Richardson vs. Atherton (Tests)

[thierry henry]

I think Richard has a bit of a point. Actually, it kinda says something about flat-track bullies- they are often those with the most disciplined techniques, and those with the least disciplined techniques. When it comes to difficult surfaces, players somewhere in-between are better.

Richardson's technique was all about straight lines and absolutes. He wasn't blessed with a fast eye or nimble footwork, to enable him to deal with tricky deliveries. If the ball did something unusual, Richardson was not particularly well-equipped to deal with it.

At the other end of the spectrum, a player who throws his hands at the line of the ball will also struggle if it does something.

imo a batsman needs to be able to be quick of mind and eye to succeed when the ball is doing a bit. Richardson's technique was set-up for perfect conditions.

 

[Perm]

Pretty close, but Richardson was better. Apart from his performances against the Aussies and the Saffies, he has a pretty neat record across the board.

The two teams that had the strongest new-ball bowlers during the period in which Richardson batted, which shows, to me, a bit of a weakness for an opening bat.

 

[Ikki]

The two teams that had the strongest new-ball bowlers during the period in which Richardson batted, which shows, to me, a bit of a weakness for an opening bat.

Well, mostly the same goes for Atherton too. He was not good against Australia or WIndies. But Richardson does much better over the rest.

 

[Perm]

Well, mostly the same goes for Atherton too. He was not good against Australia or WIndies. But Richardson does much better over the rest.

Yeah, I wasn't interested in cricket during Atherton's career so I can't really make any assumptions about his record or anything. I just don't think Richardson is as good as his record suggests, and though he's been better than any other we've had lately, I don't think he can compete with Atherton and his longevity.

 

[Athlai]

Drops down to 44-odd once you exclude Bangladesh tho, so that figure is a little misleading.

He did average 50 in drawn games though, which I think is something that must be taken into consideration. Not sure what the equivalent figure for Atherton is.

Atherton's in draws was also 50.

 

[Flem274*]

In other words, batsmen have ridiculously high averages in draws. Funny that.

 

[Athlai]

Stonewallers do anyway. In all honesty I do rate Atherton a bit better than Richardson but I like a bit of controversy. Richardson was hardly an average player, average in his ability but with some of the most impressive mental strength in cricket. Did so much with so little.

 

[DingDong]

I always thought Richardson a thoroughly average player, same as Matthew Hayden. A flat-track bully who scored notable numbers of runs only because of the weakness of the bowling and flatness of pitch at the time which composed his run-scoring.

Just like Hayden, anyone who could bowl a decent lot of inswingers would in my view get him out without great difficulty.

Some people have trouble accepting that a slow scorer can be a flat track bully mind.

So yeah, in my view Atherton >>>>> Hayden & Richardson in equal measure.

I've only been around a day or so and don't know whether this guy is some sort sort of joker or not but if he isn't this is the biggest load of garbage I have ever read about cricket.
For god's sake, Richardson averages well over 40 in australia,nz , eng and sa put together. If you don't consider him to be good in seaming/swinging conditions, who exactly do you rate? You?

 

[R_D]

Both were average batsman but i do rate Atherton more than Richardson

 

[Anil]

Both were average batsman but i do rate Atherton more than Richardson

agreed...atherton was one of the few decent batsmen for england in the 90s(among the ones who played most of that decade) and has played a few gritty knocks against good opposition so there is a tendency to overrate him like richard clearly does but he was downright average for a large part of his career, that said a case can be made for him being better than richardson...

 

[Precambrian]

Should rename this thread to Richardson Vs Dickinson.

As to topic, Richardson is better than Atherton.

 

[Zinzan]

I always thought Richardson a thoroughly average player, same as Matthew Hayden. A flat-track bully who scored notable numbers of runs only because of the weakness of the bowling and flatness of pitch at the time which composed his run-scoring.

Just like Hayden, anyone who could bowl a decent lot of inswingers would in my view get him out without great difficulty.

Some people have trouble accepting that a slow scorer can be a flat track bully mind.

So yeah, in my view Atherton >>>>> Hayden & Richardson in equal measure.

A ridiculous suggestion. If there was ONE thing Mark Richardson wasn't, it was a flat-track bully. Sure he didn't have much in the way of natural ability, but he made up for this purely through having a strong defense and great mental application. Flat-track bully couldn't be further away from the mark when describing Mark Richardson in IMHO.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

...........I don't think he can compete with Atherton and his longevity.

You can't really bring longevity into the argument considering how Richardson reinvented himself to get into the team, and his premature retirement.

Yes, Atherton did play for longer, but Richardson could have played alot more if he wanted to.

 

[NZTailender]

I've only been around a day or so and don't know whether this guy is some sort sort of joker or not but if he isn't this is the biggest load of garbage I have ever read about cricket.
For god's sake, Richardson averages well over 40 in australia,nz , eng and sa put together. If you don't consider him to be good in seaming/swinging conditions, who exactly do you rate? You?

So subtle.

 

[JimmyGS]

So subtle.

And yet I agree with the principle.

 

[Jakester1288]

Unfortunately I haven't seen either, cause I only started watching Cricket in 2004. From what I've read and heard, it's not worth looking them up, because they scored so slow. AMIRITE?

 

[Craig]

No. There is more to batting, then just scoring at a rate similar to Virender Sehwag.

 

[Goughy]

I think the legth of career means it has to go to Atherton but it is by no means an open and shut case.

Richards comments in another thread along the lines that "Richardson cannot be a better player than Atherton as Richardson is just a converted tailender" made the hairs on the back of my neck prick up.

Shastri, Rhodes etc were all converted tailenders that opened. Someone like Richardson had a limited game and played within himself.

Atherton had severe technical deficiencies on both the front and back foot. Playing his limited game it is entirely possible that Richardsons technique was tighter and less easily exposed as Athertons was.

 

[Jakester1288]

No. There is more to batting, then just scoring at a rate similar to Virender Sehwag.

I am well aware of that, but is it worth looking him up? Has he hit any big sixes or anything? You are not going to look up a batsmen nudging ones and twos, whilst that is great to watch, it's not something you are going to find on the internet.

 

[NZTailender]

And yet I agree with the principle.

How long you known this guy then?