Hussain vs Atherton vs Fleming as Test Batsmen

[Zinzan]

Yup, yet another poll................

Couldn't resist this one.

AS TEST BATSMEN

Nasser Hussain Inns 171 NO16 Runs 5764 HS 207 Ave 37.18 100s 14 50s 33

Michael Atherton Inns 212 NO 7 Runs 7728 HS 185* Ave 37.69 100s 16 50s 46

Stephen Fleming Inns 189 NO 10 Runs 7172 HS 274* Ave 40.06 100s 9 50s 46


All have similar test records. Fleming the slightly better average, most double centuries but worst conversion to hundreds. While Hussain and Atherton have almost indentical records per innings although Nasser has been not out on more occasions.

IMO Fleming was the most attractive to watch in full-flight with Nasser not being too far behind and Atherton's cover drive still remaining memorable.

However of the three I've gone for Atherton based on the fact he faced consistently stronger bowling attacks yet still managed to consistently see off the newball for his team. For me he was a true test batsmen albiet a slow one.

My order

1) Atherton
2) Fleming
3) Nasser

 

[_Ed_]

Athers.

Fleming was the most talented of the three though IMO.

 

[Richard]

Atherton undoubtedly a class above the other two IMO, provided only times when he is fit are considered.

Hussain vs Fleming is a damn tough one. Fleming of course is a natural batsman, Hussain was 15 or 16 years old before he that really became his strongest suit.

I'd probably go Hussain, because I think his ability to make runs on green pitches outdoes Fleming's. Fleming is far from incapable, but I generally tend to reckon what Fleming was particularly good at was making really, really big scores when the going was easy. While this too is a very admirable trait when coupled with some skill on difficult wickets, Fleming made too many low scores, especially later on in his career.

On the other hand, a nightmare year like Hussain's 2000 was something Fleming never looked like having. That has to count for something. Also, Fleming's continuous career spanned a fair bit longer (1994-2007/08 as opposed to 1996-2004, though the respective schedules means his match advantage is not huge).

Fleming cashed-in on Bangladesh a little more than did Hussain (Hussain did well, Fleming very well), but Fleming was several times handicapped by being forced to open. I tend to exclude innings as an opener when assessing Fleming. Hussain all career after he became a fixture batted either three or four (apart from I think just a single occasion when he was injured and another when he was demoted in a run-chase).

It really is a tough one, that. As I say - I'd probably go Hussain, but like in the Gooch-vs-Crowe instance, it'd probably be different if I was a Kiwi. Both have a very fair case.

 

[sledger]

Obviously Atherton.

 

[Flem274*]

It depends what you want. Green pitch=Atherton. Spinning pitch=Fleming. Beating Hayden=Hussain.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Atherton undoubtedly a class above the other two IMO, provided only times when he is fit are considered.

Hussain vs Fleming is a damn tough one. Fleming of course is a natural batsman, Hussain was 15 or 16 years old before he that really became his strongest suit.

I'd probably go Hussain, because I think his ability to make runs on green pitches outdoes Fleming's. Fleming is far from incapable, but I generally tend to reckon what Fleming was particularly good at was making really, really big scores when the going was easy. While this too is a very admirable trait when coupled with some skill on difficult wickets, Fleming made too many low scores, especially later on in his career.

On the other hand, a nightmare year like Hussain's 2000 was something Fleming never looked like having. That has to count for something. Also, Fleming's continuous career spanned a fair bit longer (1994-2007/08 as opposed to 1996-2004, though the respective schedules means his match advantage is not huge).

Fleming cashed-in on Bangladesh a little more than did Hussain (Hussain did well, Fleming very well), but Fleming was several times handicapped by being forced to open. I tend to exclude innings as an opener when assessing Fleming. Hussain all career after he became a fixture batted either three or four (apart from I think just a single occasion when he was injured and another when he was demoted in a run-chase).

It really is a tough one, that. As I say - I'd probably go Hussain, but like in the Gooch-vs-Crowe instance, it'd probably be different if I was a Kiwi. Both have a very fair case.

Was it a bad back? Or mental instability caused by McGrath?

 

[bond21]

Why didnt you put Hayden as the joke 4th option? because hes clearly better than all 3 combined

 

[Anil]

atherton would be the best among these three, followed by fleming and hussain in that order...

 

[PhoenixFire]

Why didnt you put Hayden as the joke 4th option? because hes clearly better than all 3 combined

How can 1 player be better than 3 combined? What do you mean by that?

 

[James_W]

How can 1 player be better than 3 combined? What do you mean by that?

All 3 bat side by side, but only have one brain, so they don't have conflicts of interest I'd presume.

 

[PhoenixFire]

All 3 bat side by side, but only have one brain, so they don't have conflicts of interest I'd presume.

I don't understand.

 

[DCC_legend]

All 3 bat side by side, but only have one brain, so they don't have conflicts of interest I'd presume.

What's your MSN d00d?

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Why didnt you put Hayden as the joke 4th option? because hes clearly better than all 3 combined

I heard that some kid called Bond21 is already a better bowler than Malcolm Marshall, Curtley Ambrose and Richie Benaud combined!!!! Plus he has the arrogance of Prince Naseem Hamed and the supreme wit of Oscar Wilde.

In short, Bond21 is a renaissance man. Which in part explains why he has the physique and good looks of Danny de Vito.

And all the charm of a clogged Eastern Bloc border toilet infested with rats.

 

[Zinzan]

Why didnt you put Hayden as the joke 4th option? because hes clearly better than all 3 combined

What a ridiculous question?

 

[sledger]

I heard that some kid called Bond21 is already a better bowler than Malcolm Marshall, Curtley Ambrose and Richie Benaud combined!!!! Plus he has the arrogance of Prince Naseem Hamed and the supreme wit of Oscar Wilde.

In short, Bond21 is a renaissance man. Which in part explains why he has the physique and good looks of Danny de Vito.

And all the charm of a clogged Eastern Bloc border toilet infested with rats.

You know...I heard that too.

 

[Debris]

Fleming is the only one of these batsmen who I would actually want to watch bat.

 

[SJS]

Fleming is the only one of these batsmen who I would actually want to watch bat.

There have been few more compelling sights in cricket in the last twenty years than Donald firing in to Atherton and Atherton hanging on with grit and determination of rare quality.

 

[Debris]

There have been few more compelling sights in cricket in the last twenty years than Donald firing in to Atherton and Atherton hanging on with grit and determination of rare quality.

Or his "rabbit caught in headlights" impression when facing McGrath and Warne.

 

[SJS]

Or his "rabbit caught in headlights" impression when facing McGrath and Warne.

 

[Perm]

I never saw much of Nasser Hussain and Michael Atherton, but from what I have read I know they were English stalwarts during the 1990's, but their averages suggest they were reasonably average. I do think they could have scored more runs and boosted their averages up, but it's not really relevant. You have to judge batsman on what they acheived, not what they could have.

As it is, I'm inclined to go for Atherton, even though I don't rate any of the three too highly.