cricket betting betway blog banner small
Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 116
Like Tree12Likes

Thread: Who is more mediocre than Atherton and Hussain?

  1. #1

    Who is more mediocre than Atherton and Hussain?

    Ok folks, name an England player who has played 50 Tests with plenty after the year 1990 and who is *more* mediocre than Hussain and/or Atherton.

  2. #2
    Hall of Fame Member superkingdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    19,463
    MR Ramprakash
    GA Hick

    Presumably just batsmen - maybe Butcher

    EDIT - Alan Lamb, Mike Gatting
    Last edited by superkingdave; 20-10-2004 at 02:02 PM.

  3. #3
    They aren't more mediocre, they all have far more ability and skill than Hussain and Atherton they're just flawed in other ways (haven't seen Lamb or Gatting play so I'm ignoring those).

  4. #4
    Hall of Fame Member superkingdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    19,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Scaly piscine
    They aren't more mediocre, they all have far more ability and skill than Hussain and Atherton they're just flawed in other ways (haven't seen Lamb or Gatting play so I'm ignoring those).
    Rubbish they are just more attractive to watch


  5. #5
    Hall of Fame Member steds's Avatar
    Breakout Champion!
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    ****ing cold and ****ing wet
    Posts
    17,205
    How dare you say that about Michael Atherton!!
    He was f***ing most certanily not mediocre!!!! Ok, he wasn't a great, but he wasn't mediocre!

    He laboured away at the crease at a time when England were losing to every team going and scored 16 test centuries and 46 fifties.
    He mightn't have been pretty to watch, but England would have been up $hit creek without him!

  6. #6
    International Coach
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,713
    Piscine, you are still a dead set clown.
    Manchester United FC: 20 Times

    R.I.P. Sledger's Signature, 2004-2008

  7. #7
    International Coach tooextracool's Avatar
    Dick Quicks Island Adventure Champion!
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    not far away from you
    Posts
    14,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Scaly piscine
    They aren't more mediocre, they all have far more ability and skill than Hussain and Atherton they're just flawed in other ways (haven't seen Lamb or Gatting play so I'm ignoring those).
    and you wanted to stop the richard-tooextracool long quote wars to make comments like these?
    Tendulkar = the most overated player EVER!!
    Beckham = the most overated footballer EVER!!
    Vassell = the biggest disgrace since rikki clarke!!

  8. #8
    Cricket Web Moderator Neil Pickup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Oxford, England
    Posts
    27,193
    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.
    MSN Messenger: minardineil2000 at hotmail dot com | AAAS Chairman
    CricketWeb Black | CricketWeb XI Captain
    ClarkeWatch: We're Watching Rikki - Are You?

    Up The Grecians - Exeter City FC

    Completing the Square: My Cricket Web Blog

  9. #9
    Hall of Fame Member Smudge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    There or thereabouts
    Posts
    17,727
    Why are people responding to this?

  10. #10
    Cricket Web Moderator Neil Pickup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Oxford, England
    Posts
    27,193
    Because we don't like our heroes being slagged off

  11. #11
    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.

  12. #12
    Hall of Fame Member Smudge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    There or thereabouts
    Posts
    17,727
    Quote Originally Posted by Neil Pickup
    Because we don't like our heroes being slagged off
    I don't like my heroes being slagged off either - good thing I have never seen Richard De Groen slagged off on here...

    (Disclaimer: Grubby De Groen is not my hero).

  13. #13
    Cricket Web Moderator Neil Pickup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Oxford, England
    Posts
    27,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Scaly piscine
    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.
    That's rubbish. The quality of a player isn't just what you defined as "class and ability", there's a lot more on the mental side. David Boon said that International cricket is 90% mental.

    What you're arguing is entirely coherent with Richard's "poor shots" argument.

  14. #14
    You obviously don't grasp what mediocre means - it means medium to inferior quality. It does not relate to performance or luck or anything else, only that the intrinsic skill of the player is low. For example Greece in Euro 2004 were a mediocre side, but they still won - they just won by better organisation and boring teams to death that doesn't make them a high quality side tho does it?

  15. #15
    Cricket Web Moderator Neil Pickup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Oxford, England
    Posts
    27,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Scaly piscine
    You obviously don't grasp what mediocre means - it means medium to inferior quality. It does not relate to performance or luck or anything else, only that the intrinsic skill of the player is low. For example Greece in Euro 2004 were a mediocre side, but they still won - they just won by better organisation and boring teams to death that doesn't make them a high quality side tho does it?
    It makes them a better team than a lot of people give them credit for (and the rest of the football teams in the world aren't any cop, anyway, there's not one side on a different tier to the rest).

    Intrinsic skill to my mind does not exist as anything more than a hypothetical issue. Someone could be a really, really "skilled" Basketball player, but also three foot six, which would make him a fat lot of good.

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •