Richardson vs. Atherton (Tests)

[Lillian Thomson]

Was my motive.

Congratulations.

 

[Athlai]

Congratulations.

I like a bit of spice on my cricketweb.

 

[BoyBrumby]

When you see a comparison thread as spurious as this one with a player grossly overrated by Richard and with an irrelvevant option which interests no one but Richard you have to wonder whether the motive of the thread was to produce another Richardcentric bating thread. (Which has apparently succeeded).

But he's not a child, is he? It isn't as if Athlai is pushing him into the mud and stealing his lunch money, is it? As amusing as I find that mental image to be.

He has the option to state his opinion and move on.

I think spurious is harsh too, Richardson & Atherton are comparable players of similar methods who played in roughly the same era.

 

[Athlai]

Two defensive openers in the last 15 years, very comparable.

 

[Top_Cat]

Largely in agreement with NZT. Whether I agree with his opinions or not, I can honestly say I don't feel as if he's maliciously inflicting his opinion on me although I also know I've not been above saying "Mate, opinion, not fact!" Still, has unwavering politeness, talks up people he likes and tries his hardest to back up what he says, even if I don't always agree with the reasoning.

Don't regard him as troll, myself. Videos I've seen and lightning quick MSN chat once suggest he'd be great company in person. Just think he might suffer from the perennial fear that he'll be misunderstood, posts long justifications for his opinions in an attempt to ensure it and then gets misunderstood anyway.

 

[Athlai]

Largely in agreement with NZT. Whether I agree with his opinions or not, I can honestly say I don't feel as if he's maliciously inflicting his opinion on me although I also know I've not been above saying "Mate, opinion, not fact!" Still, has unwavering politeness, talks up people he likes and tries his hardest to back up what he says, even if I don't always agree with the reasoning.

Don't regard him as troll, myself. Videos I've seen and lightning quick MSN chat once suggest he'd be great company in person. Just think he might suffer from the perennial fear that he'll be misunderstood, posts long justifications for his opinions in an attempt to ensure it and then gets misunderstood anyway.

Another gun ^^

 

[Uppercut]

Haha, what? You're comparing Richard to a murderer? Great comparison there.

Seriously, it's actually pretty simple.
Richard has his opinions, and he has his own reasons and arguments to back up his opinions. He also has conviction and confidence in his opinions and will defend them to the hilt. To some this may strike as being delusional, but if you look at it from another angle, something very simple happens: Richard argues his point and doesn't back down or concede that he's wrong in his opinion, which pisses off the other guy because he believes that he is right in his opinion, but Richard must be delusional and wrong because in his opinion Richard's opinion is absurd.

And as far as 'trolling' goes, Richard doesn't exactly start topics in great numbers on his opinions, and most of these arguments come about invariably when a topic crosses his pet subjects, e.g. Hayden, first chance average etc etc. Richard will gladly put his opinion forward on such subjects, which is the normal practice of a discussion forum such as this, to which people will reply at great length to debate his opinion. While it seems this happens a lot, you have to remember that it tends to happen for two reasons: 1) new members who are uninitiated to Richard and this forum will be new to such ideas as Atherton>Hayden and the like so they will reply with eagerness, and 2) it takes two to tango; Richard isn't exactly posting and replying to himself with duplicate accounts just for the sake of it.

Regardless of your opinion on him, Richard is simply human with his own ways of operating. In my mind, certainly, he isn't right on quite a few subjects and while I've argued sometimes at length with him on subjects where I think he is wrong, I don't begrudge him because in the reverse, he thinks I am wrong on a particular subject, and it simply all comes down to opinion. Though, at times, I have to say Richard's posting style isn't entirely great in terms to stating opinion in that at times he seems to state it as a cold hard fact when it isn't, but that's a reflection of his deep belief in his own opinion set.

In short it seems to come down to a few basic things: Richard is knowledgeable on cricket. Richard has his opinions. Richard will defend what he believes is the right opinion. Other people think Richard is wrong and criticise him for thinking such things and get frustrated when he doesn't back down, when in fact that's what they are also doing with their opinions. Can you see the irony there somewhere?

And, for all the talk that goes on in regards to Richard I think you should put up or shutup. If you don't like his posts then don't ****ing read them, it's not too hard. And if you put him on ignore, leave it at that and stop whinging on about him, as it's boring and annoying and it doesn't help matters.

I'd also like to point out that regardless of opinions and whatnot, Richard has to be one of the least malicious posters I've ever encountered on the internet. A strange man with strange methods for the most part, he's a genuinely nice bloke and I think some of the insults leveled at him are not only poor but quite petty as well, stemming for the most part from frustration in not being able to argue him down.

Grey old mare ain't what she used to be, TBH.

That's a really good defence of Rich actually. But the fact that it has to some extent changed my mind invalidates a lot of your arguments

Seriously though, i think 9 times out of 10 I'd find myself on the Rich-defending side of the argument. But i will say that i don't think it's true that most decent people will refuse to budge on their opinions during a forum debate. It's a hallmark of science to firstly admit what you couldn't possibly be able to judge, and secondly to be flexible in your opinions when someone produces evidence significant enough to make your original thoughts unreasonable. The only time I've found myself particularly frustrated with Rich is in the Sehwag debate- Sehwag being a lucky batsman falls firmly into the first of these categories.

Those are just my morals though, some consider it virtuous to have faith in your own ideals and stick to your guns to the very end. In many ways Rich is similar to a lot of posters but cops a lot more abuse, probably because his posts are written intelligently enough that people will respond more often, and also simply because he posts so regularly.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Largely in agreement with NZT. Whether I agree with his opinions or not, I can honestly say I don't feel as if he's maliciously inflicting his opinion on me although I also know I've not been above saying "Mate, opinion, not fact!" Still, has unwavering politeness, talks up people he likes and tries his hardest to back up what he says, even if I don't always agree with the reasoning.

Don't regard him as troll, myself. Videos I've seen and lightning quick MSN chat once suggest he'd be great company in person. Just think he might suffer from the perennial fear that he'll be misunderstood, posts long justifications for his opinions in an attempt to ensure it and then gets misunderstood anyway.

Still sounds like special pleading to me. He's given a lot more rope than other posters for whatever reason.

& I wasn't suggesting he was maliciously inflicting his opinions, rather countering Geg's suggestion that he's the least malicious poster on the internet, where he's nothing of the kind.

The politeness is often passive/aggressive too. He says stuff like "Anyone who believes X clearly knows nothing about cricket", which on the face of it is more polite than calling someone a c-word, but the effect is largely the same.

 

[Top_Cat]

Still sounds like special pleading to me. He's given a lot more rope than other posters for whatever reason.

Special pleading? Harsh. I wasn't attempting to give a comprehensive account of the pros and cons of having Richard on the forum.

The politeness is often passive/aggressive too. He says stuff like "Anyone who believes X clearly knows nothing about cricket", which on the face of it is more polite than calling someone a c-word, but the effect is largely the same.

I'll pay that but my perception is that he's been doing that less of late.

And, I might add, your memory is short; surely you remember the days of his and TEC's post-a-thons? So glad those days are gone.

Anyway, I struggle to see your point; what action towards Richard are you advocating?

 

[analyst]

Anyone who thinks Atherton warrants higher recognition than he got, needs some sort of circuit repaired. He gets plenty of plaudits already, most of it already undeserved .

 

[BoyBrumby]

Special pleading? Harsh. I wasn't attempting to give a comprehensive account of the pros and cons of having Richard on the forum.



I'll pay that but my perception is that he's been doing that less of late.

And, I might add, your memory is short; surely you remember the days of his and TEC's post-a-thons? So glad those days are gone.

Anyway, I struggle to see your point; what action towards Richard are you advocating?

Death by public stoning, obviously. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

No, a simple raising of his game would do. It's actually interesting to have alternative views put forward; I'm not such a rampant egotist that I can't stand to be disagreed with & I'll happily admit I'm wrong at least as often as I'm right (cf Haddin very recently). It does become decidedly less interesting when the same points are made over and over again in such an annoying and dismissive way tho.

I don't think it reflects well on CW (people on at least two other cricket sites have commented on it) & is probably off putting to newbies just dipping their toes into CC.

 

[Richard]

9 of the last 12 posts & 7 on the run. How is that not trolling? Seriously?

More to the point, where has anyone who didn't have a pre-set agenda even suggested that numbers of consecutive posts is "trolling", whatever that vague and pointless term means.

 

[Richard]

Dicko does it accidentally because he doesn't realise the lack of logic to his arguments, whereas usually trolls do but say them anyway to piss people off.

The other feature is that he holds his views religiously, no matter how convincing a case anyone makes. I thought TC (was it TC?)'s stats on Richardson vs. Atherton when the opposing team chose to bowl were sufficient enough to be almost conclusive, but it's far too late to change one's mind without losing face.

I don't. If I thought they were convincing I'd have changed my mind. I don't, however, feel they're anything of the sort. I think they were relatively meaningless TBH. I don't see how the choice the opposition makes at the toss is remotely relevant to how difficult the bowling is.

If I see a lack of logic to an argument, meanwhile, I don't hold that argument. If people fail to see my logic, that's their problem, TBH.

 

[Richard]

Seriously, it's actually pretty simple.
Richard has his opinions, and he has his own reasons and arguments to back up his opinions. He also has conviction and confidence in his opinions and will defend them to the hilt. To some this may strike as being delusional, but if you look at it from another angle, something very simple happens: Richard argues his point and doesn't back down or concede that he's wrong in his opinion, which pisses off the other guy because he believes that he is right in his opinion, but Richard must be delusional and wrong because in his opinion Richard's opinion is absurd.

In short it seems to come down to a few basic things: Richard is knowledgeable on cricket. Richard has his opinions. Richard will defend what he believes is the right opinion. Other people think Richard is wrong and criticise him for thinking such things and get frustrated when he doesn't back down, when in fact that's what they are also doing with their opinions. Can you see the irony there somewhere?

And if you put him on ignore, leave it at that and stop whinging on about him, as it's boring and annoying and it doesn't help matters.

Indeed. Have been at pains to suggest these two things so many times. Good to see at least one other person thinks along the same lines.

 

[Richard]

But i will say that i don't think it's true that most decent people will refuse to budge on their opinions during a forum debate. It's a hallmark of science to firstly admit what you couldn't possibly be able to judge, and secondly to be flexible in your opinions when someone produces evidence significant enough to make your original thoughts unreasonable.

TBH, I don't think I'm the anthesis of this. While I don't admit I'm wrong all that often, certainly far less often than most people, as I've said before, I feel this is because I don't commit myself so easily as most people. And as for flexibility in opinions - well, there've been more occasions than not where I've changed my opinion on players, both during their careers and having formed over-hasty opinions on them in the cases of players before my time.

Mostly though I don't post about an over-hasty opinion on CW (there have been exceptions and you could find a few if you looked hard enough) so people don't see me being wrong in the first case then altering my opinion later on.

And there are more than a few cases also of things where I admit I haven't a clue on. Sometimes it's because no-one could possibly have a clue on it; sometimes it's because at the time in question I know less than others and need to absorb some more knowledge on the subject before forming an opinion on it.

 

[Richard]

It was the reference to Keith Fletcher that made me wonder

Well... that I'm fairly confident is nothing to do with my Yorkshire roots.

 

[Prince EWS]

At risk of stating what's been said several times in this thread already, there are two important things to consider here which mitigate the vast difference in averages:

Firstly, Atherton was picked three years or so before he was Test standard and played on beyond the peak of powers - by comparison Richardson was picked later in life due to the way he developed as a cricketer, then retired as soon as he felt he had begun to decline. Richardson essentially only played Test cricket during his peak having only played 38 Tests - between the start 1993 and the end of 1996, Atherton played exactly that number of Test matches and scored 3316 runs @ 45.42. Now I'm not normally one to only look at a "peak" period as I think the ability to be very good for a long time is more important than the ability to be brilliant for a short period, but it's important to consider things like this when comparing players who have had Test careers of vastly different lengths. By just looking at the averages and ignoring this factor, we essentially punish Atherton for being identified early and playing on for as long as he thought he could be an asset to his team.

Secondly, batting conditions were easier during the era in which Richardson played his cricket. Without reading more than two or three posts in this thread, I'm still fairly confident that this issue has dominated discussions. Whilst I think some people take this fact a little too far, particularly when "guessing" that this phenomena would have a more pronounced effect on some players than others to suit whatever their argument is, it cannot be denied.

Excluding games involving Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and the ICC World XI altogether, these are the global batting averages of top-7 batsmen by year:

1988 - 31.93
1989 - 42.62
1990 - 35.02
1991 - 37.63
1992 - 34.47
1993 - 37.75
1994 - 36.15
1995 - 34.35
1996 - 36.40
1997 - 34.30
1998 - 35.75
1999 - 31.07
2000 - 37.97
2001 - 38.66
2002 - 43.36
2003 - 40.72
2004 - 38.74
2005 - 38.74
2006 - 38.39
2007 - 39.26
2008 - 39.66

Aside from exceptions in various years, it's slowly risen from the low 30s to almost 40. This is significant as it shows that Atherton's runs essentially meant more in the context of the matches he was playing than Richardson's, as well as being arguably "harder" to score. I'll actually set a base and use those figures to come up with weighted averages for them if soon if I have the time.

This is one of those cases where people will typically rate Atherton higher and use it an example of how stats don't show the full story, but if you look deep enough into it, they show it perfectly. Stats as a whole and raw averages are two totally different things.

Personally I rate Atherton higher, but not by a particularly great margin. Both were good Test batsmen well short of being greats who did admirable jobs for their countries.

 

[Uppercut]

by comparison Richardson was picked later in life due to the way he developed as a cricket,

Mark Richardson, wondering what all the fuss is about

 

[Prince EWS]

Mark Richardson, wondering what all the fuss is about

Good spot.

 

[Richard]

Atherton was picked three years or so before he was Test standard and played on beyond the peak of powers

While Atherton certainly did both these things, I'm not sure about your timing. Atherton was quite ready for Test cricket by 1990, and in fact that was one of his best years. Only late on in that year did the AS come to light - he was even playing pain-free for much of it. You could say that 1990 was the peak of his powers. Ideally, he'd have debuted that year, having gone on the A-tour in 1989/90 that he did. Sadly, he was pitched in for a couple of Tests in the previous summer due to the general chaos of 1989, when just out of uni, at a time when he was unsurprisingly not up to very much.

If all had gone well, he'd have debuted in 1990 and taken like a duck to water to the game. Ideally also he'd have missed the series' in Zimbabwe in 1996/97 and Australia in 1998/99. However, he'd still have played on a bit beyond his best - there was no way he was ever retiring before the Sri Lanka tour in 2000/01, though with hindsight I imagine most wish he had done.

The reality is that Atherton was a fine player between 1990 and 1996/97, briefly a very poor one between the summer of '97 and the spring of '98, and a fine one again between the summer of '98 and Xmas of 2000. As well as being like more players than not in having a short bad start where he shouldn't have been playing and a bit of a comedown at the end. Though aged just 33 his was less due to a weakening of his conventional batting powers and more down to the wearing-off of the effects of the medicinal practice that had been used for 11 years to keep him (mostly) in a fit state to play.

The thing I see as the essential injustice in the Atherton case, really, is that people judge him badly for things which affect (or would affect if the stars had aligned that way) all players. They affect different players to different degrees and those who are affected less badly - ie, are less unfortunate - come-off looking best if you don't try to examine the truths of the matter. IE, if you just judge by a simplistic career average.