've never got away from the impression that he should've achieved so much more. I'd not find someone rating him above Atherton outrageous at all, but equally he always seemed to me to have fragilities Atherton did not. Of course Atherton had fragilities - which like Slater were not his fault - but they affected him only on a tiny minority of occasions, which can easily be excluded from his record. With Slater it seemed a more inbuilt thing that had an affect of more permanence.

I don't suppose you looked at the 90s 00s ban draft, I actually chose Atherton, but I think about 20 openers were chosen ahead of him and that's probably quite fair.

Haha, shows the random nature of those draft threads I guess.

 

[Uppercut]

I'd definitely rate Slater (and Taylor) comfortably ahead of Atherton. Following little other than the Ashes at the time means my abiding memory of their careers is Slater smashing England all over the place while Atherton... was a bit like a recurring Australian joke.

 

[Richard]

Check-out the 1993 and 1994/95 series' (the only ones where fair comparison can be made as they're the only ones where both played in a fit state to do so - Slater missed 1997, Atherton wasn't fit to throw a bat downhill in 1998/99 and both had declined and were poor in 2001) and you'll get a better impression of the relative capability of Slater and Atherton. Even that's not entirely fair as Atherton was facing McDermott, Hughes, Reiffel, Fleming and Warne and Slater was facing Ilott, Bicknell, Malcolm, McCague, Such, Tufnell et al.

Rating the two by how they performed against other teams is rather fairer.

As for Taylor I don't have any real problem with somone considering him superior to Atherton as he was a damn good batsman but as I say, personally I don't have a lot between them.

 

[Uppercut]

Check-out the 1993 and 1994/95 series' (the only ones where fair comparison can be made as they're the only ones where both played in a fit state to do so - Slater missed 1997, Atherton wasn't fit to throw a bat downhill in 1998/99 and both had declined and were poor in 2001) and you'll get a better impression of the relative capability of Slater and Atherton. Even that's not entirely fair as Atherton was facing McDermott, Hughes, Reiffel, Fleming and Warne and Slater was facing Ilott, Bicknell, Malcolm, McCague, Such, Tufnell et al.

Rating the two by how they performed against other teams is rather fairer.

As for Taylor I don't have any real problem with somone considering him superior to Atherton as he was a damn good batsman but as I say, personally I don't have a lot between them.

lol

 

[Richard]

So go on then - explain how Slater played in 1997, how Atherton was fit to be anything but a sitting-duck in 1998/99, or how either weren't past it in 2001?

 

[Uppercut]

It's just that you're willing to play with Atherton's career, removing the bits where he played badly with a fine tooth pick because of some excuse you have for him. Do you think Slater never had to play when not fully fit or carrying an injury? Did he not play on long past his peak and hurt his figures?

Anyway, it would perhaps be fairer to count runs scored against other teams. But runs in the Ashes>>>runs in Richard's Controlled Environment, so I'm counting them instead. Seven centuries in 20 Ashes tests, one in 33.

The point isn't that this proves Slater is better, I'm just saying I find it hard to fathom how anyone can rank Atherton higher when every time they were within 400 yards of each other Slater was scoring buckets of runs and Atherton wasn't.

 

[Top_Cat]

It's just that you're willing to play with Atherton's career, removing the bits where he played badly with a fine tooth pick because of some excuse you have for him. Do you think Slater never had to play when not fully fit or carrying an injury? Did he not play on long past his peak and hurt his figures?

Was afflicted with the below even before his first Test;

Ankylosing spondylitis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[NUFAN]

I'm, obviously, not as familiar with Slater as I am with Atherton, but I've always believed he returned in 1998/99 and for another 3 years was a good Test batsman, same as he'd been 1993-1995/96.

TBH I've never been entirely sure what to make of Slater - though FTR I am actually a considerable fan of his, as batsman and not commentator (though I do like him with mic as with bat). He was undoubtedly a real rarity in that he is one of the precious few opening batsmen in Test history to have had success by attacking quality new-ball bowlers. But I've never got away from the impression that he should've achieved so much more. I'd not find someone rating him above Atherton outrageous at all, but equally he always seemed to me to have fragilities Atherton did not. Of course Atherton had fragilities - which like Slater were not his fault - but they affected him only on a tiny minority of occasions, which can easily be excluded from his record. With Slater it seemed a more inbuilt thing that had an affect of more permanence.

Yeah good post.

 

[Top_Cat]

I'm, obviously, not as familiar with Slater as I am with Atherton, but I've always believed he returned in 1998/99 and for another 3 years was a good Test batsman, same as he'd been 1993-1995/96.

TBH I've never been entirely sure what to make of Slater - though FTR I am actually a considerable fan of his, as batsman and not commentator (though I do like him with mic as with bat). He was undoubtedly a real rarity in that he is one of the precious few opening batsmen in Test history to have had success by attacking quality new-ball bowlers. But I've never got away from the impression that he should've achieved so much more. I'd not find someone rating him above Atherton outrageous at all, but equally he always seemed to me to have fragilities Atherton did not. Of course Atherton had fragilities - which like Slater were not his fault - but they affected him only on a tiny minority of occasions, which can easily be excluded from his record. With Slater it seemed a more inbuilt thing that had an affect of more permanence.

Had an undiagnosed mental illness - was diagnosed with bipolar depression after his Test career was over.

 

[andyc]

Was afflicted with the below even before his first Test;

Ankylosing spondylitis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Had to lol when I looked down under the 'Well Known People with AS:'

# England cricket captain Mike Atherton
# Australian cricketer Michael Slater

 

[Richard]

It's just that you're willing to play with Atherton's career, removing the bits where he played badly with a fine tooth pick because of some excuse you have for him. Do you think Slater never had to play when not fully fit or carrying an injury? Did he not play on long past his peak and hurt his figures?

Slater unlike Atherton did not have many Tests on pre\past-plateau (he had 4 in 2001; Atherton had 10 in 2001 and 2 in 1989), due in part that to the relative strength of their sides - he was brought in at the exact right time and was dropped very quickly. As Mr Corey Taylor and Master Andrew Cameron have already pointed-out Slater actually suffered from the exact same condition as Atherton (I CBA retyping or even C&P-ing it). However I'm not aware of any circumstances where it reduced Slater from a relatively sprightly condition to a bat-waving rubble as it did Atherton - there is UIMM no series in Slater's career comparable to Atherton's in Zimbabwe in 1996/97 and Australia in 1998/99. Nonetheless, as I say, I'm not anywhere near so familiar with Slater's ins and outs as I am with Atherton's - all I'll say is that however much of his Test career he played through depression it didn't seem to damage his run-scoring all that much.

Anyway, it would perhaps be fairer to count runs scored against other teams. But runs in the Ashes>>>runs in Richard's Controlled Environment, so I'm counting them instead. Seven centuries in 20 Ashes tests, one in 33.

Really, it's going some to suggest that serious ailments which completely restrict one's ability to bat isn't legitimate reason to treat a tiny minority as different to a vast majority.

The point isn't that this proves Slater is better, I'm just saying I find it hard to fathom how anyone can rank Atherton higher when every time they were within 400 yards of each other Slater was scoring buckets of runs and Atherton wasn't.

As I said - just because they were within 400 yards of each-other doesn't mean there weren't hundreds of other things that were making different impacts on the two.

 

[bagapath]

placing taylor and atherton in the same plane of test openers is a crime. taylor was a huge success in ashes. atherton was not just a disaster in tests vs australia. he was an embarassment. if one were to pick and choose taylor's stats defining his peak years to one's convenience his stats would be miles ahead of atherton's. actually, hold on. they are miles ahead of atherton's as they are right now. the difference in their averages - taylor's at 43 + and athers' at 38 -, should make it obvious where they both belong. also, besides scoring more centuries in less tests at a far superior average taylor also managed a double hundred and a triple hundred whereas athers had to be satisfied with a 185 n.o. another reason why they should never be compared.

EDIT: just saw the following post by richard

As for Taylor I don't have any real problem with somone considering him superior to Atherton as he was a damn good batsman but as I say, personally I don't have a lot between them.

fair enough.

 

[Jono]

By that logic he neither saved it, nor won it. Because after Laxman's innings Australia were still in to win it.

The fact is that Laxman's innings have India a chance to win it, which Harbhajan ensured they did. It's a matchwinning innings.

Hmmm, Laxman took the win out of the equation for Australia. How could Australia have won?

It was either a draw or a win to India, with the draw being much more likely. Australia imploded and Harbhajan bowled brilliantly.

All semantics I guess anyway.

 

[Raghav]

Astle's innings against India
1st Innings: 103 (207)
2nd Innings:51* (135) (surely match saving)

1st Test: India vs New Zealand at Ahmedabad, Oct 8-12, 2003

 

[Jono]

Yep great example.

 

[Ikki]

Mark me down as an ignoramus then

Me too. Atherton merely decent and nothing more.

As for this thread; I bitterly nominate Laxman's 281.