Dire cricketers who had a successful test career

[zaremba]

Uhh, fast bowling certainly, i don't think there was an equivalent of Warne or Murali though.

I'll not be arguing with that.

We're seeing swing bowling becoming very prominent lately too, with bowlers trying to take the pitch out of the equation.

Yes. I'm not sure if you're drawing a comparison with times gone by here, but for what it's worth, in swing bowling terms, the 80s were a pretty good decade imho - Imran, Botham, Kapil, Lillee, Alderman spring to mind.

 

[zaremba]

I dont buy that the standard of fast bowling have particularly declined. Though the pitches have certainly got more difficult to bowl on in general and there have been other factors that have helped the batsman in the very recent past.

I just can't think of many great fast bowlers at the moment, and it's not been a great decade for them. Most of the greats of the 2000s began their careers, and peaked, in the 1990s.

 

[Goughy]

I just can't think of many great fast bowlers at the moment, and it's not been a great decade for them. Most of the greats of the 2000s began their careers, and peaked, in the 1990s.

Well tracks are flatter, batting has adapted to taking advantage of flat tracks, bat technology has moved on etc.

However, I think Ive been around cricket long enough and watched, played and coached enough to go a bit deeper in comparing players I have seen than just stats.

From my POV, I firmly believe if you took Brett Lee and put him in a Test match in the 1980s that he would terrify people.

This was the 80s equiv of Brett Lee. An upgrade, no?

There are more rapid quicks today than ever before (and Im saying that as someone who grew up on 80s and 90s cricket). If someone were to argue that there are not the same number of craftsmen like Lillee, Hadlee or Imran then I could also possibly agree with that as well.

I just dont think it is as simple as saying averages are higher therefore bowlers are worse. IMO there is a lot of comparable talent out there right now.

 

[Ikki]

To put it shortly:

Pakistan were better in the 90s, India were better in the 90s, Sri Lanka were way better in the 90s, Australia were way better in the 90s, there was no S.Africa in the 80s (but they would have been one of the best attacks had they had a comparable attack) and West Indies, was slightly worse in the 90s, but still very good. Zimbabwe, of course didn't play in the 80s but that hardly matters because they weren't that good in the 90s.

So we're left with Pakistan who were slightly worse in the 80s, West Indies who were slightly better in the 80s, England who were slightly better in the 80s and those were the strong attacks of the time, really.

NZ is debatable in my eyes. They were simply a 1-man attack. More balanced in the 90s. Nash, Doull, Vettori, Cairns...much more balanced indeed, for me.

And we haven't even touched on the 70s or 60s yet. 80s stack up well against the 90s, but still discernably weaker.

 

[zaremba]

Well tracks are flatter, batting has adapted to taking advantage of flat tracks, bat technology has moved on etc.

However, I think Ive been around cricket long enough and watched, played and coached enough to go a bit deeper in comparing players I have seen than just stats.

From my POV, I firmly believe if you took Brett Lee and put him in a Test match in the 1980s that he would terrify people.

This was the 80s equiv of Brett Lee. An upgrade, no?

There are more rapid quicks today than ever before (and Im saying that as someone who grew up on 80s and 90s cricket). If someone were to argue that there are not the same number of craftsmen like Lillee, Hadlee or Imran then I could also possibly agree with that as well.

I just dont think it is as simple as saying averages are higher therefore bowlers are worse. IMO there is a lot of comparable talent out there right now.

Yeah I know that it's not just a question of raw averages, and the various factors you refer to all play a part. There are a lot of good batsmen around today as well. But it's only natural that there will be fluctuations in the supply of talented fast bowlers and my view is that we're just not in a very rich seam (apologies) at the moment.

 

[Uppercut]

Well tracks are flatter, batting has adapted to taking advantage of flat tracks, bat technology has moved on etc.

However, I think Ive been around cricket long enough and watched, played and coached enough to go a bit deeper in comparing players I have seen than just stats.

From my POV, I firmly believe if you took Brett Lee and put him in a Test match in the 1980s that he would terrify people.

This was the 80s equiv of Brett Lee. An upgrade, no?

There are more rapid quicks today than ever before (and Im saying that as someone who grew up on 80s and 90s cricket). If someone were to argue that there are not the same number of craftsmen like Lillee, Hadlee or Imran then I could also possibly agree with that as well.

I just dont think it is as simple as saying averages are higher therefore bowlers are worse. IMO there is a lot of comparable talent out there right now.

Generally, as with zaremba, i believe that the overall quality of any sport improves with time. When i say the standard of quick bowling is worse, i really mean the very, very top class- like, top ten fast bowlers anywhere in the world. At a time when the top pace bowlers are players like Steyn, Flintoff, Clark, Lee, i'm not of the opinion that they're better bowlers than Walsh, Ambrose, McGrath and Akram. The quality of the top 0.0001% always has a fair degree of chaos about it.

 

[zaremba]

To put it shortly:

Pakistan were better in the 90s, India were better in the 90s, Sri Lanka were way better in the 90s, Australia were way better in the 90s, there was no S.Africa in the 80s (but they would have been one of the best attacks had they had a comparable attack) and West Indies, was slightly worse in the 90s, but still very good. Zimbabwe, of course didn't play in the 80s but that hardly matters because they weren't that good in the 90s.

So we're left with Pakistan who were slightly worse in the 80s, West Indies who were slightly better in the 80s, England who were slightly better in the 80s and those were the strong attacks of the time, really.

NZ is debatable in my eyes. They were simply a 1-man attack. More balanced in the 90s. Nash, Doull, Vettori, Cairns...much more balanced indeed, for me.

And we haven't even touched on the 70s or 60s yet. 80s stack up well against the 90s, but still discernably weaker.

Well we seem to be looking at this through different prisms, as the highlighted part shows!

Disagree for the reasons already given re Pakistan and Australia.

You're right about South Africa but if you're going to factor them in you have to factor in Zimbabwe as well - it's not good enough simply saying "well we leave them out of account for the 90s because they weren't very good and therefore don't support my argument".

 

[zaremba]

Generally, as with zaremba, i believe that the overall quality of any sport improves with time.

Are you saying I improve with age? Charmer.

 

[Ikki]

Well we seem to be looking at this through different prisms, as the highlighted part shows!

The highlighted part shows the bitter truth. The great WIndies foursome hardly played with each other and it was a combination of bowlers in the 80s that made them great. Stack that up against Ambrose, Walsh and Bishop and you can see why I think they were only slightly better. Or let's just say better. But the WIndies in the 90s were one of the best attacks if not the best until around the mid 90s.

Disagree for the reasons already given re Pakistan and Australia.

Pakistan in the 90s had Wasim, Waqar, Saqlain and Mushtaq...not forgetting a Shoaib Akhtar who came on in the latter stages of the 90s. Imran is the only bowler they didn't have that stands out and they had Wasim and Waqar who more than made up for it. Saqlain was better than Qadir and Mushtaq not far off either.

And Australia...who the **** did Australia have in the 80s that even gets CLOSE to what they had in the 90s? You must be kidding me.

You're right about South Africa but if you're going to factor them in you have to factor in Zimbabwe as well - it's not good enough simply saying "well we leave them out of account for the 90s because they weren't very good and therefore don't support my argument".

I am not saying we should factor it out. If I want to be completely fair they are more than matched by their inferiority by the Sri Lankans in the 80s. It just doesn't matter because there were more teams in the 90s and more better teams.

LOL, and let's not get into the 70s or the 60s. Then the comparison will truly be stark.

 

[Uppercut]

Are you saying I improve with age? Charmer.

 

[zaremba]

And Australia...who the **** did Australia have in the 80s that even gets CLOSE to what they had in the 90s? You must be kidding me.

No, I'm not kidding you, but I suggest you re-read what I wrote. I didn't compare Australia in the 80s with Australia in the 90s, I compared Australia in the 70s with Australia in the 90s.

As far as the 80s are concerned, who the **** did they have that compared with their bowlers from the 90s? Well, Reid, Rackemann, Hughes and McDermott for a start...

Going back a little further I'd suggest that an attack formed variously from Lillee, Thomson, Alderman, Hogg, Pascoe, Massie (I'm sure I'm forgetting some but I'm not going to research this) were comparable with an attack comprising, in addition to Warne and McGrath, the likes of Mike Kasprowicz, Brendon Julian, Tim May, et al.

 

[zaremba]

Saqlain was better than Qadir

 

[Goughy]

My thoughts on the differing attacks of the decades (80s vs 90s)

West Indies
Stronger in the 80s
At the front end there isnt much difference but the 80s line-up had far more depth.

England
Stronger in the 90s
A fat Botham, a broken down Willis, a tame Emburey and a seldom fit Dilley doesnt compare to Fraser, Caddick, Gough and maybe Tufnell.

Australia
Stronger in the 90s
Good attack with solid fast bowling that blossomed into a world class balanced attack in the 90s.

India
Stronger in the 90s
The 80s attack was carried by Kapil, and a fleet of ordinary spinners. The 90s added an edge wih Srinanth and Kumble

NZ
Stronger in the 80s
That Hadlee chap makes a big difference and he had solid support even though Cairns, Doull, Nash and Morrison probably had more of an edge.

Pakistan
Stronger in the 90s
Dangerous in the 1980s but had greater depth and overall quality in the 90s. Players like Waqar, Wasim, Mushtaq and Saqlain brought Pakistan in the 90s to the closest they have ever been to World #1.

Sri Lanka
Stronger in the 90s
Murali.

 

[Goughy]

As far as the 80s are concerned, who the **** did they have that compared with their bowlers from the 90s? Well, Reid, Rackemann, Hughes and McDermott for a start...

Hughes and McDermott both took more wickets and played in more Tests in the 90s than the 80s.

 

[Ikki]

No, I'm not kidding you, but I suggest you re-read what I wrote. I didn't compare Australia in the 80s with Australia in the 90s, I compared Australia in the 70s with Australia in the 90s.

Umm yeah, you can't really pick and choose between the best of each era and compare to only the 90s. Otherwise the argument just loses all relevancy.

As far as the 80s are concerned, who the **** did they have that compared with their bowlers from the 90s? Well, Reid, Rackemann, Hughes and McDermott for a start...

Both Hughes and McDermott are as much 90s bowlers as they are 80s bowlers. Not only were they pretty ordinary in the 80s, but they played more in the 90s (Craig did so much more).

Then you compare that to two all-time greats in Warne and McGrath, backed up by McDermott, Hughes, Reiffel, Gillespie, Kaspa, Macgill...and it's a non-contest.

Going back a little further I'd suggest that an attack formed variously from Lillee, Thomson, Alderman, Hogg, Pascoe, Massie (I'm sure I'm forgetting some but I'm not going to research this) were comparable with an attack comprising, in addition to Warne and McGrath, the likes of Mike Kasprowicz, Brendon Julian, Tim May, et al.

Alderman didn't bowl in the 70s my friend. Rodney Hogg too, is also a bowler of the 80s and had a short career. Nevermind that he was not as good as Gillespie was, for example - more like a Paul Reiffel. Then you throw in Pascoe who played 14 tests, and I know you're having a laugh. Even Lillee and Thommo only played 20 or so together.

 

[zaremba]

Alderman didn't bowl in the 70s my friend.

Didn't say he did, my friend

p.s. To be fair, you have (genuinely) convinced me that Australia's attack in the 90s was stronger than in the 70s / 80s.

 

[zaremba]

Hughes and McDermott both took more wickets and played in more Tests in the 90s than the 80s.

I know - I was just making the obvious response to a dreadfully weak point

 

[Richard]

If he was not test class, why he played? Denotes that he played mostly because others around him were crap. So he was test player by elimination than being first and only choice. There is no way 2001 can be irrelevant, because we are talking test matches and you just can't discount terrible performances by saying he's past his peak. Everyone has a peak, however the judgement of a player should never be made just on the basis of that.

There's a difference between peak, plateau and slide. Atherton's peak was probably about 1996, but a peak is a short time. A plateau, on the other hand, is a long period where a player is broadly the same. For Atherton, this was the 90 Tests where he was fit between 1990 and 2000. In 1989 he was not Test-class; in 1996/97 and 1998/99 he was so unfit no-one of such a fitness level would ever have performed a dime; and in 2001 he was no longer much good.

I fail to see any reason why all the above should be treated the same. Because, purely and simply, they weren't. Players don't stay the same all career, and I myself happen to think that if a player is as good as Atherton was for 90 Tests, they earn the right to have a few games where they were useless, when most other players have similar things for similar reasons, discounted. I never take the slightest notice of anything Vivian Richards did from 1988 onwards either, nor do I set that much stall by Sachin Tendulkar's first 8 Tests, nor do I even remotely consider the idea of treating his career from 1990 to 2002 as the same as his career from 2003 onwards. Because, once again, they simply weren't.

When since averages of 35 became "more than acceptable"? He was crap always against Australia and was owned by McG so many times that it ceased to be funny. The only series he had something to tell about him was in 1993 and probably 94-95. The other 5 series, he was very very mediocre.

Which actually equates to just 1 series of significance - 1997. I've already mentioned why he was moderate in 1989, 1998/99 and 2001, and the reason had precisely nothing to do with the fact that the opposition was Australia. He'd have done poorly those seasons whoever he was up against.

Atherton was never "exceptional" at any point in his career. Yet for some reason, he was always a fixture.

You don't have to be exceptional to be Test-class. Atherton was never the latter; he was the former for almost all of his career, and pretty good as well.

If he was not fully fit, he shouldnt have played. That is bloody criminal. And no way to be discounted.

Why not? How on Earth can you possibly contend that fit Atherton and unfit Atherton are even remotely close to being the same thing?

They weren't. They were spectacularly different and should be put in a different category.

Exactly my point. Atherton played because so poor was English cricket as regards to batting at that point in time. That is why I say he was English cricket personified.

In 1989? English cricket in 1989 was the example of laughing-stock, and yeah, I guess picking lads a couple of months out of uni is such a thing. However, from 1990 onwards, when fit, Atherton was far from a laughing-stock and nor were England.

Plenty??

Yes, plenty. As I say, you don't have to make 144 for it to be a good knock.

 

[Richard]

Not at all. There is absolutely nothing in his batsmanship that suggest he'd have averaged more than 50 had he played in the 90s. And Gibbs was an attacking player whereas Athers was purely a defensive player who always lacked the 3rd and 4th gear. Rather in these days when aggressive openers set the tone for the innings, he'd been a colossal misfit and against stronger teams, his defensive play would be almost suicidal.

You don't need to be an attacking player to average 50+. Mark Richardson averaged over 50 for much of his career FFS. Surely no-one would possibly contend that Atherton wasn't better than a converted tailender?

There has still been the odd defensive player around since 2001/02 and the really good ones have averaged 60 or 70 (Dravid, Kallis). I see no reason Atherton would've struggled to average 50.

 

[Richard]

Yes, I think the best batsmen would fluctuate even less. In fact, the averages of all specialist batsmen is just that, 2-3 runs difference when you compare eras.

It isn't. Some it's massive, some it's small, some it's not even there.

Not all batsmen are the same.