also, a 510 runs from 9 inning series in Windies against 1994 Ambrose though had a stinker series against him as wellAtherton. Home and away heroics v Donald&Pollock's SAF, very good v a decent seam attack in New Zealand, solid returns v a strong Australia before McGrath became elite.
Yeah the mid-90s was his peak. Cook was a better overall player but the lack of games in Asia coupled with so many tests v ATG quicks would leave him stranded.also, a 510 runs from 9 inning series in Windies against 1994 Ambrose though had a stinker series against him as wellalso singlehandedly ruined Ambrose's retirement game.
I can't really see Cook averaging 40 in Atherton's shoes Yeah, only real ATGs he had to face he did horribly against and Atherton had to face better pacers regularlyYeah the mid-90s was his peak. Cook was a better overall player but the lack of games in Asia coupled with so many tests v ATG quicks would leave him stranded.
this is true, but so does Cook, and at the end, Cook's output against the good pacers of his time is also kind of dissapointing.Some serious revisionism here. Atherton had some terrible technical flaws to the quicks that often saw him edging to the slips whilst squared up and facing directly down the wicket.
Cook had one good (and it was great) series v Australia, which also happened to be the mildest Australian attack he faced. He wasn't hopeless against them outside that and could be serviceable, but they consistently got the better of him. Fairly modest record v SA&NZ and struggled v Pakistan in 2010 which was a dangerous new ball pair in seam-friendly conditions. Ditto India in 2018.Some serious revisionism here. Atherton had some terrible technical flaws to the quicks that often saw him edging to the slips whilst squared up and facing directly down the wicket. His decent scores came despite that. Cook vastly superior for my money; I would have killed to have an opener like Cook instead of Atherton throughout the 90s.
Atherton had to continually fight against his technique against the pacers. For every 'success' against Donald, there was an embarrassment of dismissals against McGrath or Walsh or Ambrose. There were whole series in the 90s where I had to watch through my fingers as Atherton struggled against the new ball. Kudos to Atherton for his tenacity, but his weaknesses were glaring and exploited to a much broader extent.Cook was a better overall player and excelled heavily at his strengths, but I think Atherton was a moderately better player of pace.
So did Cook.Atherton had to continually fight against his technique against the pacers. For every 'success' against Donald, there was an embarrassment of dismissals against McGrath or Walsh or Ambrose. There were whole series in the 90s where I had to watch through my fingers as Atherton struggled against the new ball. Kudos to Atherton for his tenacity, but his weaknesses were glaring and exploited to a much broader extent.
Not to anywhere near the extent that Atherton did. No way.So did Cook.
It appears that way because Cook played mostly in a far more forgiving era. He had a flawed technique just as Atherton did. Excessive weight on the front foot in his stance as the bowler came running in led to hanging back and struggling to get off the crease in a natural motion, a very late trigger made him vulnerable to well-directed pace and bounce, a heavy bottom hand grip hampered his off side game etc.Not to anywhere near the extent that Atherton did. No way.
He was solid against 2Ws, Donald and Ambrose Walsh, but I've never seen someone look so helpless as he did against McGrath.Atherton has to be one of the most unfortunate openers in cricket history.