Trescothick V Atherton

[Swervy]

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.

Classic....what didn't happen is more important than what actually did happen

Just to go back to Trescothick, you say that his 'first chance average' is very poor.....compared to what? You have only worked out these things for 3 people, how can you make the judgement that his figure is very poor, when you only have two other players to compare it with

 

[Richard]

Classic....what didn't happen is more important than what actually did happen

Eh? The let-offs did happen, there's no two ways about that.

Just to go back to Trescothick, you say that his 'first chance average' is very poor.....compared to what?

Compared to his scorebook record.

You have only worked out these things for 3 people, how can you make the judgement that his figure is very poor, when you only have two other players to compare it with

I've only worked-out long-term career figures for 3 players, all of whom had \ have had an abnormal amount of good fortune. I've yet to make comparisons for more "standard" cases.

 

[GIMH]

What's KP's FCA Rich?

 

[Richard]

Umm... hang on a sec...

OK... over his career, it's 37.77, down from 49.74 on scorebook. That's quite a bit in itself; however, more recently (since 2006/07) he's not had a hell of a lot of luck (only pieces both came in the first 2 Tests of the West Indies series). The really significant stuff comes between the summers of 2005 and 2006: his scorebook-average in that time was 48.39; his first-chance average was 30.70. Collossal difference, and he really was extraordinarily fortunate in that time.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I watched Atherton quite a bit, throughout the nineties and if there is one thing I can really remember, it was that the commentators always used to say "Here's the wicket the opposition want to take" and with my hazy memory, I remember plenty of occasions that the opposition succeeded in taking his wicket early.

Atherton has two rather large technical flaws from my memory. Firstly, a good ball from a fast-medium bowler on an off-stump line would inevitably end up with him being squared up, edging the ball to the slips and with him being face on towards the bowler. This problem still arose in his prime, as I recall. The second problem he had was that he enjoyed chasing balls down the leg side. Quite often, these loose balls are profitable for a decent batsman, but I remember at least 3 times where Athers edged the ball and was dismissed of what was an otherwise innocuous delivery.

As a result, I fail to believe the hype that was generated over Atherton. In fact, the most accomplished innings of his I remember watching was his 99 at Lord's in 1993; I sat in the cheap seats lapping up the atmosphere of an Ashes test whilst poor calling from Gatting, and inadequate studs on Atherton's boots saw him slip over and run out 1 short of what would have been his only century for England at Lord's.

By the way, Richard. Does your first chance average take account of times where the batsman has been legitimately dismissed, but the umpire hasn't given it? There was that time where Athers scored a big hundred despite having edged to the keeper early on and not having been given. Surely, technically, that's a chance that should be reducing his first chance average??

Anyway, in conclusion, I wasn't a big fan of Athers. Played and missed an alarming number of times and was given a tremendous amount of hype by the English commentators. Tresco had his shortcomings but from a neutral perspective was a much better batsman to watch play.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah the FCA takes every time where the batsman should be out into account, think it also works the other way as well ie if Atherton was given out when he clearly should have been not out, or if a partner ran him out, then this would go down as a not out.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Yeah the FCA takes every time where the batsman should be out into account, think it also works the other way as well ie if Atherton was given out when he clearly should have been not out, or if a partner ran him out, then this would go down as a not out.

So the case at Lord's in 1993 where Gatting said "no" and Atherton slipped over... Whose fault was that? Gatting didn't call him through for a suicidal run; he was slated because there probably was a second there - but the actual dismissal was due to Athers slipping when he tried to turn round. He had plenty of time to regain his ground if he hadn't slipped.

 

[Richard]

I watched Atherton quite a bit, throughout the nineties and if there is one thing I can really remember, it was that the commentators always used to say "Here's the wicket the opposition want to take" and with my hazy memory, I remember plenty of occasions that the opposition succeeded in taking his wicket early.

Atherton has two rather large technical flaws from my memory. Firstly, a good ball from a fast-medium bowler on an off-stump line would inevitably end up with him being squared up, edging the ball to the slips and with him being face on towards the bowler. This problem still arose in his prime, as I recall. The second problem he had was that he enjoyed chasing balls down the leg side. Quite often, these loose balls are profitable for a decent batsman, but I remember at least 3 times where Athers edged the ball and was dismissed of what was an otherwise innocuous delivery.

No, sorry, don't accept that for a second. Atherton had no such fault IMO, at least no more than anyone else, and I watched him a hell of a lot too.

By the way, Richard. Does your first chance average take account of times where the batsman has been legitimately dismissed, but the umpire hasn't given it? There was that time where Athers scored a big hundred despite having edged to the keeper early on and not having been given. Surely, technically, that's a chance that should be reducing his first chance average??

Of course it does take account of such things. And of course there'll have been times - wow you remember ONE!!!!!!! - in a career as long as his that he'll have had let-offs. I've said several times this thread that when I have the data I need, I'll work-out Atherton's first-chance average.

Anyway, in conclusion, I wasn't a big fan of Athers. Played and missed an alarming number of times and was given a tremendous amount of hype by the English commentators.

This always pisses me off so much. So some people said he was better than he was: why the **** does this mean other people should talk down what he did achieve?

Tresco had his shortcomings but from a neutral perspective was a much better batsman to watch play.

It's not about who's better to watch, but who's better at the job of batting.

 

[Richard]

So the case at Lord's in 1993 where Gatting said "no" and Atherton slipped over... Whose fault was that? Gatting didn't call him through for a suicidal run; he was slated because there probably was a second there - but the actual dismissal was due to Athers slipping when he tried to turn round. He had plenty of time to regain his ground if he hadn't slipped.

Gatting's fault 100% IMO. And it was a third, not a second, and Gatting called, then sent back, Atherton. The initial call was poor, the correction was correct. Atherton would of course have got back but for the slip.

 

[Goughy]

HD highlighted another which certainly may also exist but Ive always thought Atherton had 3 major technical issues.

1) He got squared up playing backfoot defensive. Horrible, awkward and a real burden in terms of being productive against guys that bowl back of a length with good pace and bounce.

2) Played the forward defensive with an angled bat. The natural angle of the bat was to run the ball to 3rd man. What this meant was that it didnt have to be a genuine edge to go to slip. Some just ran off the outer half of the face of the bat.

3) He became a compulsive hooker and was predictable and vulnerable. Ive heard it mentioned the bad back may have been a reason for this, but Ive also heard that that is being generous and it was something that naturally crept into his game.

Given Atherton was seen as a defensive player it may seem suprising his defense was riddled with technical issues. It certainly hurt him, but his greatest strength was concentration. That allowed him to do a decent job at Test level, especially against those not quite good enough to exploit his obvious problems.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

No, sorry, don't accept that for a second. Atherton had no such fault IMO, at least no more than anyone else, and I watched him a hell of a lot too...

So I just made it up? Don't talk wet, I seen it with me own eyes, guv'nor. He did have such a technical flaw. Sadly, I can't prove this with yoof tube (I doubt) and my highlights of the England tour of the West Indies in the early nineties were left with the in-laws in England when I moved back home. Hopefully, there'll be someone else who can confirm my view, for I fear you are looking at Athers' career through rose-tinted spectacles.

Of course it does take account of such things. And of course there'll have been times - wow you remember ONE!!!!!!! - in a career as long as his that he'll have had let-offs. I've said several times this thread that when I have the data I need, I'll work-out Atherton's first-chance average..

And YOU need to ****ing calm down you CHUMP. I was making a ****ING ENQUIRY about your First Chance Average and YOU have the bare faced GALL to bite my head off. Last time I ask you anything. And that really is the ignore list you've got yourself on. The remaining tripe of your post is even worse. You are a total, total chump. Only prats attack someone for daring to ask a sensible, serious question about something. I was interested in your First Chance Average, and now I realise that its the last vestige of the immature trying desperately to prove his own point over and over.

This always pisses me off so much. So some people said he was better than he was: why the **** does this mean other people should talk down what he did achieve

 

[Richard]

I watched Atherton quite a bit, throughout the nineties and if there is one thing I can really remember, it was that the commentators always used to say "Here's the wicket the opposition want to take" and with my hazy memory, I remember plenty of occasions that the opposition succeeded in taking his wicket early.

Let's check this hazy memory out, BTW... let's say "early" as less than 20. In the 177 innings in the 1990s (and very early 2000s) I consider of importance, he scored less than 20 76 times. 23 of these came in the 3 horror series he endured, West Indies 1991, Australia 1997 and West Indies 1998.

 

[Richard]

So I just made it up? Don't talk wet, I seen it with me own eyes, guv'nor. He did have such a technical flaw. Sadly, I can't prove this with yoof tube (I doubt) and my highlights of the England tour of the West Indies in the early nineties were left with the in-laws in England when I moved back home. Hopefully, there'll be someone else who can confirm my view, for I fear you are looking at Athers' career through rose-tinted spectacles.

And I fear quite a few are looking at it through mud-tinded ones.

And YOU need to ****ing calm down you CHUMP. I was making a ****ING ENQUIRY about your First Chance Average and YOU have the bare faced GALL to bite my head off. Last time I ask you anything. And that really is the ignore list you've got yourself on. The remaining tripe of your post is even worse. You are a total, total chump. Only prats attack someone for daring to ask a sensible, serious question about something. I was interested in your First Chance Average, and now I realise that its the last vestige of the immature trying desperately to prove his own point over and over.

Nonsense. And that's all I'll bother saying.

 

[Richard]

He became a compulsive hooker and was predictable and vulnerable. Ive heard it mentioned the bad back may have been a reason for this, but Ive also heard that that is being generous and it was something that naturally crept into his game.

The only reasons I've ever heard for his compulsive hooking were the back condition; indeed, I've only ever heard of it being any problem at all in Australia in 1998\99, a time (as I've already mentioned) is completely irrelevant to the fit Atherton. He was more than capable of ducking short deliveries at all other times in his career and indeed rarely played the hook stroke as it was not a great strength of his.

Given Atherton was seen as a defensive player it may seem suprising his defense was riddled with technical issues. It certainly hurt him, but his greatest strength was concentration. That allowed him to do a decent job at Test level, especially against those not quite good enough to exploit his obvious problems.

Yet there was only ever 1 bowler who made him look truly ordinary. And 2 of these were on occasions when other bowlers were also doing so. Even though Curtley Ambrose and Courtney Walsh took his wicket many times, he also scored plenty of excellent innings.

 

[JBH001]

I really do have to question the worth and validity of this first chance average hoo-ha, it seems to me to be largely irrelevant, except perhaps as a statistical nicety.

 

[JBH001]

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.

You know, I cant really remember, but I think he had Atherton's number too, especially later in his career when he really blossomed as a bowler.

 

[Burgey]

Atherton > Trescothick imo. Not sure why, just was.

Tres had that God awful no-footwork-just-stand-still-and-blaze-it way about him. Preferred Athers' style really.

 

[Richard]

I really do have to question the worth and validity of this first chance average hoo-ha, it seems to me to be largely irrelevant, except perhaps as a statistical nicety.

How much have you read my musings on the matter?