Best match saving innings you have seen

[Richard]

all this obvious mediocrity makes athers' 185 n.o. a truly special match saving knock; not as freaky as border taking a ten fer to beat windies but something like that. a truly odd moment in test cricket history.

Those who followed his career properly and assessed him fairly would know that the 185* was much more a case of an excellent innings from a good player which most players of equable calibre tend to play once in a career or so, and only the truly top-notch players play more than once (eg Lara playing his 277, 375 and 400* all of which could easily be described as his pinnacle innings).

 

[Richard]

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.

Nah, Strauss had an excellent year to start off with and has been good though far from flawless again since the 2008 summer (ie, 18 months); in calendar-years 2006 and 2007 he was very poor. There's no way he's ahead of Atherton yet, though I do indeed believe he has the capability to be come the end of his career. I certainly don't take it as read that he will achieve that.

 

[fredfertang]

Anyone up for Hussain vs Atherton?

Giloline v Dirt in Pocket?

Athers for me - what a brass neck!

 

[aussie]

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.[/quote]

I dont see it as wanking over the 90s, its a fundamental fact of how the game has evolved (or rather regressed in the last 10 years). Since the quality of bowling that made the game a very solid balance between bat & ball also included the 70s & 80s, 60s & 50s.

The 2000s era was comparable to the 20s & 30s when it comes to a lack of a consistent amount of quality pace attacks amongst teams & flat pitches.

Note: On your point that...There is no way we can say guys averaging in the thirties are better than guys like Hayden or Strauss....Generally i'd agree, but since i know we are talking about Atherton i'd say he was better than Strauss just by watching them bat - but not Hayden at all (although i dont believe Hayden would have averaged 50 in an era of consistent good pace bowling)

If you want to do that I'm going to minus ten runs of McGrath, Pollock and Warnes bowling averages kk?

You can't since the dynamics of judging whether batsmen of the last decade who where FTBs would have maintained their high batting averages if they played in a more difficult batting era. Can't be translated to judging whether a great bowler would have had a higher/lower bowling average in a less bowler friendly/more bowler friendly era.

At the end of the day cricket is a batsman's game. Bowlers are always the cats who are toiling for wickets. For fast bowlers guys like Marshall, Hadlee, McGrath, Imran etc are rated so highly because they were able to test & dismiss batmsen not just when they got green-tops or very bouncy decks - but even on the roads that were present in sub-continent or anywhere else in the world. They possesed a unique ability to take wickets in ALL conditions, this is why runs againts those cats are rated so highly. But not all fast bowlers in cricket history had those unique skills.

Some bowlers like your your traditional English seamer like a Hoggard, Allan Moss, James Anderson, Geoff Arnold would only be super effective on greentop, but would be far less effective on a flat decks if they left England.

Thus for a batsman to be considered really quality he needs to score againts a quality pace attacks in testing conditions instead of just on roads. Since thats the only time when a fast-bowler/pace attack is in his/their "domain", thus dominating him/the attack in his/their "domain" (a bowler friendly deck or conditions) is worth more than dominating the fast-bowler/attack good/great/world-class on a road.

 

[Richard]

Agree with this so much.

People really need to stop wanking over the 90s.

Equally people need to stop grossly exaggerating what people say about changes over time. I know it's easier to respond to what you'd like people to have written than what they have, but it's a nonsensical approach.

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?

Different changes affect different people in different ways.

Example: a change in temperature from 25 deg-C to 40 deg-C may make one person feel uncomfortable, and may seriously endanger the life of another. Equally, a change in bowling and pitches may make one batsman average perhaps 4-5 runs more, while it may make another average 30 runs more. It all depends on the individual.

Anyone contending that all players would be affected in the same way by a change in circumstances is generalising, IMO.

 

[Sir Alex]

Because that wasn't Atherton's average - he averaged 41 when fit over 98(?) Tests between 1990 and 2000/01.

I was referring to his average in Australia, although plenty of even better batsmen have struggled there.

That is the fact even the most stringent haters of Athers have to admit. Atherton may not set the world on fire but he never really dipped below a particular level either.

 

[Richard]

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

Why do the two points in those two sentences of the above post have anything to do with one another?

Martyn cashed-in on a lot of **** bowling; Martyn batted very well in Tests in calendar-year 2004. Are you suggesting that if one is true, the other cannot be?

 

[Richard]

I was referring to his average in Australia

And I wasn't, so please don't respond to a post of mine by quoting information irrelevant to what I was saying.

 

[Richard]

Strauss over Athers is a call I make with complete confidence, however.

I'd be no more or less confident with either if it was a period of 2 years. As things stand, it's impossible to assess more than that because Atherton's career is complete and Strauss', hopefully, still has a fair way to run.

 

[Sir Alex]

And I wasn't, so please don't respond to a post of mine by quoting information irrelevant to what I was saying.

Oh save that advice gibberish for the class dear.

BTW your words were enough ambigous to assume you were referring to Australia. However fair play on that count. Sorry.

 

[L Trumper]

Hum!! Some how this thread turns out to be athers bashing.

For what its worth as far as his contemporary openers are considered [90's] only gooch, anwar , taylor and slater can claim better than athers.

I reckon he is a decent bat. Had a damn good year with bat in 94. Always come good against SA. His first innings century paved the way for karachi win. Surely did more than Strauss as of now.

P.S. As far as the topic concerned is Kevin's 158 considered match saving? Then surely it should be in the reckoning, no one even mentioned that.

 

[Flem274*]

Equally people need to stop grossly exaggerating what people say about changes over time. I know it's easier to respond to what you'd like people to have written than what they have, but it's a nonsensical approach.

Different changes affect different people in different ways.

Example: a change in temperature from 25 deg-C to 40 deg-C may make one person feel uncomfortable, and may seriously endanger the life of another. Equally, a change in bowling and pitches may make one batsman average perhaps 4-5 runs more, while it may make another average 30 runs more. It all depends on the individual.

Anyone contending that all players would be affected in the same way by a change in circumstances is generalising, IMO.

Bowler averages are directly influenced by the amount of runs batsmen score.

Hence if we're going to minus off 5-10 runs off the likes of Hayden and Yousuf then some bowler somewhere is going to get that wicket faster.

Also pitches are flatter. If there were more bowler friendly surfaces then bowlers would get more wickets. Not always but they would get more.

Hence its fine to apply the same average deduction to bowlers.

 

[Jono]

Why do the two points in those two sentences of the above post have anything to do with one another?

Martyn cashed-in on a lot of **** bowling; Martyn batted very well in Tests in calendar-year 2004. Are you suggesting that if one is true, the other cannot be?

If you score heavily against good bowling and bad bowlings, it's not 'cashing in' against the bad attack. It's just being a good batsman.

 

[Uppercut]

If you score heavily against good bowling and bad bowlings, it's not 'cashing in' against the bad attack. It's just being a good batsman.

No no. It's cashing in. Just like the bowlers that are always brought on to clean up the tail because that's what they're good at are really being "gifted cheap tail-end wickets".

 

[Richard]

Bowler averages are directly influenced by the amount of runs batsmen score.

NO! They're directly affected by how many runs they allow batsmen to score. Bowlers are in control of their own destiny, and consequently the game.

Hence if we're going to minus off 5-10 runs off the likes of Hayden and Yousuf then some bowler somewhere is going to get that wicket faster.

Also pitches are flatter. If there were more bowler friendly surfaces then bowlers would get more wickets. Not always but they would get more.

Hence its fine to apply the same average deduction to bowlers.

Bowlers are affected by decks (some more than others); batsmen are affected by how well bowlers bowl on decks. The bowler controls the game, though better bowlers need less assistance from the deck to control the game.

The idea that any number of batsmen suddenly got miles better at the exact same time, in the 2001/02 season, is, to me, nonsensical. That supposition simply misunderstands how the game works. It makes far more sense, looking at how the game works and what happened (ie, the number of flat decks increased massively, almost overnight; any number of once excellent bowlers either disappeared instantly or had a few terrible games then disappeared), to conclude that batting got a lot easier very quickly in 2001/02.

People who are fans of the batsmen in question naturally don't like this supposition, but to me it's the only notion that makes sense. No-one is saying the likes of Ponting and Kallis for instance did not get better than they had been up to 2001, merely that the extent to which many batsmen got better has been exaggerated by the fact that batting got easier, and the fact that some batsmen's weaknesses were not able to be exploited after 2001/02 meant some batsmen who could easily have failed completely up to 2001 succeeded, sometimes very well, after 2001/02.

 

[Richard]

If you score heavily against good bowling and bad bowlings, it's not 'cashing in' against the bad attack. It's just being a good batsman.

Martyn was a decent batsman, who in 2004 was outstanding and for 3 years beforehand had been decent. From 2001 to 2003 he barely faced any bowling that challenged batsmen much. Hence he cashed-in, to my mind, better than he would've done against more consistently challenging bowling. In 2004 he batted exceptionally, well above his usual levels, but like most middle-of-the-road batsmen this only lasted a short time.

 

[Richard]

No no. It's cashing in. Just like the bowlers that are always brought on to clean up the tail because that's what they're good at are really being "gifted cheap tail-end wickets".

Bowlers who can only get tailenders out aren't very good bowlers.

Because for the most part, getting tailenders out isn't that difficult. Yes there are indeed occasional occasions where failure to do so proves highly costly, but mostly it's the easy part of bowling. A bowler who can get a run-of-the-mill top-order batsman out is very likely to be able to get a run-of-the-mill tailender out - again there is the odd exception.

Thus I prefer to see the tail gifted to those who have earned it by already making some dent in the top-order, not those who have not by being unable to make much or any dent in the top-order.

 

[Flem274*]

NO! They're directly affected by how many runs they allow batsmen to score. Bowlers are in control of their own destiny, and consequently the game.

Bowlers are affected by decks (some more than others); batsmen are affected by how well bowlers bowl on decks. The bowler controls the game, though better bowlers need less assistance from the deck to control the game.

The idea that any number of batsmen suddenly got miles better at the exact same time, in the 2001/02 season, is, to me, nonsensical. That supposition simply misunderstands how the game works. It makes far more sense, looking at how the game works and what happened (ie, the number of flat decks increased massively, almost overnight; any number of once excellent bowlers either disappeared instantly or had a few terrible games then disappeared), to conclude that batting got a lot easier very quickly in 2001/02.

People who are fans of the batsmen in question naturally don't like this supposition, but to me it's the only notion that makes sense. No-one is saying the likes of Ponting and Kallis for instance did not get better than they had been up to 2001, merely that the extent to which many batsmen got better has been exaggerated by the fact that batting got easier, and the fact that some batsmen's weaknesses were not able to be exploited after 2001/02 meant some batsmen who could easily have failed completely up to 2001 succeeded, sometimes very well, after 2001/02.

Mohammad Sami doesn't allow Tendulkar to score runs, he has no choice because he is no where near good enough to combat him unless Tendulkar makes a mistake. Batting averages ARE directly related to bowling averages, unless you have a way of making wickets and runs magically appear from no where.

You said it yourself, bowlers are affected by decks. Bowlers can't take 5/23 on decks like Napier or some of those rather interesting Indian pitches. Bowlers don't control the game, umpires or Ricky Ponting do. Batsmen can also bully the bowlers.

Correct, batsmen did not all of a sudden get better, though I do argue that by luck we do have a higher quality of batsmanship across the field atm (just like some eras have more good bowlers than batsmen). I never said all the current 50+ batsmen were all time greats so please don't put words in my mouth or I will have to be very nasty to you. I do think players like Yousuf would still average in the 40s however because there is nothing wrong with him technically, though he can be prone to short pitched bowling. Ponting would hardly be affected at all, likewise Kallis, Dravid, Tendulkar and even your favourite Sehwag. Their averages would be lesser if they batted on more greentops, how low depending on the amount of greentops. They still remain good batsmen. Plus if the conditions changed how do you know they would not change their techniques to suit?

The pitches also got flatter, influencing batting averages AND bowling averages. The good bowlers did not "disappear", they were hampered by the conditions because no matter how good you are, a road is a road and you can't roll teams for 120 on them unless that team is NZ with a massive injury list (well okay, just Taylor, Ryder, Vettori).

So yes, batting is relatively easier in the 2000s. That means an average of 25 for a bowler these days means more than an average of 25 in the 80s. You cannot have it both ways if you want your theories to be logical.

Lets take Iain O'Brien in his final test as an example. He averages around 33, so a solid bowler. He was bowling at 145+ and is naturally a bowler that gains a lot of bounce and seams the ball. Pakistan are awful at this point against bounce and seam movement. He was bowling at Napier and went very unrewarded in the second innings, though in the first he was excellent.

If that pitch had been more bowler friendly I think it would have been exploited more. Hence the likes of McGrath, Pollock, Warne, Bond and Steyn having the records they have is outstanding. They have bowled in one of the most batsmen friendly eras ever so if we're going to start taking runs off batsmen, then I think we can make bowling averages lower unless you want a mass run out fest, which has nothing to do with batting technique.

Also, do not assume I am a batsman fan. I am a legspinner who cannot bat to save his life. You're not the only bowler in the world.

So please, lose some of the prejudice or at least apply logic to your theories. You won't of course, you'll eventually have the last word in this discussion and assume you've won.

 

[Richard]

Mohammad Sami doesn't allow Tendulkar to score runs, he has no choice because he is no where near good enough to combat him unless Tendulkar makes a mistake. Batting averages ARE directly related to bowling averages, unless you have a way of making wickets and runs magically appear from no where.

You said it yourself, bowlers are affected by decks. Bowlers can't take 5/23 on decks like Napier or some of those rather interesting Indian pitches. Bowlers don't control the game, umpires or Ricky Ponting do. Batsmen can also bully the bowlers.

Batsmen cannot bully bowlers, and it is not and never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever will be the case that a batsman is too good for a bowler - in the case of Sami, he simply is mostly not good enough to get out Tendulkar (though he could be and at any given point the possibility remains that a bowler as hopeless as Sami could produce a delivery that Tendulkar cannot combat).

Batting average is a consequence of batting skill and bowling skill, with bowling skill making a bigger impact; bowling averages are also a consequence of batting skill and bowling skill, with bowling skill making a bigger impact.

Decks can make it more and more difficult for a bowler to produce; every now and then the combination of poor-quality (ie, too flat) deck and poor-quality ball will make it near impossible for a bowler to produce. Such circumstances have become more common since 2001/02, as have things from the next rung down (ie, conditions which only the best bowlers can exploit) and with the near-absence of truly top-notch bowlers since 2001/02 this has resulted in batting being very easy.

Correct, batsmen did not all of a sudden get better, though I do argue that by luck we do have a higher quality of batsmanship across the field atm (just like some eras have more good bowlers than batsmen). I never said all the current 50+ batsmen were all time greats so please don't put words in my mouth or I will have to be very nasty to you. I do think players like Yousuf would still average in the 40s however because there is nothing wrong with him technically, though he can be prone to short pitched bowling. Ponting would hardly be affected at all, likewise Kallis, Dravid, Tendulkar and even your favourite Sehwag. Their averages would be lesser if they batted on more greentops, how low depending on the amount of greentops. They still remain good batsmen. Plus if the conditions changed how do you know they would not change their techniques to suit?

I have never once said that the likes of Kallis and Ponting are not good batsmen; I have simply said that there is ample evidence to my mind that they would not have been the supermen they've been since 2001/02 had batting not gotten easier. Of course they would probably at some point have gotten better than they had been up to 2001, because they always had the talent to do so. But I do not believe they would have scored to anywhere near the extent they have done - and yes, I do believe that one or two who have had phenomenal success would have had precious little of it had things continued as they had been up to 2001. Namely Hayden and, if he was forced to open the batting, Sehwag.

The pitches also got flatter, influencing batting averages AND bowling averages. The good bowlers did not "disappear", they were hampered by the conditions because no matter how good you are, a road is a road and you can't roll teams for 120 on them unless that team is NZ with a massive injury list (well okay, just Taylor, Ryder, Vettori).

Of course bowlers disappeared - those of the calibre of Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis and others retired within a couple of years of each other (some had a few terrible games just before retirement, as more players than not have done throughout history). Players are always disappearing, but sometimes the replacements will not be of comparable calibre. I don't see any way that anyone can possibly dispute that the replacements for those bowlers have been lesser; the combination of the flattening-out of pitches and the replacement of top-notch bowlers with a mixture of moderate ones and outright poor ones has made batting notably easier.

So yes, batting is relatively easier in the 2000s. That means an average of 25 for a bowler these days means more than an average of 25 in the 80s. You cannot have it both ways if you want your theories to be logical.

Lets take Iain O'Brien in his final test as an example. He averages around 33, so a solid bowler. He was bowling at 145+ and is naturally a bowler that gains a lot of bounce and seams the ball. Pakistan are awful at this point against bounce and seam movement. He was bowling at Napier and went very unrewarded in the second innings, though in the first he was excellent.

If that pitch had been more bowler friendly I think it would have been exploited more. Hence the likes of McGrath, Pollock, Warne, Bond and Steyn having the records they have is outstanding. They have bowled in one of the most batsmen friendly eras ever so if we're going to start taking runs off batsmen, then I think we can make bowling averages lower unless you want a mass run out fest, which has nothing to do with batting technique.

I don't know why anyone keeps saying all of this as if I've disputed it, because I've never argued against it. I just don't often have reason to mention it the way I constantly have to about batsmen having it easy.

Also, do not assume I am a batsman fan. I am a legspinner who cannot bat to save his life. You're not the only bowler in the world.

So please, lose some of the prejudice or at least apply logic to your theories. You won't of course, you'll eventually have the last word in this discussion and assume you've won.

The prejudice only exists in the minds of those who don't accept what I'm saying. I have used no prejudice to come to the conclusions I've come to - I've used simple logic. Some people have used different logic and come to different conclusions (some through bias and prejudice, some not) but there is no sense in the suggestion that my conclusions have been reached through pre-judged notions - I have watched cricket for a lengthy time and it was very obvious to me without even consulting figures that batting became easier starting in 2001/02 and has still not become as difficult as it was up to 2001, thought the balance begun to be shunted back in the year of 2006.

 

[aussie]

Their averages would be lesser if they batted on more greentops, how low depending on the amount of greentops. They still remain good batsmen. Plus if the conditions changed how do you know they would not change their techniques to suit?

I am just to going to answer this point, since i have seen it been brought up regularly as way to defend the FTB of the 2000s era.

The simple answer to this is that although the standard of quality bowling (pace bowling) have declined significantly & pitches have gotten flatter in the last decade. Batsmen have had to encounter bowler friendly conditions that have still existed ever so often, its just its not has been very regular. An educated guess IMO i'd say for ever FTB in 2000s era, if he batted in 30 innings, he would have faced a quality pace attack in bowler friendly (or just a quality pace attack on a flat deck) conditions about 5 times. Which compared to 70s, 80s & 90s it (another educated guess) would be around 15+ times out of 30 innings.


So a FTB indeed did have an oppurtunity in the last decade after plundering runs againts joke attacks on roads, to potentially change their techniques to suite when/if exposed by quality pace attacks in testing conditions. But a large majority of them after being exposed never adjusted, but rather just maintained their tailor made techniques for batting on raods.

Of course some again have also suggested on CW, that batsmen in 2000s FTB did not need to adjust their techniques since their was no incentive to do so. Thats true, but that would just mean these batsmen will forever have the stain of them of being FTBs.

So yes, batting is relatively easier in the 2000s. That means an average of 25 for a bowler these days means more than an average of 25 in the 80s. You cannot have it both ways if you want your theories to be logical.

Not for the truly great bowlers. For example not because McGrath averaged 20 witht he ball in this FTB era, means his average means more than Imran, Marhsall, Hadlee, Ambrose, Donald, Lillee who played in era of more helpul pitches. All of those bowlers had unique skills to to bowl on flat pitches too & if they had to bowl on the roads of the last 10 years i dont see why they wouldn't have had equal success like McGrath.

But for not so great bowlers who didn't have the unique skills to take wickets in all conditions. Yes i would agree an average of 25 in the last 10 years is worth more than 25 in the 70s or 80s or 90s. For example Matthew Hogagrd vs Geoff Arnold two English seamers who success for most of their careers was dependant of getting helpul conditions. It would be fair to say Hoggard average of 29 is worth more than Arnold average of 28/29 since Hoggard had to toil on more flat decks than Arnold who got a lot of helpul conditions to bowl on. But at the same time that doesn't mean Hoggard was a better bowler than than Arnold - but rather just striking a fair balance here...