Best match saving innings you have seen

[African Monkey]

Jacques Rudolph's knock against Australia in 2005 at Perth was a good match-saving innings.

 

[Richard]

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.

That's entirely wrong - for three consecutive Ashes series' Atherton performed more than acceptably against Australia - 1990/91, 1993 and 1994/95. Yes, Atherton was something of a disappointment in 1997, played when he should not have in 1998/99 and thus failed dismally and was past it in 2001 (as he was against other teams besides Australia) but gross exaggeration does no-one any credit. Taylor too was past it in 1998/99 and also only escaped his wretched form midway through the 1997 series.

And also whatever some might think, there is far, far more to Test cricket than Ashes series'. And especially given the disparity between England's and Australia's bowling attacks and catching in the series' of 1989, 1990/91, 1993 and 1994/95. To compare them purely on the basis of Ashes is folly.

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.

Not really - of course Taylor's best innings' were better than Atherton's but Atherton's consistency was much better and he did not endure 18 months of utter dismality like Taylor did in 1996 and the first half of 1997. Overall career averages as I've stated hundreds of times are pretty irrelevant, and Atherton's and Taylor's no less than most. There are indeed plenty of stats you can use to make a case for Taylor being a better player than Atherton and as I said I don't have a problem with such a profession but equally it's possible to argue there wasn't a lot between them.

 

[Richard]

Me too. Atherton merely decent and nothing more.

As a Test batsman in the grand scheme of things, indeed he was. As an opener of his time, he was pretty good.

 

[Ikki]

As a Test batsman in the grand scheme of things, indeed he was. As an opener of his time, he was pretty good.

Nah, mediocre/decent in both respects. A very ordinary player with his own set of career highlights. Nothing out of the norm.

 

[Richard]

As I said, you'd struggle to find many who were conclusively better than him in one respect, and "decent" has rather different connotations to "ordinary" and "mediocre" so it's best advised to use the former and neither of the latter.

 

[Ikki]

The fact that you said you'd put Taylor or Slater on the same plane as him shows that the meanings of decent, ordinary or mediocre aren't really the problem. The problem is you overrate Atherton, a lot.

 

[Richard]

Nah, I don't. Rating him as about equal to Taylor and Slater is about right - they were also decent Test batsmen and good openers for their time. Well, more accurately Taylor was a very good one for most of his career and an execrable one for 18 months.

 

[bagapath]

as an opener atherton was marginally inferior to ravi shastri. that is the best compliment i can give him.

 

[Richard]

That might not be as ridiculous as saying Atherton was no better than Sadagoppan Ramesh, but it comes close. Shastri was a manufactured opener who made a decent fist of the role for a couple of years. Atherton was a fine, natural opener for a decade.

 

[bagapath]

That might not be as ridiculous as saying Atherton was no better than Sadagoppan Ramesh, but it comes close. Shastri was a manufactured opener who made a decent fist of the role for a couple of years. Atherton was a fine, natural opener for a decade.

the manufactured opener was good enough to score a double hundred against australia in australia; the natural talent was not.

 

[bagapath]

Atherton's consistency was much better and he did not endure 18 months of utter dismality like Taylor did in 1996 and the first half of 1997.

true he did not. but we endured his mediocre career for 15 years.

 

[Ikki]

true he did not. but we endured his mediocre career for 15 years.

Haha, pwnage.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

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.

For the record, my belief is that VVS Laxman's innings first "saved" India, but ultimately put them in a position to win. He gave Harbhajan something to bowl at. It was a match-winning innings, which is a much greater and more fitting achievement than merely calling it match-saving.

Perhaps saying that Australia could have won was stretching it a bit, but surely you see I was trying to make a point about the impact of the innings. Anyway, it wasn't strictly an impossible chase.

 

[Pothas]

"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.

Lost me with that one, think there is a very obvious different there.

Would actually say Damien Martyn is an excellent example of a 'very good' test bastman.

The Atherton thing is difficult, he was always one of my very favourite players when I was very young so I will always look upon him favourably (and I think you might do the same) but I think rationally it is hard to say he was much more than a very decent oppener who might well have been a very good one if it had not been for his injury issues.

 

[Uppercut]

That's entirely wrong - for three consecutive Ashes series' Atherton performed more than acceptably against Australia - 1990/91, 1993 and 1994/95. Yes, Atherton was something of a disappointment in 1997, played when he should not have in 1998/99 and thus failed dismally and was past it in 2001 (as he was against other teams besides Australia) but gross exaggeration does no-one any credit. Taylor too was past it in 1998/99 and also only escaped his wretched form midway through the 1997 series.

One century in 33 tests mate

 

[Richard]

the manufactured opener was good enough to score a double hundred against australia in australia; the natural talent was not.

Newsflash: there's more to batting than scoring a single double-century in Australia. Give me 10 years of fine production over a single double-century and a couple of years of decent performance anyday.

 

[Richard]

true he did not. but we endured his mediocre career for 15 years.

Whose mediocre career did we endure for 15 years?

 

[Richard]

One century in 33 tests mate

Far more to batting than centuries; one of those non-centuries was a 99 so effectively that's two centuries (no-one would claim a single run makes any significant difference); at least 6 of those 33 Tests he shouldn't have played (granted 2 centuries in 27 is still hardly outstanding).

None of this, however, changes the fact that Atherton was good in three consecutive Ashes 1990/91-1994/95. Yes he was indeed poor in 1997 and the fact that he was past it in 2001 meant he was also poor then, but it is nonetheless still completely wrong to say that Atherton was not invariably poor against Australia, nor that Australia entirely had the wood on him. Because such things simply did not happen.

 

[Richard]

Would actually say Damien Martyn is an excellent example of a 'very good' test bastman.

Really? Can't see him having been more than someone who'd average 39-42 sort of thing against consistently good bowling; granted he cashed-in on the largely rubbish fare of 2001/02-onwards well enough.

 

[Burgey]

Far more to batting than centuries; one of those non-centuries was a 99 so effectively that's two centuries (no-one would claim a single run makes any significant difference); at least 6 of those 33 Tests he shouldn't have played (granted 2 centuries in 27 is still hardly outstanding).

None of this, however, changes the fact that Atherton was good in three consecutive Ashes 1990/91-1994/95. Yes he was indeed poor in 1997 and the fact that he was past it in 2001 meant he was also poor then, but it is nonetheless still completely wrong to say that Atherton was not invariably poor against Australia, nor that Australia entirely had the wood on him. Because such things simply did not happen.

Slater had 9 or 10 90s tbf... (to hark back to yesterday's comparison)