Best match saving innings you have seen

[Uppercut]

And 7 centuries in 20 Ashes tests.

A 99 is not a century. A century is 100+ runs. Granted, that one run might not make the difference, but few centuries are exactly 100 runs and you have to draw the line somewhere.

 

[Richard]

And 7 centuries in 20 Ashes tests.

A 99 is not a century. A century is 100+ runs. Granted, that one run might not make the difference, but few centuries are exactly 100 runs and you have to draw the line somewhere.

And drawing that line somewhere to prove a point about how good or otherwise someone is is pointless. For the intents of how well a batsman's played the difference between 98 and 103 is essentially nothing.

Anyway that was merely a small part of what I was saying - the wider point is that numbers of centuries are not a good way of judging a batsman.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

In the Ashes period in question Mike Atherton...

...played 24 Tests and 48 innings.
...scored 1569 runs at an average of 34.10.
...passed 50 on 14 occasions (> 1/3 of the time), though he only reached 100 once.
...scored 80 or more on 5 occasions (> 1/3 of the times he passed 50).
...was out for less than 10 on 13 occasions (almost 1/4 of the time).
...registered 2 ducks (including one in his first innings).
...averaged 36.10 in Australia, and 32.70 at home.

Take from this what you will.

 

[aussie]

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

No way. Atherton was a very good opener. He played in era of very good bowling thus an average of 37 reflects the his true ability since he hardly ever faced a crap attack. Its unfortunately he didn't get to cash in on the flat decks in the last decade since he would have certainly averaged better.

But to call him mediocre & odinary is a great insult, since he was superior to recent/current ENG openers Trescothick, Cook & Strauss without a doubt.

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

Nah. Atherton was marginally superior to Shastri who was a manufactured opener. Rating Shastri over him, is seriously under-rating Atherton.

 

[Pothas]

No way. A+therton was a very good opener. He played in era of very good bowling thus an average of 37 reflects the his true ability since he hardly ever faced a crap attack. Its unfortunately he didn't get to cash in on the flat decks in the last decade since he would have certainly averaged better.

But to call him mediocre & odinary is a great insult, since he was superior to recent/current ENG openers Trescothick, Cook & Strauss without a doubt.

I love Athers but I don't think he can be rated above Strauss 'without a doubt.' Strauss for the majority of his career has been a very good test batsman and I think a rather underrated one.

 

[Pothas]

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.

Maybe it is due to aesthetic's which I freely admit do affect my judgement but Martyn just always looked like such a quality player, was always one of my favourites after watching him in the ashes in 2001. Plus whatever you want to say about the pitches and bowling atacks after 2001 but he backed up the looking good with runs against pretty much everyone and everywhere. Think calling him very good is a perfectly reasonable statement.

 

[Uppercut]

Wouldn't have fared well against Zeus Ambrose BITGN.

 

[aussie]

I love Athers but I don't think he can be rated above Strauss 'without a doubt.' Strauss for the majority of his career has been a very good test batsman and I think a rather underrated one.

I dont recall Atherton having a serious technical flaw that was ever exposed & troubled like Strauss between Ashes 06/07 to NZ 08 (before ressurected his career in Napier 08). So for me a superior technique from Athers puts him about Strauss for me - but its not by much as it is with Trescothick & Cook though.

As i said Athers played a tough era for batting thus his average reflects his true ability, hardly ever had easy runs to cash in upon. But he played enough very good/great innings againts the best of bowlers that proved his quality.

If we want to put a historical context to it. We would say fairly unanimously that Hobbs, Hutton, Sutcliffe, Boycott, Gooch is amongst the upper echelon of great Englan openers right?.

Athers easily makes the second tier along with the likes of Dennis Amiss, John Edrich, Bill Edrich, Washbrook, Vaughan

Then their is a 3rd tier which list is very long that consistents of many openers who averaged in the 30-39 range who had decent runs but feel off/couldn't maintain it etc etc .

But Athers being in the second tier shows how good he was.

 

[aussie]

Maybe it is due to aesthetic's which I freely admit do affect my judgement but Martyn just always looked like such a quality player, was always one of my favourites after watching him in the ashes in 2001. Plus whatever you want to say about the pitches and bowling atacks after 2001 but he backed up the looking good with runs against pretty much everyone and everywhere. Think calling him very good is a perfectly reasonable statement.

Indeed. Martyn game as test batsman evolved alot. Coming from Western Australia like Langer he had to improve his game againts spin which was one a main reason why AUS won in SRI & IND 04.

Of course Martyn didn't face quality pace attacks alot during his career batting peak between Ashes 01 to Ashes 05/06. He had a rough Ashes 05 when it came to the decision he got since in that series which lead to him being ridiculously being dropped (he was not really exposed technically like Hayden, Gilchrist, Clarke, Katich). But he proved vs SA 05/06 with his match winning hundred in Jo'Burg againts a very good SA attack, that he had to skills to succeed in bowling freindly conditions. So would have to disagree with Richard's notion he was not the type of batsman that would have averaged more than 39-42 againts consistently good bowling.

 

[Goughy]

Id point out that Amiss averaged 15 more when opening than Atherton and you missed out Stewart

 

[NUFAN]

No way. Atherton was a very good opener. He played in era of very good bowling thus an average of 37 reflects the his true ability since he hardly ever faced a crap attack. Its unfortunately he didn't get to cash in on the flat decks in the last decade since he would have certainly averaged better.

Yeah it's not hard to look at attacks after they have finished their careers and consider them reasonable or good when the batsman are not as good!

Atherton was one of England's most dependable batsman and he didn't perform that well, that says as much about the batsman in his era as it does the bowlers.

PS - Stewart > Atherton.

 

[aussie]

Id point out that Amiss averaged 15 more when opening than Atherton and you missed out Stewart

I rather deliberately left Stewart, Bailey & Rhodes out since they are the makeshift/versaility group rather than pure openers. But yea Stewart is good enough to be in the 2nd tier based on his exploits as an opener..

 

[Sir Alex]

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.

How is an average of 29 over 9 years and 14 tests remotedly "fine production"?

 

[Burgey]

I dont recall Atherton having a serious technical flaw that was ever exposed & troubled like Strauss between Ashes 06/07 to NZ 08 (before ressurected his career in Napier 08). So for me a superior technique from Athers puts him about Strauss for me - but its not by much as it is with Trescothick & Cook though.

As i said Athers played a tough era for batting thus his average reflects his true ability, hardly ever had easy runs to cash in upon. But he played enough very good/great innings againts the best of bowlers that proved his quality.

If we want to put a historical context to it. We would say fairly unanimously that Hobbs, Hutton, Sutcliffe, Boycott, Gooch is amongst the upper echelon of great Englan openers right?.

Athers easily makes the second tier along with the likes of Dennis Amiss, John Edrich, Bill Edrich, Washbrook, Vaughan

Then their is a 3rd tier which list is very long that consistents of many openers who averaged in the 30-39 range who had decent runs but feel off/couldn't maintain it etc etc .

But Athers being in the second tier shows how good he was.

Athers used to nick out to McGrath for toffee tbh. Suggestive of some technical flaw I'd have thought.

 

[aussie]

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.

So so so so true.

But to be fair to the people who say this, in the 90s alot of **** county players played for England so that didn't the help the image of the team, although the core of the team (Atherton, Stewart, Thorpe, Gooch, Gough, Caddick, Malcom, Smith, Russell, Tufnell, Hick, Ramps, Fraser, Cork) was fairly solid & better than what ENG have right now i'd say. Its just that in the bowling alot of those guys where injured way too often.

Plus i'd say we where a bit lucky not to have been smoked vs SA 94 & 95/96 & 98, the SA really should have won in ENG longgg before 2008 up to this day i dont know how ENG won in 1998. Plus vs WI 90, 91 & 95 ENG sort of played better than expected, especially those two series in ENG (91 & 95).

 

[Flem274*]

Wouldn't have fared well against Zeus Ambrose BITGN.

Agree with this so much.

People really need to stop wanking over the 90s. There is no way we can say guys averaging in the thirties are better than guys like Hayden or Strauss. Pitches are flatter, but we cant minus ten freaking runs off batting averages in the 2000s. If you want to do that I'm going to minus ten runs of McGrath, Pollock and Warnes bowling averages kk?

 

[Ikki]

No way. Atherton was a very good opener. He played in era of very good bowling thus an average of 37 reflects the his true ability since he hardly ever faced a crap attack. Its unfortunately he didn't get to cash in on the flat decks in the last decade since he would have certainly averaged better.

But to call him mediocre & odinary is a great insult, since he was superior to recent/current ENG openers Trescothick, Cook & Strauss without a doubt.

Um, no. Atherton was mediocre, there is little doubt about that. Strauss is comfortably better than he was, I would have Trescothick and maybe even Cook ahead of him too TBH - although the latter is still young.

To call Atherton a very good opener is non-sense of the Richard-kind. Something you have becoming increasingly accustomed to Aussie.

 

[Burgey]

Um, no. Atherton was mediocre, there is little doubt about that. Strauss is comfortably better than he was, I would have Trescothick and maybe even Cook ahead of him too TBH - although the latter is still young.

To call Atherton a very good opener is non-sense of the Richard-kind. Something you have becoming increasingly accustomed to Aussie.

Atherton is easily better than Trescothick imo, in tests anyway. Always thought Trescothick looked like he scored runs in tests by accident tbh. As for Cook, well, I think he's massively over-rated tbh (not on here btw). Nicks it for a living. Would have Atherton over him in a heartbeat.

 

[0RI0N]

This thread is N0T About match saving innings.
To answer OP.
The reason why Atherton ave 37 was due to
a) burden of captaining a very average to mediocre England side
b) having to face 4 teams that at various times during the 90s had good to outstanding bowling attacks.
Those attacks were
I - McGrath & Warne.
II - Ambrose & Associates
III - Wasim, Waqar & friends
IV - Donald & partners

 

[Jono]

Lol @ Richard mentioning Martyn cashing in on **** attacks. His 2004 is stuff of legend.