Michael Vaughan v Michael Atherton

[Mister Wright]

How about a cookie?

Depends what the cookies are made of and if there will be an endless supply.

 

[pasag]

Depends what the cookies are made of and if there will be an endless supply.

Bradman cookies itbt.

 

[Mister Wright]

Bradman cookies itbt.

Pass. Not too keen on cookies baked from ashes.

 

[pasag]

Pass. Not too keen on cookies baked from ashes.

Not ashes, thumbs.

 

[Mister Wright]

Not ashes, thumbs.

Oh. Well in that case...

 

[Days of Grace]

For me, it's a bit of a difficult comparison. Only as openers can they be compared, once you get onto Vaughan the middle-order batsman (and I much, much prefer him in the middle to the top and always have done) it's rather a danger to compare.

I've said it many times, Atherton is vastly underrated by pretty much most people. Too many are simplistic, look at his overall career average and say "not that good". Well, frankly, that's just wrong. A better summation of Atherton's worth is an average of 41, and I've shown why many times. I couldn't care less, either, for the view that "McGrath got him out loads of times, so he couldn't hack it against the best". Apart from the fact that there were 2 contemparary bowlers better than McGrath (Donald and Ambrose, both of whom he scored plenty of runs against) for me, that argument has always been nonsense to me in any case, every bit as much as the "he performed against the best, who cares about the rest?" one.

An average of 41 at the time Atherton played, when a weak attack was an extreme rarity, is outstanding and nothing less.

Now it's also pretty common knowledge on this board that Vaughan the opener is extremely overrated IMO. Between May and November 2002 he received an almost unbelievable amount of let-offs and this massively inflated his average in that time. By and large, if you look at the true (first-chance) picture, you see a very obvious pattern: loads and loads of scores between 10 and 49, only a very occasional score over 50 (but usually a really, really big one when it was). Which, for an opener, is just about the cardinal sin. His score breakdown is as such: out of 51 dismissals (Zim and Ban excluded obviously) as an opener, 29 were between 10 and 49 (and 10 in single-figures). But there were 6 massive scores in there too, which means the average is still decent.

As a middle-order (three, four and six) batsman I've always rated Vaughan very highly, but you can't really comare him to an opener in Atherton.

Sorry, but don't agree, and I don't think too much of your reasoning. First of all, you say that there were two better bowlers then McGrath, though being Donald and Ambrose. What makes you so sure of this? What you seem to say is a fact is pure opinion on your behalf. You even say 'apart from the fact'

"Between May and November 2002 he received an almost unbelievable amount of let-offs and this massively inflated his average in that time."

Really? I can't recall it t.b.h. but surely you are exaggerating. And you don't even mention his fantastic run against Australia, IN Australia I might add.

 

[Mister Wright]

Sorry, but don't agree, and I don't think too much of your reasoning. First of all, you say that there were two better bowlers then McGrath, though being Donald and Ambrose. What makes you so sure of this? What you seem to say is a fact is pure opinion on your behalf. You even say 'apart from the fact'

"Between May and November 2002 he received an almost unbelievable amount of let-offs and this massively inflated his average in that time."

Really? I can't recall it t.b.h. but surely you are exaggerating. And you don't even mention his fantastic run against Australia, IN Australia I might add.

Richard hooks another newbie...

 

[Perm]

Sorry, but don't agree, and I don't think too much of your reasoning. First of all, you say that there were two better bowlers then McGrath, though being Donald and Ambrose. What makes you so sure of this? What you seem to say is a fact is pure opinion on your behalf. You even say 'apart from the fact'

"Between May and November 2002 he received an almost unbelievable amount of let-offs and this massively inflated his average in that time."

Really? I can't recall it t.b.h. but surely you are exaggerating. And you don't even mention his fantastic run against Australia, IN Australia I might add.

Lol.

 

[Richard]

Richard hooks another newbie...

Absolutely... they must all learn sometime...

Sorry, but don't agree, and I don't think too much of your reasoning. First of all, you say that there were two better bowlers then McGrath, though being Donald and Ambrose. What makes you so sure of this? What you seem to say is a fact is pure opinion on your behalf. You even say 'apart from the fact'

I quite clearly stated it was nought but opinion... and what makes me feel that way is that both had more going for them as bowlers than McGrath.

"Between May and November 2002 he received an almost unbelievable amount of let-offs and this massively inflated his average in that time."

Really? I can't recall it t.b.h. but surely you are exaggerating. And you don't even mention his fantastic run against Australia, IN Australia I might add.

His "fantastic run" against Australia amounted to 2 centuries in the second-innings of dead games (one of which was already long-lost when he made it) against very average attacks (McGrath was absent injured, Gillespie was bowling with an injury, Warne was absent injured).

And here's a summation of his luck in the time:
Lord's, First Test vs SL, second-innings: dropped twice on 28 and 30 (by the same fielder in the same position) and ended-up with 115.
Lord's, First Test vs Ind, second-innings: let-off at least 3 times, the first on 50, ended-up with 100.
Trent Bridge, Second Test vs Ind, first-innings: dropped on 19, ended-up with 197.
Headingley, Third Test vs Ind, first-innings: dropped on 55, ended-up with just 61.
Adelaide Oval, Second Test vs Aus, first-innings: caught at cover on 19, given not-out, ended-up with 177.

In such a short space of time, that's a ridiculous amount of let-offs. Plenty go through such a period (14 innings) without so much as a single let-off in the time. Vaughan himself has had perhaps 4 let-offs in his entire career since, and barely had a single one before that.

 

[Pratters]

Absolutely... they must all learn sometime...

Haha. Yeah.

 

[adharcric]

For me, it's a bit of a difficult comparison. Only as openers can they be compared, once you get onto Vaughan the middle-order batsman (and I much, much prefer him in the middle to the top and always have done) it's rather a danger to compare.

I've said it many times, Atherton is vastly underrated by pretty much most people. Too many are simplistic, look at his overall career average and say "not that good". Well, frankly, that's just wrong. A better summation of Atherton's worth is an average of 41, and I've shown why many times. I couldn't care less, either, for the view that "McGrath got him out loads of times, so he couldn't hack it against the best". Apart from the fact that there were 2 contemparary bowlers better than McGrath (Donald and Ambrose, both of whom he scored plenty of runs against) for me, that argument has always been nonsense to me in any case, every bit as much as the "he performed against the best, who cares about the rest?" one.

An average of 41 at the time Atherton played, when a weak attack was an extreme rarity, is outstanding and nothing less.

Now it's also pretty common knowledge on this board that Vaughan the opener is extremely overrated IMO. Between May and November 2002 he received an almost unbelievable amount of let-offs and this massively inflated his average in that time. By and large, if you look at the true (first-chance) picture, you see a very obvious pattern: loads and loads of scores between 10 and 49, only a very occasional score over 50 (but usually a really, really big one when it was). Which, for an opener, is just about the cardinal sin. His score breakdown is as such: out of 51 dismissals (Zim and Ban excluded obviously) as an opener, 29 were between 10 and 49 (and 10 in single-figures). But there were 6 massive scores in there too, which means the average is still decent.

As a middle-order (three, four and six) batsman I've always rated Vaughan very highly, but you can't really comare him to an opener in Atherton.

1) 41 may place Atherton ahead of Vaughan, but that doesn't put him in the premier, world-class opener category that you seem to associate him with.
2) Didn't someone in this thread say that Atherton generally failed against Donald? Which one of you is drunk?

 

[Pratters]

Which one of you is drunk?

It is Tuesday so Rich I reckon.

 

[Richard]

Haha. Yeah.

That part was in jest, just in case anyone didn't realise...

 

[Richard]

It is Tuesday so Rich I reckon.

That's later on. Craigos arrives.

 

[Pratters]

That part was in jest, just in case anyone didn't realise...

It was good too.

 

[Richard]

1) 41 may place Atherton ahead of Vaughan, but that doesn't put him in the premier, world-class opener category that you seem to associate him with.

Seriously, how many openers in the 1990s did miles better? I've never equated Atherton with a Boycott, Turner, Gavaskar or Greenidge, but seriously, the league behind those two is not great in its numbers.

Atherton is perfectly equable IMO with the likes of Gary Kirsten, Tubby Taylor, Michael Slater, Saeed Anwar, Aamir Sohail and Marvan Atapattu, if not better than some. And from the previous 2 decades the likes of Rick McCosker, Bruce Laird, John Edrich, Dennis Amiss, Graham Gooch, John Wright, Roy Fredericks, Dessie Haynes, etc.

2) Didn't someone in this thread say that Atherton generally failed against Donald? Which one of you is drunk?

Atherton and Donald (like Ambrose) traded blows and came-out equally. Donald and Ambrose both caused Atherton problems, but plenty often enough he came through and scored runs against them. Unlike in the case of McGrath.

 

[Perm]

Seriously, how many openers in the 1990s did miles better? I've never equated Atherton with a Boycott, Turner or Gavaskar, but seriously, the league behind those two is not great in its numbers.

Atherton is perfectly equable IMO with the likes of Gary Kirsten, Tubby Taylor, Michael Slater, Saeed Anwar, Aamir Sohail and Marvan Atapattu, if not better than some. And from the previous 2 decades the likes of Rick McCosker, Bruce Laird, John Edrich, Dennis Amiss, Graham Gooch, John Wright, Roy Fredericks, Gordon Greenidge, Dessie Haynes, etc.

You seriously rate Atherton as roughly equal with Gooch, Fredericks, Greenidge and Haynes?

 

[pasag]

It is Tuesday so Rich I reckon.

Haha, best gag. Won't ever get old

 

[Richard]

You seriously rate Atherton as roughly equal with Gooch, Fredericks, Greenidge and Haynes?

Yep. Being a fast scorer doesn't mean too much to me (not that Haynes tended to be lightning anyway).

Anyway, Atherton's average for most of his career was about 5 runs higher than Gooch's.

 

[Perm]

Yep. Being a fast scorer doesn't mean too much to me (not that Haynes tended to be lightning anyway).

Anyway, Atherton's average for most of his career was about 5 runs higher than Gooch's.

Hmm, I'd consider Atherton and Gooch reasonably equal but I find it hard to beleive you rate him as highly as you do. Saying he is comparable with Haynes, Greenidge and Fredericks is overrating Atherton quite a bit IMO. I know you rate him, but that highly surprises me. I don't think fast scoring comes into it either, TBH.