• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Battle #654684. Michael Atherton v Nasser Hussain

Who was the better test match batsman?


  • Total voters
    25

UncleTheOne

U19 Captain
spawned by nas-hayden, tres-atherton, atherton-god etc.

who was the better test match batsman?

gonna be tugging at richard's heartstrings this one.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Nah, I'd have Atherton ahead fairly comfortably TBH. Both good batsmen, and certainly better than Matthew Hayden, but Hussain did the job for, in essence, 6 years, and had 1 absolutely horrible year (for no particularly good reason) in the middle of this. Atherton did it for 10, and was ruled-out\completely-useless due to injury for just over 1 of that. Basically, it's Atherton 9, Hussain 6.

Atherton was technically better, obviously, and was also better at cashing-in on weak attacks and flat pitches. Hussain was brilliant, absolutely brilliant, when there was something in the pitch for good bowlers, but because of his mindset - fear of failure was always huge - he never cashed-in to anything like the extent he could have when the going was easier. Atherton was pretty comparable against powerful bowling, and though Hussain played less against the likes of Ambrose, McGrath and Walsh so had less opportunity to be dismissed by them, I'd probably just, and only just prefer him. But even in Atherton and early on in Hussain's day, there were weak attacks from time to time, and Atherton was much better at cashing-in on them.

A far more interesting "vs" than many of late, though.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
LOL at you throwing the "better than Hayden" in there. Just can't help yourself can you? :p

For me, this is a tough one and I'm going to think about it. Both good commentators as well IMO :ph34r:
 

James_W

U19 Vice-Captain
Richard, you were joking when you said they were better than Hayden surely? I enjoy your posts a lot but if that wasn't a joke, it's a pretty ridiculous comment to make.

Athers btw.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Richard, you were joking when you said they were better than Hayden surely? I enjoy your posts a lot but if that wasn't a joke, it's a pretty ridiculous comment to make.

Athers btw.
Yep, it was a joke.

He was serious, but it was a joke. :)
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
What's Hayden got to do with a comparison between Atherton and Hussain?
Nah, I'd have Atherton ahead fairly comfortably TBH. Both good batsmen, and certainly better than Matthew Hayden, but Hussain did the job for, in essence, 6 years, and had 1 absolutely horrible year (for no particularly good reason) in the middle of this. Atherton did it for 10, and was ruled-out\completely-useless due to injury for just over 1 of that. Basically, it's Atherton 9, Hussain 6.

Atherton was technically better, obviously, and was also better at cashing-in on weak attacks and flat pitches. Hussain was brilliant, absolutely brilliant, when there was something in the pitch for good bowlers, but because of his mindset - fear of failure was always huge - he never cashed-in to anything like the extent he could have when the going was easier. Atherton was pretty comparable against powerful bowling, and though Hussain played less against the likes of Ambrose, McGrath and Walsh so had less opportunity to be dismissed by them, I'd probably just, and only just prefer him. But even in Atherton and early on in Hussain's day, there were weak attacks from time to time, and Atherton was much better at cashing-in on them.

A far more interesting "vs" than many of late, though.

...
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Well obviously people are responding to what Richard said, and also opinions he has expressed in the past.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
That's not what I said, and you know it. Nonetheless, the reason people are talking about it is because Rich said it.
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
That's not what I said, and you know it. Nonetheless, the reason people are talking about it is because Rich said it.
I know that. My original question pertained to why "Rich said it" not why other "people are talking about it". If the discussion if about the respective qualities of Atherton and Hussain then their ability compared to Hayden is nothing to do with anything.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Richard, you were joking when you said they were better than Hayden surely? I enjoy your posts a lot but if that wasn't a joke, it's a pretty ridiculous comment to make.
I said it here as a joke, but I certainly don't believe it to be untrue.

Matthew Hayden wouldn't be a Test-class batsman in any era other than 2001/02-onwards IMO. And no, it wouldn't be a good idea for me to mention why again here, I've probably done so roughly 28,451 times on CW to date.
 

Top