Trescothick V Atherton

[superkingdave]

always liked John Crawley better tbh

 

[Richard]

So because you liked Crawley better than Atherton that makes Trescothick better than either?

 

[superkingdave]

where did i say that? I said Trescothick was better than Atherton, and i said I liked Crawley better than Atherton...I made no comparison of Crawley and Trescothick.

 

[aussie]

yea Crawley apparantley has a superb record playing for MGS.

On topic i reckon well its close. Saw 4 solid years of Athers (97 ashes to 2001 Ashes) a what i always admired about about him was the simplicity of his game & his courage which was not more evident in his innings @ TB in 98 which aided England in a series turning victory (in a series that i rate as one of the best i've seen second only to IND vs AUS 2001) & his 125 in the scorching heat in the now famous Karachi win in 2000. Without doubt in my time of watching cricket i rate him just above Thorpe as the most dependable English batsman over the past decade or so.

Trescothick well without doubt since 2001 took over the mantle as the premier English batsman this decade, but somehow watching him bat in test you always felt he could get out any time. Must have the record for being dismissed on no-balls the most without getting out.

Both very different players who were pillars in England's batting during their career's, but with a gun to my head i give it to Atherton because even though he had rough times vs AUS & WI (especially vs McGrath & Ambrose) he still managed some top knocks againts them along with nations plus i reckon he could have averaged close to 50 if he had played post 2001.

 

[haroon510]

Trescothick for me

he has the ability to dominate any bowler.. and that is the type of batsman i like..

 

[tooextracool]

i rate him just above Thorpe as the most dependable English batsman over the past decade or so.

Atherton no doubt better than Tresco, but i think Id have Thorpe ahead of any other English batsman in the past 2 decades.

 

[JBH001]

Atherton for mine. Sure, he got out a lot early to Ambrose and McGrath (but hey, it was Ambrose and McGrath!).

 

[andyc]

Atherton every single time for me. Not only does his simplistic career average say little about him (need to look deeper than that in almost any career of any length) but Trescothick's scorebook-average flatters him enormously. His scorebook average against Test-class teams is 41; his first-chance average, over his entire career, is actually just over 30. And while that accurately sums-up the fact he was never a Test-class player, even Trescothick had his moments, mostly during the summer and winter of 2004 and 2004/05. And his mostly good 20s, 30s and 40s undoubtedly helped smash the wayward Australian seamers onto the back-foot in 2005 too. Exclude this and he did nothing of note whatsoever, but the fact he was mostly awful shouldn't completely obscure the fact he played an important part in this time.

Anyway, Atherton. What so few people seem to realise is that his injury was not a constant thing. There were 2 series where it affected him really badly; knock these out and you have a summation of what Atherton was capable of without the injury. And really, I don't see any reason to consider these 2 series (Zimbabwe in 1996\97 and Australia in 1998\99) of any importance whatsoever. So he couldn't score when he could barely move; WTF does this matter? He played another 90-odd Tests where he did score, very well.

Atherton, of course, also had 2 Tests at the start of his career (which he shouldn't have played) and 10 at the end where his performances were not good at all. Again, there's nothing unusual there whatsoever, more players than not have bad starts (especially when selected too early) and ends.

Since I last posted an Atherton analysis, StatsGuru has been improved, and I can now offer a true assessment of the part of his career that matters. So here it is. Excluding the meaningless series in which he was injured, the meaingless series where he was picked too early, and the last 3 series in which he was on the way down.

The most annoying thing is the fact that there were 4 series against Australia that, in my view, were either completely or fairly meaningless. And this led to the conclusion that he couldn't play against Australia, which as you see from the fact that he played 44 innings against them in the time which does matter and averaged 35 is completely and totally untrue.

His record against the typically weaker attacks of his day - India, New Zealand and Zimbabwe - is excellent, lending weight to the suggestion that in the post-2001\02 age where most bowlers were poor he could easily have averaged in the 50s.

I watched most of Atherton's career, and am willing to open my eyes to the fact there is a massive difference between the fit Atherton and the unfit Atherton (and that the last 10 games don't really mean too much compared to the 97 in the middle when fit). And I could tell you without even looking at the averages that he'd done damn well. Then you look at the fact he averaged 41.54, when attacks were more often strong than weak, and you see he's been one of the best England batsmen of recent times. Often he was the best in the side.

Why anyone would deny this is beyond me.

You wanted this thread, surely

 

[Manee]

Richard, I love your analysis but I think that first chance averages are irrelevant since there is no point of comparison with Atherton, and that they mean nothing. It is what a batsman did do, not what he could do. Similarly, as you disregarded some of Atherton's innings due to mitigating factors, you should really do the same for Trescothick.

One thing you may want to look into is how often Atherton got out in the 0-2 area. When I was young, I was not a cricket fanatic, but we always watched the England Test matches and I always seem to remember the commentator: "Atherton out for 0/2, England, 0/2 for 1". Maybe it was the product of watching too many Ashes series with Mcgrath Vs Atherton, I don't know.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Atherton was good enough to average around the mid-40's, but he didn't. Just like Viv Richards was good enough to average over 60, but he didn't. Yet one is apparently underrated based on what he could have done but didn't and the other is overrated based on what he could have done but didn't. It's just twisting the "actual performance" argument to suit a point of view.

 

[Craig]

Atherton for mine. Sure, he got out a lot early to Ambrose and McGrath (but hey, it was Ambrose and McGrath!).

Wasn't Walsh also successful against him as well? Atherton himself described as merely with a good Test player because of the amount of inconsistencies he had during his career.

I'll admit I wasn't watching cricket in 1993 (I was only 8 after all) and my question towards CW cricketing brains like wpdavid, BB and Goughy (and anybody else in wants their 10p worth) did getting the captaincy so early change him as a player? I mean I know some (and maybe all?) say that he got the captaincy way too early affect his batting in that he could of been better or not?

 

[Goughy]

Just on my way to the airport as Ive seen this thread.

Ill expand when I get to the hotel.

Anyway, Im not saying Tres is better than Atherton, but Atherton was a) Nowhere close to the player he was expected to be by many (remember FEC) and b) He wasnt as good as people thought he was. He had a reputation that wasnt truly deserved as a defensive technical dream.

 

[Richard]

You wanted this thread, surely

Nah, I didn't, that thread's designed for piss-takes, that post is a serious one.

 

[Richard]

Richard, I love your analysis but I think that first chance averages are irrelevant since there is no point of comparison with Atherton, and that they mean nothing. It is what a batsman did do, not what he could do. Similarly, as you disregarded some of Atherton's innings due to mitigating factors, you should really do the same for Trescothick.

If you can show me some comparable cases for Trescothick, I would most certainly do so. Likewise, when I can offer Atherton's first-chance average (which I will one day), I shall.

One thing you may want to look into is how often Atherton got out in the 0-2 area. When I was young, I was not a cricket fanatic, but we always watched the England Test matches and I always seem to remember the commentator: "Atherton out for 0/2, England, 0/2 for 1". Maybe it was the product of watching too many Ashes series with Mcgrath Vs Atherton, I don't know.

It probably was. There were a couple of occasions later in his career - and, obviously, the 2 series in which he wasn't fit - where he did consistently get out early. The Ashes 1997 and The Wisden Trophy 1998 were the ones where this was simply a bad spell, and a case of good bowling getting the better of him.

 

[Richard]

Just on my way to the airport as Ive seen this thread.

Ill expand when I get to the hotel.

Anyway, Im not saying Tres is better than Atherton, but Atherton was a) Nowhere close to the player he was expected to be by many (remember FEC) and b) He wasnt as good as people thought he was. He had a reputation that wasnt truly deserved as a defensive technical dream.

Agree completely with that - Atherton did not match expectations. Which, of course, said far more about false expectations than him - he was a good player who was expected to be a great one by some people, erroneously.

But he did still manage a very fine career when fit.

 

[Richard]

Atherton was good enough to average around the mid-40's, but he didn't. Just like Viv Richards was good enough to average over 60, but he didn't. Yet one is apparently underrated based on what he could have done but didn't and the other is overrated based on what he could have done but didn't. It's just twisting the "actual performance" argument to suit a point of view.

Richards, however, did average over 60... a long way over it in fact... for 25 Tests. In this time, he fulfilled what people believed him capable. In his other 79, he didn't, he was merely a very good player, averaging 41. And in his last 15 Tests, he had something of an end-of-career comedown, which most people don't look too hard at when summing him up. Likewise, people with much sense should ignore Atherton's last 10 games.

And I for one happen to think a spinal degenerative condition which stops one from batting properly is a mitigating factor, and I'm also unaware Richards shared it with Atherton. Please correct me if so.

Atherton did average over 41 when fit, and over the vast bulk of his career. Not could have - did.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Richards, however, did average over 60... a long way over it in fact... for 25 Tests. In this time, he fulfilled what people believed him capable. In his other 79, he didn't, he was merely a very good player, averaging 41. And in his last 15 Tests, he had something of an end-of-career comedown, which most people don't look too hard at when summing him up. Likewise, people with much sense should ignore Atherton's last 10 games.

And I for one happen to think a spinal degenerative condition which stops one from batting properly is a mitigating factor, and I'm also unaware Richards shared it with Atherton. Please correct me if so.

Atherton did average over 41 when fit, and over the vast bulk of his career. Not could have - did.

There are many reasons why Richards underachieved and many were pointed out in the "Master of Myth" thread. None of these reason were shared with Atherton either, so what?

 

[Richard]

For me, the reasons Richards did not average 60 for most of his Test career were of a "part of the package" variety - the fact that he had a low boredom threshold, the fact he was not always interested in scoring as many as he could. This was all part of what made him who he was; had he not had this, would he have been capable of the astonishing feats he accomplished for a short time? No, for my money.

Whereas Atherton's ankylosing spondylitis was simply 100% misfortune on his behalf. It's exceptionally unlikely his condition helped him in any way. And what's more, it's possible to pinpoint with very obvious clarity which games this affected him in, and remove them from the reckoning. These are just 6 games. Richards' lack of interest was a) much more common, b) not something you can ever pin down so accurately and c) something which, if you will, was part of his psyche, his makeup.

What I'm saying is that I "blame" Richards for not scoring the runs so many believed he could have. I don't "blame" Atherton for the fact he was not fit at times during his career. He should have sat-out those games in Zimbabwe in 1996\97 and Australia in 1998\99, as he did a fair few others. Had he done so, no questions would have been asked.

Others may take a different view, and if they do that will lead them to different conclusions. There is no absolute right or wrong.

 

[Manee]

If you can show me some comparable cases for Trescothick, I would most certainly do so.

I'll have a try...

In his first year, he was still adjusting to international cricket. In his last year, he had fragile mental state - so take them out and he has 5163 runs at 46.51.

The Ashes 1997 and The Wisden Trophy 1998 were the ones where this was simply a bad spell, and a case of good bowling getting the better of him.

I believe that these were the series'.

I feel that your Atherton analysis is flawed because it simply disregards regions during the bulk of his career. Injured or not, he still played. It is not what he could do when fit, it is what he did do and often, that involved getting England off to a poor start. It is interesting, imo, but flawed in logic. Your idea of first chance average is another example of this, he got dropped a lot of times - so what? The fact is that he did get dropped and he capitalised after that in his innings. Life is about what happened, not what could have happened. You have dropped catches and LBWs, what about if a bowler had a bad day, or if most of person x's wickets was when the ball hit the Kookabura seam whereas person y played against an SG seam...where does it end?

 

[Richard]

I'll have a try...

In his first year, he was still adjusting to international cricket. In his last year, he had fragile mental state - so take them out and he has 5163 runs at 46.51.

Trescothick wasn't really adjusting to international cricket in his 1st year, though, TBH, he took to it like a duck to water (if you consider the scorebook only, at least - his good fortune with let-offs started right from the word go and impacted right from the word go). The last summer, 2006, may indeed be to an extent fair enough, but it's still far less obvious a case than Atherton's. Physical and mental injuries\illnesses are like that - with physical problems it's usually quite straightforward, with mental ones it rarely if ever is. I'd not have too many qualms, though, with ignoring summer 2006 when judging Trescothick. Trescothick's first-chance record against Test-class teams remains very poor regardless.

I believe that these were the series'.

I feel that your Atherton analysis is flawed because it simply disregards regions during the bulk of his career. Injured or not, he still played. It is not what he could do when fit, it is what he did do and often, that involved getting England off to a poor start. It is interesting, imo, but flawed in logic.

Atherton's occasions when he was not fit but still played were tiny in number. They are insignificant to the whole, yet because they differ so vastly, they distort the whole if you count them as the same thing. I do not feel it makes any sense to judge the fit Atherton by the unfit one. They were two totally different kettles of fish. Atherton when unfit was quite useless - and hence mostly he didn't play in such a state. But Atherton when fit - which was the overwhelming majority of the time - was a very fine player.

Your idea of first chance average is another example of this, he got dropped a lot of times - so what? The fact is that he did get dropped and he capitalised after that in his innings. Life is about what happened, not what could have happened. You have dropped catches and LBWs, what about if a bowler had a bad day, or if most of person x's wickets was when the ball hit the Kookabura seam whereas person y played against an SG seam...where does it end?

It ends wherever you want it to end. Different bowlers records with different balls (indeed, even different batsmen's records against them) would indeed be very interesting, it'd just need records to be kept of that sort of thing (which wouldn't be terribly difficult actually). I believe, very much, that first-chance averages are rather more important than scorebook ones, though you could argue that one which uses all chances given and all runs scored is better still than either.

It is up to the individual what statistics he wants to create, and how much value he wishes to place on certain statistics. However, a clear difference always needs be drawn between tangibles and intangibles.