Battle #654684. Michael Atherton v Nasser Hussain

[FaaipDeOiad]

Atherton, but both were fairly average batsmen by test standards, IMO. And, I've said on this forum before, Atherton is probably the worst test player to break the 100 test mark, which is testament to the weaknesses of the English side in the 90s. Anyway, they were better than Hayden in the same way Giles was better than Warne.

Thorpe was infinitely better than both.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Atherton, but both were fairly average batsmen by test standards, IMO. They were better than Hayden in the same way Giles was better than Warne.

Here, Dicky, Dicky, Dicky. Take the nice bait.


Although agree completely tbf.

 

[Richard]

Atherton, but both were fairly average batsmen by test standards, IMO. And, I've said on this forum before, Atherton is probably the worst test player to break the 100 test mark, which is testament to the weaknesses of the English side in the 90s. Anyway, they were better than Hayden in the same way Giles was better than Warne.

Thorpe was infinitely better than both.

He wasn't, really, infinitely better, though he was superior.

And yes, there have been several worse players to break the 100 Test barrier. Not that I don't think that's a fairly **** question, ITBT.

 

[BoyBrumby]

He wasn't, really, infinitely better, though he was superior.

And yes, there have been several worse players to break the 100 Test barrier. Not that I don't think that's a fairly **** question, ITBT.

4 minutes.

 

[Richard]

Well that's fairly standard fare if I'm reading the forum.

 

[gettingbetter]

He wasn't, really, infinitely better, though he was superior.

And yes, there have been several worse players to break the 100 Test barrier. Not that I don't think that's a fairly **** question, ITBT.

Who?

Fleming and Ganguly are the only two possibilities I can see. (Lets try and limit it to modern times).

 

[Richard]

As I say - I really don't like the "worst to play 100 Tests" question at all - as I said in my earlier post, it's a **** thing to say. If you play 100 Tests you are, by definition, a top-quality performer, and saying "worst of" is just stupid, IMO.

 

[gettingbetter]

Fair point, bit like the world's tallest midget innit?

Either way, there is a certain crieteria, and we could easily rephrase it to say...hard to phrase, but you understand. I won't insist on you answering anymore.

But Rich, I would suggest that you start a post about England in the 90s. It would be really intersting to see your take on it. Personally, I don't really rate Atherton, Hussain, Butcher, Stewart, Caddick, Tufnell, Cork, Fraser and co as highly as you do. So, please, just keep that in mind.

 

[Richard]

It's not strictly related to the 1990s, and several of those players played in the early 2000s.

Overwhelmingly, the point in my mind when cricket begun to take a turn to be far inferior to most points in history was September 2001. And maybe for the last 2 years or so, we've begun to be lifted out of that rut.

 

[Goughy]

Have I posted in this thread yet? Cant remember. Anyway,

Atherton marginally ahead of Hussain. I fit both into that 'above average' slot in Test cricket and well below the 'very good' bracket. How far, if at all, they move into the 'good' category depends on how I feel on that day.

Both were realtively capable batsmen but both had technical problems, though Hussain also had temprament issues as well.

 

[Prince EWS]

What a series of highly odd contentions. Don't think anyone would ever come-up with any reasons to back those.

Oh... hmm... except nationality.

I reckon I could make a semi-decent case for Ramprakash being a better batsman than Martyn. No-one ever put a restriction to only Test cricket on it.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Who?

Fleming and Ganguly are the only two possibilities I can see. (Lets try and limit it to modern times).

Carl Hooper played 100 Tests.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Carl Hooper played 100 Tests.

Yeah Hooper is the main competitor IMO. I think Atherton was probably slightly superior.

Anyway, it's a question of interest because it speaks to the relative strength of the different sides in the modern era. As someone who rates Bangladesh so little Richard, I'd imagine you could see someone who was a very mediocre cricketer playing 100 tests for them (if they played a few more matches each season), and essentially the same thing applies here, just on a different level.

 

[Richard]

Every single player who has so far played 100 Tests is comfortably superior to every cricketer ever to represent Bangladesh.

Bangladesh are not a Test-standard team. Ergo, I don't care in the slightest for "Test" cases involving them.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Missed the point, but I guess that's to be expected.

 

[Richard]

No I haven't, I get the point precisely, but as I said above, it remains IMO a **** question.

 

[Swervy]

Every single player who has so far played 100 Tests is comfortably superior to every cricketer ever to represent Bangladesh.

Bangladesh are not a Test-standard team. Ergo, I don't care in the slightest for "Test" cases involving them.

but Bangladesh dont play against Bangladesh. It doesnt matter whether you think B'desh are of Test-standard, te opposition they play against are ALL of test standard, and so your arguement here doesnt stand up....or have I read it wrong

 

[Richard]

Bangladesh are not Test standard - games involving them should not be Tests.

Simple as.

And BTW, in not-so-distant times (2003-2005) we've had TWO teams not of Test quality involved, something completely without precedent in Test history. So Bangladesh weren't, quite, the only substandard side around.

 

[Swervy]

Bangladesh are not Test standard - games involving them should not be Tests.

Simple as.

And BTW, in not-so-distant times (2003-2005) we've had TWO teams not of Test quality involved, something completely without precedent in Test history. So Bangladesh weren't, quite, the only substandard side around.

what would you rather watch?

a) a 20/20 game between England and Bangladesh

or

b) a Test match between England and Bangladesh

 

[PhoenixFire]

what would you rather watch?

a) a 20/20 game between England and Bangladesh

or

b) a Test match between England and Bangladesh

20/20, only because I hate watching Bangladesh play, so it will be shorter.