• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Does Michael Atherton get a bad rap?

Zinzan

Zinzan

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Further to much of the above, while his average was below 40, I'm sure he faced more deliveries per innings than many a bat who averaged >40, and that should be factored in for an opener who's job in the naughties was primarily to see off the new ball.

His style would not suit England's current Test approach though... that is for sure.
 
0

_00_deathscar

International Regular
subshakerz said:
Deserved a 40 plus average.

Just to put it in perspective, Atherton played 115 matches. Around 80 to 85 matches were against worldclass pace attacks in a bowler friendly era. Perhaps no opener in cricket history has been tested that much apart from Gavaskar maybe.

You could easily replace 20 tests of those against soft attacks and his average would have gone up.
Click to expand...
True that - he did make merry against the India and NZ attacks so there's evidence that he'd have smacked mediocre attacks around a bit.
 
P

Pothas

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Chubb said:
There are some people who really dislike him, perhaps because they associate him with the so-called nadir of English cricket (I'd argue they played better in the 1997 and 98-99 Ashes than they did in 2006-07, 13-14, 17-18 or 21-22)

Some either don't know or don't care that he had a serious back problem for most of his career. It's possible without that his technical flaw against pace (jabbing outside off, compulsive hooking) could have been corrected and he may have averaged 40+ overall. But it was a very difficult time to be an opener.

So overall I don't think he gets a bad rap from most people but there is a minority of mainly English people who see him as a failure and a shambles, mostly because they don't really understand cricket.
Click to expand...
I think most people of my generation have a huge nostalgic affection for him and others of that team.

@GIMH mentioned Strauss being better and he probably was but don't think anyone will be making a thread about him in 10 years time.
 
BazBall21

BazBall21

International Captain
Atherton played exclusively in arguably the strongest bowling era of all time and opened against the gun attacks (Aus/WI/SA/Pak) in 88 out of his 110 tests (that’s 80%!). Definitely warranted a slightly higher average. That run out at Lords was sad but will never not be funny.
 
BazBall21

BazBall21

International Captain
Stewart though was definitely better than Atherton. When occupying a top-3 position, he averaged 44.3 which is higher than what the likes of Gary Kirsten, Mark Taylor and Michael Slater managed under that time frame (1990-2000); he was also foolishly burdened by the gloves in 19 of those 65 tests. Think Anwar was the only opener who played through that period that averaged more than Stewart when batting in the top three.
 
Chubb

Chubb

International Regular
BazBall21 said:
Stewart though was definitely better than Atherton. When occupying a top-3 position, he averaged 44.3 which is higher than what the likes of Gary Kirsten, Mark Taylor and Michael Slater managed under that time frame (1990-2000); he was also foolishly burdened by the gloves in 19 of those 65 tests. Think Anwar was the only opener who played through that period that averaged more than Stewart when batting in the top three.
Click to expand...
Stewart chose to take the gloves, he could have said no and they’d still have picked him.
 
mr_mister

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Was the most prized wicket in the English team from Goochs retirement to the '97 ashes. It was all downhill from there
 
mr_mister

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
_00_deathscar said:
I don't get that whole situation - they had a seriously good keeper in Jack Russell, and a seriously good batsman in Alec Stewart.
Instead they screwed it all up.
Click to expand...
It was to fit the likes of the Hollioakes, Chris Lewis and Mark Ealham in the team in the quest for the next Botham
 
Howe_zat

Howe_zat

Audio File
mr_mister said:
Was the most prized wicket in the English team from Goochs retirement to the '97 ashes. It was all downhill from there
Click to expand...
There's an awful lot of players who could be considered the big wicket in a middling team for about two years. I don't think this assessment sings many praises.
 
BoyBrumby

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Pothas said:
I think most people of my generation have a huge nostalgic affection for him and others of that team.

@GIMH mentioned Strauss being better and he probably was but don't think anyone will be making a thread about him in 10 years time.
Click to expand...
Unless someone else captains England to an Ashes win down under, I bet they are!

But yeah, had a lot of ticker and palpably rung everything he could out of his talent. Or as much as his AS allowed, at any rate.

One of the problems I have with rating him is that, after his 185no at the Wanderers and his duel with Donald in 98, the first things that come to mind are the dirt in the pocket and being McGrath's bunny.
 
Slifer

Slifer

International Captain
So I just did my own research and these are some of the bowlers Mike would've faced:

WI: Marshall, Walsh, Ambrose, Bishop (pre injury)
Pak: Wasim, Waqar, Saqlain, Shoaib
RSA: Donald, Pollock, DeVilliers, Schultz
Aus: McGrath, Warne, Gillespie, Reid, Reifel
SL: Murali, Vaas
Ind: Kumble
NZ: Hadlee

That's an insane quality of bowling to face over a career and particularly as an opener. Yeah maybe Michael had it harder than any other batsman in history.
 
BazBall21

BazBall21

International Captain
Probably the strongest ever sustained era of quality bowling, an unkind schedule, a poor team, and English conditions to boot. Good old Athers.
 
Chubb

Chubb

International Regular
Slifer said:
So I just did my own research and these are some of the bowlers Mike would've faced:

WI: Marshall, Walsh, Ambrose, Bishop (pre injury)
Pak: Wasim, Waqar, Saqlain, Shoaib
RSA: Donald, Pollock, DeVilliers, Schultz
Aus: McGrath, Warne, Gillespie, Reid, Reifel
SL: Murali, Vaas
Ind: Kumble
NZ: Hadlee

That's an insane quality of bowling to face over a career and particularly as an opener. Yeah maybe Michael had it harder than any other batsman in history.
Click to expand...
Also had to face Streak in his prime supported by Brandes.
 
F

Fuller Pilch

Hall of Fame Member
Slifer said:
So I just did my own research and these are some of the bowlers Mike would've faced:

WI: Marshall, Walsh, Ambrose, Bishop (pre injury)
Pak: Wasim, Waqar, Saqlain, Shoaib
RSA: Donald, Pollock, DeVilliers, Schultz
Aus: McGrath, Warne, Gillespie, Reid, Reifel
SL: Murali, Vaas
Ind: Kumble
NZ: Hadlee

That's an insane quality of bowling to face over a career and particularly as an opener. Yeah maybe Michael had it harder than any other batsman in history.
Click to expand...
John Wright - similar average to Atherton but better player

WI - Holding, Croft, Garner, Roberts, Marshall, Walsh,
Pak - Imran, Sarfraz, Qadir, Iqbal Qasim, Wasim,
Aus - Lillee, Thomson, Pascoe, Alderman, McDermott, Reid, Reiffel, Warne
Eng - Willis, Botham,
India - Kapil
SL - Murali
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top