Vaughan vs Atherton, batting as captain.

[four_or_six]

Was just wondering about the batting of these two, and whether at the end of their careers Vaughan would be considered the better batsman or not. (Personally I'm of the view not).

Anyhow... in my looking I was quite surprised to find the following stats of their batting as captain:

Vaughan: 50 matches, ave. 36.66
Atherton: 54 matches, ave. 40.58

I actually thought it would be closer than that, maybe Vaughan ahead.

Athers rules.

 

[GIMH]

I think Atherton's average improves as skipper, Vaughan's has dropped a fair bit there, ITSTL

I'd go with Atherton, didn't seem to affect his batting too much, though his captaincy wasn't as good as Vaughan's

 

[Scaly piscine]

Atherton talks such a load of bullcrap tho, can't imagine how bad he was as captain.

 

[four_or_six]

Atherton talks such a load of bullcrap tho, can't imagine how bad he was as captain.

No way?! He's a really good commentator.

 

[zaremba]

Yes captaincy put the mockers on Vaughan's batting didn't it? He averaged 50.98, was world number 1 (or had been shortly before), got the captaincy and quickly became pretty hit-and-miss with his batting and has remained so ever since.

Athers averaged 35.25 not as captain. He did seem to thrive on leading from the front but 35.25 is pretty hard to explain, as is his overall average of just 37.69. He was a much better player than that imo. I suspect he he would have averaged more in a better team.

 

[Scaly piscine]

No way?! He's a really good commentator.

He's awful. He constantly contradicts himself and if he's not being mind-numbingly tedious by stating the obvious he's busy making up complete gibberish to fill the gaps.

 

[four_or_six]

Yes captaincy put the mockers on Vaughan's batting didn't it? He averaged 50.98, was world number 1 (or had been shortly before), got the captaincy and quickly became pretty hit-and-miss with his batting and has remained so ever since.

Athers averaged 35.25 not as captain. He did seem to thrive on leading from the front but 35.25 is pretty hard to explain, as is his overall average of just 37.69. He was a much better player than that imo. I suspect he he would have averaged more in a better team.

I think Athers main problem was Australia, or more accurately McGrath.

I guess I was also surprised that Vaughan was averaging so little over the last 50 matches.

 

[four_or_six]

He's awful. He constantly contradicts himself and if he's not being mind-numbingly tedious by stating the obvious he's busy making up complete gibberish to fill the gaps.

I think he's pretty insightful and I like his very dry humour. But I guess that's why they put a mix of personalities on, so there's something for everyone.

 

[whitedazzler]

tough to compare but in a crisis id back atherton

 

[Richard]

Yes captaincy put the mockers on Vaughan's batting didn't it? He averaged 50.98, was world number 1 (or had been shortly before), got the captaincy and quickly became pretty hit-and-miss with his batting and has remained so ever since.

Athers averaged 35.25 not as captain. He did seem to thrive on leading from the front but 35.25 is pretty hard to explain, as is his overall average of just 37.69. He was a much better player than that imo. I suspect he he would have averaged more in a better team.

Was more due, for mine, to the fact his bad occasions (most of which were caused by the occasions his long-term condition affected his play) coincided mostly with the times that he wasn't captain.

Take only the relevant series of Atherton's career (ie, exclude Australia 1989, Zimbabwe 1996/97, Australia 1998/99 and the whole of 2001 - I'll go into why AGAIN if you want, have done many times before) and his captaincy:non-captaincy split is 42.70:40.35, which isn't all that much of a difference.

 

[Richard]

I think Athers main problem was Australia, or more accurately McGrath.

It wasn't, though. It was lack of fitness, being elevated too early, and the almost-inevitable comedown at the end of a career which most players suffer from.

Unfortunately, there were 3 series against Australia in this time (and just 4 more against all other opponents) so it made it look like his record against Australia during the time he was scoring against everyone else was worse than it was.

Atherton still played 4 other series against Australia during the time he was fit and the player we all knew him as (2 of which involved McGrath, who dismissed him on not a few occasions). In these series' he averaged 36. Which was actually quite a bit better than his average against West Indies (31) under the same conditions.

 

[zaremba]

Was more due, for mine, to the fact his bad occasions (most of which were caused by the occasions his long-term condition affected his play) coincided mostly with the times that he wasn't captain.

Take only the relevant series of Atherton's career (ie, exclude Australia 1989, Zimbabwe 1996/97, Australia 1998/99 and the whole of 2001 - I'll go into why AGAIN if you want, have done many times before) and his captaincy:non-captaincy split is 42.70:40.35, which isn't all that much of a difference.

I'm not sure why you need to deploy the caps lock because you've not explained to me before why these are the relevant series of his career!

Anyhow what baffles me is his overall career record - how can a player as good as he was have a batting average languishing in the 30s?

 

[Jono]

I guess I was also surprised that Vaughan was averaging so little over the last 50 matches.

I like Vaughan, but that's the best kept secret in cricket. How ordinary he's generally been for so long.

Obviously injuries and pressure of captaincy have played a part. But a batsman so good to watch, and with so much class, should average at least close to 50.

 

[Richard]

I'm not sure why you need to deploy the caps lock because you've not explained to me before why these are the relevant series of his career!

Aye, but it's a familiar topic with CWers - the AGAIN was for their benefit.

1989 - he should not have been picked (as shouldn't any number of players that summer), was just a couple of months out of uni, and I generally tend to ignore a couple of early Tests for players of this ilk - premature selections which inevitably backfired involving players who would go on to become excellent. A few other examples are Imran Khan (1971-1974), Andrew Flintoff (1998-2000) and Sachin Tendulkar (1989/90).
1996/97 and 1998/99 - he should never, ever have played these 6 Tests. If you've read his autobiography you'll know why - he describes himself, esssentially, as completely incapable of performance (he could hardly bend his back never mind twist). I think he averaged about 10 in them, over 12 innings. This pulls things out quite a bit. It also means precisely zilch if you're trying to assess Atherton when he was fit to play (which was the vast majority of time). Any time someone tells me that someone with long-term performance behind them had a few games where they played with an injury they shouldn't have, I'm willing to knock it out from their career record.
2001 - by this time, he was on the decline. Most players have a bit of a comedown at the end of their careers (though Atherton was only 33, he'd already been told his time was ticking away by the docs and physios). I generally tend to ignore this for the same reason as the early Tests - I think someone who's been good for ages has the right for a few later games to be taken with no great seriousness. A few other examples of this are Vivian Richards (1989-1991), Ian Botham (1989-1992, nothing earlier), Stephen Waugh (2001/02-2003/04) and Allan Donald (2001/02).

Anyhow what baffles me is his overall career record - how can a player as good as he was have a batting average languishing in the 30s?

For two reasons - the first set are detailed above. Circumstances really did conspire against him.

The second is that perhaps people initially thought he was better than he actually was. Atherton was a very fine Test opener for a long time. But he wasn't someone from the very top of the tree. He was certainly never a Boycott or a Hutton. He was probably never even an Amiss or an Edrich.

 

[Uppercut]

Was just wondering about the batting of these two, and whether at the end of their careers Vaughan would be considered the better batsman or not. (Personally I'm of the view not).

I have a feeling Vaughan will be remembered more fondly, for the simple reason that he's won the Ashes, and that's what matters most to England.

 

[tooextracool]

It wasn't, though. It was lack of fitness, being elevated too early, and the almost-inevitable comedown at the end of a career which most players suffer from.

Unfortunately, there were 3 series against Australia in this time (and just 4 more against all other opponents) so it made it look like his record against Australia during the time he was scoring against everyone else was worse than it was.

Atherton still played 4 other series against Australia during the time he was fit and the player we all knew him as (2 of which involved McGrath, who dismissed him on not a few occasions). In these series' he averaged 36. Which was actually quite a bit better than his average against West Indies (31) under the same conditions.

There isnt much doubt that his back injury seriously hampered him as a player, but equally its obvious that he could not handle Mcgrath. Its simply not just coincidence that his back injuries flared up only when he played Australia. When Mcgrath was in the side, his record was simply dismal and most of those series happened either before or after what were serious crests in his career. I rate Atherton pretty highly but I am not one eyed enough to realize that he failed miserably against McGrath.

 

[tooextracool]

Was just wondering about the batting of these two, and whether at the end of their careers Vaughan would be considered the better batsman or not. (Personally I'm of the view not).

Anyhow... in my looking I was quite surprised to find the following stats of their batting as captain:

Vaughan: 50 matches, ave. 36.66
Atherton: 54 matches, ave. 40.58

I actually thought it would be closer than that, maybe Vaughan ahead.

Athers rules.

Yea Atherton was easily the better batsman. You only have to ask any of the players that played in the same side as him to realize how much they looked up to him. For most of the 90s, Atherton was to England was Tendulkar was to India and the burden on him became almost cumbersome at times. He probably would have done a lot better if it werent for his bad back which he played with for the majority of his career, but he was still a far more consistent and reliable performer than Vaughan whos only claim to fame is his Ashes 2002/03 performance and the way he makes people feel when he plays the cover drive. I dont doubt that Vaughan could have been a great player had he not taken over the captaincy, but since taking over captaincy hes barely merited his place in the side as a batsman.

 

[Top_Cat]

There isnt much doubt that his back injury seriously hampered him as a player, but equally its obvious that he could not handle Mcgrath. Its simply not just coincidence that his back injuries flared up only when he played Australia. When Mcgrath was in the side, his record was simply dismal and most of those series happened either before or after what were serious crests in his career. I rate Atherton pretty highly but I am not one eyed enough to realize that he failed miserably against McGrath.

And Ambrose. That the very top echelon of bowlers got him more often show he wasn't in the very top echelon of batsmen for his time, back injury or not.

And Richard, omitting his Tests where he was supposedly too injured to play is dodgy stats. Do we then omit all of Warne's Tests in India in the 90's because of his post-op finger? You better forget about Michael Clarke's Test in Edgbaston too. Athers wasn't forced to play, he was picked and then chose to play. Bit rich to claim a bad back when he willingly walked out to bat. That he did that means his record, injured or not, is fair game in my mind. I know you keep bringing up his book but Athers is human and humans, especially those who write a book, will generally try to put themselves in a better light so I don't think his assertions can be trusted for objectivity.

All that said, I'd definitely pick him over Vaughan as captain. Vaughan the better captain but Athers batted pretty much the same, captaincy or not. I liked Athers and thought he was one of the better opening bats of the 90's.

 

[tooextracool]

And Ambrose. That the very top echelon of bowlers got him more often show he wasn't in the very top echelon of batsmen for his time, back injury or not.

Disagree with that actually. Atherton might not have the best record against the WI (probably because of his first series against them) but he scored plenty of runs against the WI with or without Ambrose. That he is dismissed as many times by Ambrose as he was does not surprise me because of the sheer volume of tests that he played against Ambrose and the fact that he is an opening batsman means that any failure with the bat would be registered in the kitty of either ambrose or walsh who both are high up on that list of people who dismissed him most. Ive watched Ambrose against Athers many times during the 90s and Ambrose caused him just as many problems as any other great fast bowler who played during the 90s (bar Mcgrath) but he still scored centuries against them. Against Mcgrath however,he scored 4 half centuries,no centuries and got dismissed by Mcgrath 19 times. Whenever a batsman gets dismissed by a bowler more times than the number of tests hes played against that same bowler he has serious issues especially when the number of tests are 16.

And Richard, omitting his Tests where he was supposedly too injured to play is dodgy stats. Do we then omit all of Warne's Tests in India in the 90's because of his post-op finger? You better forget about Michael Clarke's Test in Edgbaston too. Athers wasn't forced to play, he was picked and then chose to play. Bit rich to claim a bad back when he willingly walked out to bat. That he did that means his record, injured or not, is fair game in my mind. I know you keep bringing up his book but Athers is human and humans, especially those who write a book, will generally try to put themselves in a better light so I don't think his assertions can be trusted for objectivity.

Yeah, not sure if you have read Athers a/biography, but he does seem to spend the majority of it painting himself in a better light. I agree with him about many ideas in his a/biography, but he does certainly rate himself a lot higher than most people would rate him and he seems to have an excuse for almost every dismissal that hes had over the course of his career. Rarely in his whole book does he talk about some of his shortcomings at the international level or any of his troughs. Generally, if you read Athers book and hadnt checked his record, you'd think he was one of the best players in the world.

 

[Top_Cat]

Disagree with that actually. Atherton might not have the best record against the WI (probably because of his first series against them) but he scored plenty of runs against the WI with or without Ambrose. That he is dismissed as many times by Ambrose as he was does not surprise me because of the sheer volume of tests that he played against Ambrose and the fact that he is an opening batsman means that any failure with the bat would be registered in the kitty of either ambrose or walsh who both are high up on that list of people who dismissed him most. Ive watched Ambrose against Athers many times during the 90s and Ambrose caused him just as many problems as any other great fast bowler who played during the 90s (bar Mcgrath) but he still scored centuries against them. Against Mcgrath however,he scored 4 half centuries,no centuries and got dismissed by Mcgrath 19 times. Whenever a batsman gets dismissed by a bowler more times than the number of tests hes played against that same bowler he has serious issues especially when the number of tests are 16.

Yeah I'll pay that, he did score well against the WI regardless. Same with South Africa. In a way, you know you're going okay when it takes your opposition's out-and-out champion to get you out. I think another reason for his struggles against Aus was that the Aussies had two; McGrath and Warne. If he got through a spell from one, he had to contend with the other. McDermott gave him trouble too but then, in both home series, he gave everyone trouble.

Yeah, not sure if you have read Athers a/biography, but he does seem to spend the majority of it painting himself in a better light. I agree with him about many ideas in his a/biography, but he does certainly rate himself a lot higher than most people would rate him and he seems to have an excuse for almost every dismissal that hes had over the course of his career. Rarely in his whole book does he talk about some of his shortcomings at the international level or any of his troughs. Generally, if you read Athers book and hadnt checked his record, you'd think he was one of the best players in the world.

Have read it, pretty much the impression I got.