Who is more mediocre than Atherton and Hussain?

[Scaly piscine]

There is a difference to playing defensively and basing your game around your strengths in defence and midfield.

And aren't you supposed to play to your strengths?

Of course you play to your strengths, doesn't make Greece any less mediocre for doing so however (Greece who now have 2 points from 3 games in their World Cup Qualifying group), same applies to Atherton & Hussain. If you want an example of a high quality defensive player look at NZ's Richardson. Anybody who thinks Atherton & Hussain would match up to Richardson would need their head looking at.

 

[Dasa]

Main Entry: me·di·o·cre
Pronunciation: "mE-dE-'O-k&r
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin mediocris, from medius middle + Old Latin ocris stony mountain; akin to Latin acer sharp -- more at EDGE
: of moderate or low quality, value, ability, or performance : ORDINARY, SO-SO

In terms of value and performance, Hussain and Atherton were definitely NOT mediocre. They are a couple of my favourite batsmen and I admire them greatly because of their mental toughness, and ability to overcome natural deficiencies to perform... moreso when the team needed them most.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Has nothing to do with value or performance, just a poor dictionary waffling on too much.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I really, really cannot see how you can criticise Atherton and Hussain and praise Mark Richardson in the same sentence. The three (and Gary Kirsten, another of my favourites) are cut from the same cloth.

 

[KennyD]

Has nothing to do with value or performance, just a poor dictionary waffling on too much.

but its what mediocre means, so if you didn`t mean what a dictionary oficially defines it to be, why did you use mediocre?

btw i dont think they are mediocre, but to try to answer your question literally, who is more mediocre? its actually quite hard to think of, coz no one particulalrly springs to mind...

 

[BoyBrumby]

I really, really cannot see how you can criticise Atherton and Hussain and praise Mark Richardson in the same sentence. The three (and Gary Kirsten, another of my favourites) are cut from the same cloth.

I think SP's point is probably that Richardson's average after 30+ (?) tests is the best part of 10 runs higher than Ath's or Nasser's.

Not that I would call either mediocre. Ath, of course, suffered from that degenerative back condition which must've had some effect.

 

[ReallyCrazy]

I agree w/ Scaly piscine. Both Atherton and Hussain were mediocre players. I can't beleive these guys are getting praised by the same ppl who consider other better players (with better records) as mediocre. So what if Atherton scored 16 centuries? He played what 115 matches?

 

[SJS]

I really, really cannot see how you can criticise Atherton and Hussain and praise Mark Richardson in the same sentence. The three (and Gary Kirsten, another of my favourites) are cut from the same cloth.

It is strange that we should criticise these players for being what they were, strong fighting individuals who strove to give more than 100 percent.

I think there is a tendency to deride those who do not have the incandescent brilliance of stroke players as being mediocre. Naturally gifted stroke players are extremely easy on the eyes but it is the fighters like Atherton who make test cricket stand apart as a test not just of the natural gifts of hand eye co-ordination and that elusive talent of timing but also the tempered steel that is the strength of characters like Atherton and others before him.

Nasser Hussain was not naturally gifted but it only sets one thinking what this man would have achieved if he was. He played well above his natural gifts and this is not something to be scoffed at but to be admired and emulated.

 

[KennyD]

and nasser got up the aussies noses too, mine as well.

But that just makes him better for being able to do it.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Has nothing to do with value or performance.

If you seriously believe that, I advise you to get a new dictionary.

 

[twctopcat]

I agree w/ Scaly piscine. Both Atherton and Hussain were mediocre players. I can't beleive these guys are getting praised by the same ppl who consider other better players (with better records) as mediocre. So what if Atherton scored 16 centuries? He played what 115 matches?

Are you being serious??? I always thought that 16 test centuries was a great achievement no matter how many tests it took. Not all batsmen are capable of 60+ international centuries.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I agree w/ Scaly piscine. Both Atherton and Hussain were mediocre players. I can't beleive these guys are getting praised by the same ppl who consider other better players (with better records) as mediocre. So what if Atherton scored 16 centuries? He played what 115 matches?

You’ve just succeeded in making piscine look sane.

 

[tooextracool]

I don't rate Hick & Ramprakash above Atherton and Hussain in Tests, I merely said they (Hick & Ramprakash) had more class and ability. If they don't apply that to Test level that doesn't mean they're mediocre it just means they haven't performed at Test level, the class and ability is still there.

depends on what you call 'class and ability'. if you think quality strokeplay and a good 'eye' is class and ability then yes they do have more class and ability. if you think that 'application, short selection and temperament' has more class and ability, as most sane people would, then atherton and hussain were far better.
i dont care how much class you have, if you dont score runs at the test match level then you are mediocre, im afraid atherton and hussain did precisely what was required for them in the darkest era of english cricket. ramprakash and hick didnt.

 

[tooextracool]

I agree w/ Scaly piscine. Both Atherton and Hussain were mediocre players. I can't beleive these guys are getting praised by the same ppl who consider other better players (with better records) as mediocre. So what if Atherton scored 16 centuries? He played what 115 matches?

and averaged over 40 until his 84th match......

 

[Scaly piscine]

If you seriously believe that, I advise you to get a new dictionary.

Why bother there are plenty online anyway, most of which don't waffle and succinct.

As for other posts I'm not criticising the mental strength of Atherton & Hussain at all, indeed they compensated to a degree for their mediocrity in batting which is a credit to them - but there is no way they are above mediocre when they don't even average 40 with the bat (that's including the contribution from their mental strength etc.) and remember the context of this as recent English Test players with 50 caps.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Butcher 69
Cork 37
Crawley 37
DeFreitas 44
Edmonds 51
Emburey 64
Gatting 79
Hick 65
Lamb 79
Malcolm 40
Pringle 30
Ramprakash 52
Trescothick 54
Tufnell 42
White 30

Slightly widened the net to 30 Tests - but to rate Ramprakash and Hick over Atherton and Hussain is, well, just wrong. It's the sort of thing Richard does.

Most of the finger spinners are probably up there mediocrity-wise with Hussain & Atherton, Giles will certainly be up there as well. I wouldn't put any of the other current English Test players in the same bracket tho (ignoring those who've played the odd Test like Bell etc.)

 

[twctopcat]

Why bother there are plenty online anyway, most of which don't waffle and succinct.

As for other posts I'm not criticising the mental strength of Atherton & Hussain at all, indeed they compensated to a degree for their mediocrity in batting which is a credit to them - but there is no way they are above mediocre when they don't even average 40 with the bat (that's including the contribution from their mental strength etc.) and remember the context of this as recent English Test players with 50 caps.

The thing to remember with Hussain and Atherton was not their final averages or statistics but the situations in which they scored their runs,usually when the team was in trouble, which was apparent right to the end of their careers. They were there when the going got tough, and performed comparably better than their compatriots, despite not getting averages in the 40's as mentioned. The english team at the time wasn't good enough to merit such averages.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I don't support that theory at all, Andy Flower averaged over 50 for Zimbabwe for example - does that mean if he played for a team like Australia he'd have averaged 60-70?

As said before, an at times mentally screwed up Thorpe and Stewart (didn't he average 47 when not keeping wicket?) didn't do too bad.

 

[tooextracool]

Why bother there are plenty online anyway, most of which don't waffle and succinct.

As for other posts I'm not criticising the mental strength of Atherton & Hussain at all, indeed they compensated to a degree for their mediocrity in batting which is a credit to them - but there is no way they are above mediocre when they don't even average 40 with the bat (that's including the contribution from their mental strength etc.) and remember the context of this as recent English Test players with 50 caps.

which shows how deluded you really are, time and time again it has been said that statistics should only be used as a guideline to decide how good a player someone is, the best way however to decide whether someone is good enough is to actually watch them play. hussain and atherton were worth far more than their averages, as is thorpe for that matter, because they performed far more often when their team needed them to. amazing how people like gatting and lamb get away despite having lower averages.
as i said earlier atherton averaged over 40 after 84 tests, something that suggests that in his prime he was an extremely good player. personally id say that an average of 39 odd(which was what atherton averaged before the start of his last 3 series) was far better than an average of 43-44 right now given that he played better bowlers on more bowler friendly wickets.

 

[SJS]

In another thread Cricket -Art or Science , most people agreed it was an artform (when the performer is a Lara), a science (when the performer is a Hobbs) and a craft. But above all its a job.

Why should we want to rank them, as we tend to do based on the visual pleasure that we get, in a ranking where the artist gets the top spot and the crafts man ond the diligent worker the bottom most.

They too are doing a job, whats more they make us see the difference between whats art and whats not