Dire cricketers who had a successful test career

[silentstriker]

That is applicable for poor players. But Atherton was not poor. He was mediocre. And in any other team at that point in time, wouldnt have played so many number of test matches he eventually played. Atherton playing for 10+ years for England denotes lack of a good opener during that period, than being endorsement of Atherton as a test batsman.

I never mentioned Atherton. Atherton, I thought, was a good player who had a successful Test career. He was one of the batsmen that I immediately liked when first getting into Test cricket.

He was the toffee apple surrounded by candy floss, the wicket above all others that the opposition savoured.

There was another one, which went something like, 'You know its Christmas when England are collapsing and Atherton is battling to save a Test in some far off land'.

Describes him perfectly. Doesn't matter he averaged 41, his value to his team was immense. I think he was a very underrated cricketer myself, and a very good one. Not great, but very good.

 

[Goughy]

Basically, when Athers got out you thought 'oh crap'. That's how important a player he was to us.

Throughout the 90s I remember saying little else related to cricket but 'oh crap' and not just when Atheron was out.

 

[aussie]

I don't think he is dire. But he certainly deserved to play so many tests that he eventually played. Hence my nomination to this thread.

Carl Hooper is another such person.

Nasser Hussain too.

Nah, hooper would is more suited to the category of "extremely talented player who didn't make the most of his ability until very late". By no means mediocre, could match Lara stroke for stroke or better him at times..

 

[Richard]

Throughout the 90s I remember saying little else related to cricket but 'oh crap' and not just when Atheron was out.

You really "oh crap"ed the memorable performance at the very start of the decade, where only rain denied England a 2-2 draw (having been 2-0 up) in West Indies? Or the twin victories over New Zealand and India that glorious summer, erasing the awful memories of 1986? Or the admirable draw with WI in 1991? Or the comfortable victory in NZ in 1991/92? Or the series against Pakistan that if a couple of tailenders had been knocked-over would have been won? Or the series in WI in 1994 where a drop being caught might well have seen a third consecutive 2-2 against a side that had been hammering England non-stop for 14 years? Or the victory over NZ and stirring performance to earn a 1-1 draw against South Africa that summer? Or the Ashes tour in 1994/95 where only lost play stopped an England side who'd had half the squad injured going into the last Test all-square? Or the would-be 4th consecutive 2-2 against WI in 1995? Or the hang-with in SA in 1995/96, where only an insipid spell with the new-ball in the final game made the difference between England having a one-innings game to win the series? Or the victory over India in 1996? Or the one over NZ in 1996/97 which would've been a whitewash but for the most unlikely last-wicket partnership in history? Or The Ashes 1997 where an Umpiring decision and a drop were about all there was between England and victory? Or the 1998 series in WI where only a toss, some rain and a silly collapse averted a 3-1 victory? Or the stirring victory over SA in 1998?

Sometimes I think people look back on the 1990s and think "how crap things were" just to try and pretend the last 9 years have been better than they really have, I really do.

England were far from outstanding in the 1990s but only 4 times (the subcontinent tour of 1992/93, The Ashes of 1993, the Pakistan series of 1996 and arguably the NZ one of 1999) were they truly wretched.

Compared to the second half of the 1980s, England's play in the 1990s was regal.

 

[Goughy]

There was another one, which went something like, 'You know its Christmas when England are collapsing and Atherton is battling to save a Test in some far off land'.

Describes him perfectly. Doesn't matter he averaged 41, his value to his team was immense. I think he was a very underrated cricketer myself, and a very good one. Not great, but very good.

The way Atherton batted conjured up visuals of great defensive vigils. However, with one or 2 special examples, the truth was often far from that.

He was technically deficient in defence on the front foot (where he opened the face and almost gave catching practice to the slips) and on the back foot (where he squared up and was all at sea). He also became a compulsive hooker. Some on cricketweb think he wasnt but his hooking was a real issue that was taken advantage of.

When he was in form his concentration and dedication could cover these inadequacies to a certain extent.

However, if not in top form, no level of mental skills could paper over the technical problems.

Some get confused between the terms technical and defensive. Atherton was defensive but not technical.

So despite a defensive style and strong mental skills, he could never be consistent as he didnt possess the technique to carry him through troughs in form.

 

[Lambu]

Sourav Ganguly..surely if Atherton fits this ctaegory than so must Ganguly, taking into account the decline in the quality of bowling and playing surfaces compared to the early 90's.

 

[Richard]

Nah, hooper would is more suited to the category of "extremely talented player who didn't make the most of his ability until very late". By no means mediocre, could match Lara stroke for stroke or better him at times..

Hooper was crap for ages. No two ways about. However many shots he had, he was terrible at knowing when to use them early on.

He did get much better though. From May 1993 onwards, he was undoubtedly Test-class.

 

[Richard]

He also became a compulsive hooker. Some on cricketweb think he wasnt but his hooking was a real issue that was taken advantage of.

When was this exactly? Aside from the 1998/99 tour when he was less compulsive hooker and more unable-to-duck-due-to-lack-of-fitness, I can't really remember him being repeatedly out to the hook stroke.

So despite a defensive style and strong mental skills, he could never be consistent as he didnt possess the technique to carry him through troughs in form.

He was though. He wasn't consistently excellent as Geoff Boycott for example had been, but he was consistently good. Only very rarely when fit did he have out-and-out bad series'. And obviously no-one is going to be able to average over 40 every series.

 

[aussie]

You really "oh crap"ed the memorable performance at the very start of the decade, where only rain denied England a 2-2 draw (having been 2-0 up) in West Indies? Or the twin victories over New Zealand and India that glorious summer, erasing the awful memories of 1986? Or the admirable draw with WI in 1991? Or the comfortable victory in NZ in 1991/92? Or the series against Pakistan that if a couple of tailenders had been knocked-over would have been won? Or the series in WI in 1994 where a drop being caught might well have seen a third consecutive 2-2 against a side that had been hammering England non-stop for 14 years? Or the victory over NZ and stirring performance to earn a 1-1 draw against South Africa that summer? Or the Ashes tour in 1994/95 where only lost play stopped an England side who'd had half the squad injured going into the last Test all-square? Or the would-be 4th consecutive 2-2 against WI in 1995? Or the hang-with in SA in 1995/96, where only an insipid spell with the new-ball in the final game made the difference between England having a one-innings game to win the series? Or the victory over India in 1996? Or the one over NZ in 1996/97 which would've been a whitewash but for the most unlikely last-wicket partnership in history? Or The Ashes 1997 where an Umpiring decision and a drop were about all there was between England and victory? Or the 1998 series in WI where only a toss, some rain and a silly collapse averted a 3-1 victory? Or the stirring victory over SA in 1998?

Sometimes I think people look back on the 1990s and think "how crap things were" just to try and pretend the last 9 years have been better than they really have, I really do.

England were far from outstanding in the 1990s but only 4 times (the subcontinent tour of 1992/93, The Ashes of 1993, the Pakistan series of 1996 and arguably the NZ one of 1999) were they truly wretched.

Compared to the second half of the 1980s, England's play in the 1990s was regal.

Solid post son, England in 90s weren't that bad. The players were a bit more talented than the some of the blokes that did well this era under Fletcher.

I sort of doubt some of those same players could have bettered the 90s performances. If Fletcher had coached the during the 90s ENG would have done better IMO. The problem is we mixed inconsistency with some SHOCKING selections of some horrific county trundlers..

 

[Goughy]

You really "oh crap"ed the memorable performance at the very start of the decade, where only rain denied England a 2-2 draw (having been 2-0 up) in West Indies? .

That didnt happen. You need to check your sources.

Sometimes I think people look back on the 1990s and think "how crap things were" just to try and pretend the last 9 years have been better than they really have, I really do.

I watched virtually every available ball of 1990s Test cricket and it wasnt pretty. The occasional win against average teams, surrounded by getting stuffed was no fun.

It was not an enjoyable time to be an England fan.

 

[Richard]

That didnt happen. You need to check your sources.

It certainly did happen. England won the First Test at Sabina Park - easily - and would have won the Third (the Second was completely washed-out) but for rain. West Indies then came back and won the last two. So it'd have been 2-2, with England having been 2-0 up, had rain not intervened.

I watched virtually every available ball of 1990s Test cricket and it wasnt pretty. The occasional win against average teams, surrounded by getting stuffed was no fun.

It was not an enjoyable time to be an England fan.

England weren't often stuffed. Beaten, yes, but usually by fine margins. Being comprehensively outplayed and thrashed happened just 4 times - 1990/91, 1992/93, 1993 and 1996 (Pakistan).

The second half of the 1980s was when England were comprehensively stuffed by anyone and everyone, everywhere.

The 1990s certainly wasn't a particularly enjoyable time to be an England fan, no. The last time there was an enjoyable time to be an England fan for anything more than a year or so at a time was the mid-1950s. Even that was only 5 years. The last time you could really be proud of England's excellence for a truly extended time was before the First World War.

 

[Goughy]

When was this exactly? Aside from the 1998/99 tour when he was less compulsive hooker and more unable-to-duck-due-to-lack-of-fitness, I can't really remember him being repeatedly out to the hook stroke.

I hate having to go over the same stuff repeatedly.

That Atherton had a problem with the hook is well known.

Just to pull a few lines from around the web over the years.

"It is a stroke he is unable to control. At Old Trafford he had been caught behind hooking at one from Glenn McGrath which was going down the leg side. Now, it was as if he was giving fine leg catching practice."

"Atherton should realise that the hook is not a percentage stroke for him and cut it out of his repertoire"

"England opener Michael Atherton's penchant for hooking again led to his downfall"

"Mike Atherton has had a love-hate relationship with the stroke. It has got him out on several occasions and yet he bravely goes on playing it, as he did twice against Glenn McGrath between the showers here yesterday."

"It was the fourth time in 15 months Atherton had fallen victim to the hook shot - and one McGrath is happy to see him play in his bid to continue his stranglehold over the batsman"

"I wouldn't insult his intelligence," said Lloyd. "He's got nearly 6,000 Test runs and if he is happy hooking then I'm sure he knows what he's doing. "

Im not going to go through different sources. There is plenty out there. Just look for yourself.

Id love to know what you base your ideas on as you obviously barely watched a ball.

Just as a clincher, what is Athertons cricinfo profile picture?

Atherton hooking of course

 

[Richard]

I know that, I've seen it before. And yes, I watched more of Atherton's career than not.

What I want to know is when the stroke constantly got him out, when he was fit enough to be ducking instead. I know of no occasions. I don't want people talking about how they thought he was vulnerable to it if the truth was that he wasn't. You are vulnerable to the compulsive hook only if you're constantly getting out caught at square or backward of off short deliveries. The only time I've ever seen Atherton do that was 1998/99.

 

[zaremba]

Applies to any batsman who has done well only for a short period of time, yet overall was mediocre. Invalid argument.



There were some good players but overall England were strictly mediocre. And Athers was the perfect example for it. He is way overrated.

I disagree wholeheatedly. He was an absolutely superb player whose Test average does not reflect his quality. He would walk into England's team now, at a time when the top 6 all average over 40.

Without him, England's cricket in the 1990s would simply have disappeared down the plughole.

 

[fredfertang]

There aren't many whose test stats are better than their overall first class careers

One who springs to mind though is Bradman - does he count?

Others that spring to mind are Herbert Sutcliffe and, quite spectacularly, Eddie Paynter

 

[zaremba]

There aren't many whose test stats are better than their overall first class careers

One who springs to mind though is Bradman - does he count?

Others that spring to mind are Herbert Sutcliffe and, quite spectacularly, Eddie Paynter

Trescothick, Sutcliffe, Vaughan, Gower, Paynter.

Not a bad top 5, which took me 7.4 seconds to select.

 

[Goughy]

Trescothick, Sutcliffe, Vaughan, Gower, Paynter.

Not a bad top 5, which took me 7.4 seconds to select.

Barrington would deserve a crack

 

[zaremba]

Barrington would deserve a crack

Did he win the Ashes with tonsilitis?

 

[fredfertang]

Kenny Barrington sadly never played in ashes winning side

Eddie Paynter rose from his hospital bed to win a test in the Bodyline series - they breed 'em tough in Lancashire

 

[Richard]

The difference between Barrington's Surrey and England records has always truly staggered me.

A latter-day, totally reversed Ramprakash.