Atherton vs Stewart? Old school 90s english cricketers! Who was better?

[GIMH]

Not sure about the Kaiser's time but from Aug 1989 to Aug 2001 Statsguru tells me that the overall average for opening batsman was 34.72.

So mathmatically Athers is 7.2% better than your average opening batsman.

This I find interesting but probably need more context

 

[watson]

This I find interesting but probably need more context

Sure. Given that Aussie openers didn't have to face McGrath, West Indian openers Ambrose, South African openers Donald, and Pakistan openers Waqar + Wasim, I would say that Athers is > 7.2% better than other openers. So lets not demean a very good batsman as that makes no sense to me.

 

[mr_mister]

I thought 7.2% was based soley on the fact that Atherton's average is 7% larger than 34.72 figure

 

[mr_mister]

 

[watson]

I thought 7.2% was based soley on the fact that Atherton's average is 7% larger than 34.72 figure

It's based on the fact that cricket is bigger than raw numbers and stats. They are a starting point and a guide only.

 

[mr_mister]

Yes I know that... but you did say "So mathmatically Athers is 7.2% better than your average opening batsman."


edit - nvm I misread a post of yours, didnt see the greater than sign

 

[Geoffboycott]

It's still Atherton for me. Better defence and better in tough conditions.

 

[91Jmay]

Stewie for me, very good player. Athers was solid and did well with what he had but a tier below AS.

 

[Furball]

This I find interesting but probably need more context

There will be plenty of opening bats discarded for failing to average 35.

Without checking statsguru, reckon English opening bats since Strauss will have a miserable average that's dragged significantly upwards by Cook.

37 isn't a terrible average. To me that's a player who's obviously good enough to play Test cricket, will play a few great innings but will have some flaws that stop consistently big scores. Atherton also faced McGrath, Walsh, Ambrose, Donald, Pollock, Wasim and Waqar with the new ball; he and his contemporaries must have had just about the hardest job of any opening bats in history.

 

[Furball]

There's something about Stewart that I can't stand. Probably the fact that he's Mr Surrey and loves Chelsea.

 

[AldoRaine18]

There's something about Stewart that I can't stand. Probably the fact that he's Mr Surrey and loves Chelsea.

Well I for one am glad I didn't vote for him then.

 

[GIMH]

There will be plenty of opening bats discarded for failing to average 35.

Without checking statsguru, reckon English opening bats since Strauss will have a miserable average that's dragged significantly upwards by Cook.

37 isn't a terrible average. To me that's a player who's obviously good enough to play Test cricket, will play a few great innings but will have some flaws that stop consistently big scores. Atherton also faced McGrath, Walsh, Ambrose, Donald, Pollock, Wasim and Waqar with the new ball; he and his contemporaries must have had just about the hardest job of any opening bats in history.

Yeah pretty much spot on.

I mean not to indulge Richard's theory that cricket became a different sport in September 2001, but I do imagine Athers would have averaged about five more a decade later

 

[Neil Pickup]

England opening batsmen since 1990 - a distinct "the wheel is forever" feeling about this list.

 

[fredfertang]

Surprised that many can actually read.

OK I admit it - I hacked some other accounts and voted for him more than once, but come the glorious day and Jeremy Corbyn becoming PM there will be education for all, including Lancastrians

 

[Furball]

England opening batsmen since 1990 - a distinct "the wheel is forever" feeling about this list.

I'd say the opposite - 22 years more or less covered by 6 batsmen.

 

[grecian]

OK I admit it - I hacked some other accounts and voted for him more than once, but come the glorious day and Jeremy Corbyn becoming PM there will be education for all, including Lancastrians

You can drag a horse to water and all that.

Clearly Stewie by a long distance.

BTW, it's not really just a Richard thing that batting has got a bit easier since the early 2000's it's just him that put it to an actual date that was 4 days after Athers retired, coincidentally of course.

In the ends pitches just stopped wearing in the way they did. Mind you with DRS and more LBWs being given, IMO, because of it, that may be ending now.

 

[ImpatientLime]

stewart by a considerable distance. outrageously good tons against wasim & waqar, those two fellas from the west indies, mcgrath and his cronies. a hugely talented opener who was ruined to some degree by the english selection policy of the 90s. see russell & fraser.

but in fairness to him, regardless of his patchy career, athertons 98* and 185* are as good as anything played by contemporaries in his era. man was capable of incredible high ceiling efforts.

 

[Howe_zat]

I think the idea of Atherton's average was not so much due to the era (though that plays its part - no openers averaging 50) but mainly because Atherton was the sort of player to be at his best in low-scoring games, and batting average just doesn't reward those players so much.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It was just a horrible quirk of fate that prevented Atherton from averaging 60.

Atherton played at a time bowling and catching were, TSTL, impossibly higher than that which Trescothick did.

Atherton was almost finished by the time he and Trescothick played together - the effects of the final cortisone injection were wearing-off in 2001, and his performances dipped.

Atherton > Trescothick in calender-year 2000.

And frankly, if Atherton had been dropped as many times as Trescothick has in his career and faced the bowling Trescothick mostly has 2001\02-2006 (and, of course, not had 1991-1996\97-1998\99-2001-style bouts of chronic-injury-afflictedness), I reckon he could easily have averaged 60.

 

[Flem274*]

didn't atherton's average plummet right at the end?

and digging up a richard post was cruel for a sunday morning.