Richardson vs. Atherton (Tests)

[Richard]

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.

Debateable TSTL. That comment is rather familiar.

 

[Richard]

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.

Shastri was never a completely clueless batsman, the way Richardson apparently was (batted nine or ten). Nor was he an opener of any particular excellence, just a decent one. Same as Richardson.

 

[Richard]

A ridiculous suggestion. If there was ONE thing Mark Richardson wasn't, it was a flat-track bully.

Yeah, as I say, I've heard it all before. "Richardson was a slow scorer, he doesn't fit the stereotype of flat track bully! Therefore he couldn't possibly be one!!"

 

[Richard]

there is a tendency to overrate him like richard clearly does but he was downright average for a large part of his career

Neither of those are true, Atherton was downright abysmal for a tiny portion of his career and pretty good for most of it. I realise exactly this and thus rate him accordingly, which is neither over nor under.

 

[Richard]

Well, mostly the same goes for Atherton too. He was not good against Australia or WIndies.

Not really, though clearly he did less well against them than others. Which is to be expected really - all batsmen worth their salt will do better against weaker bowling than stronger stuff.

 

[Richard]

oh man, my stomach hurts...I've laughed so much.

Well done, why not laugh yourself outta here, we'd all be so much better for it.

 

[Richard]

Richard how on earth do you justify Richardson being a flat track bully while Atherton was not?

In matches where New Zealand lost the toss and were sent in (meaning that the opposing team chose to bowl) Mark averages 50.93, Atherton on the other hand averages 35.12.

Flat Track?
Flat Track?
Flat Track?

And those are the extreme ends of the spectrum where nobody else barring him made a score. There are plenty of instances where either a member of his team or the opposition stood up on a troubling pitch.

At the same time you could find plenty of occasions in where Atherton cashes in on a flat pitch, its hypocritical to point out how Richardson cashed in on flat pitches while ignoring the fact Atherton naturally did the same. And your point in how a flat track bully can also sometimes play well on seaming wickets is ridiculous, if they can do that then how the hell are they are flat track bully?

All batsmen will have cashed-in on flat pitches at some point or other. Atherton clearly did well on many flat and many seaming\turning pitches many times, it's pretty obvious he wasn't a flat-track bully.

I went through Richardson's entire career, Test by Test (which is the only way to do a proper analysis) once. I might just do it again. The vast, vast majority of his Tests had nothing in them for bowlers. On the relatively rare occasions he played on a pitch that did, he often failed and occasionally succeeded.

 

[fredfertang]

Richard are you a Yorkshireman?

 

[Matt79]

Rate them pretty close to evenly to tell the truth. One can't help but wonder whether it is Atherton's defiance of THE WORLD'S GREATEST BOWLER A. Donald that has placed him on the pedestal for Rich. Ignoring that McGrath dominated him.

 

[Flem274*]

I love Richards wierdness when it comes to some players.

Come on Richard, keep labelling Richardson a crappy flat track bully, go on. No matter how many times you bleat, it won't make your wish come true.

 

[Ikki]

I love Richards wierdness when it comes to some players.

Come on Richard, keep labelling Richardson a crappy flat track bully, go on. No matter how many times you bleat, it won't make your wish come true.

LOL, don't egg him on man, he's already got 70k posts trying to shove everything else down our throat. Let this one slide!

 

[social]

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.

Embarassing

 

[Top_Cat]

Love how defensive the NZ'ers are getting.

'tis true that Richardson played on some awesomely bad tracks, though.

 

[_Ed_]

Love how defensive the NZ'ers are getting.

He's the only good opener we've had since...John Wright. So I think we're allowed to stick up for him against what IMO is an unfair and inaccurate label.

 

[Top_Cat]

He's the only good opener we've had since...John Wright. So I think we're allowed to stick up for him against what IMO is an unfair and inaccurate label.

Oh yeah for sure, vastly under-rated player I reckon.

 

[BoyBrumby]

It's threads like this where the old ignore button really pays for itself.

Anyway, both struck one as fairly limited players, with Rigour being perhaps slightly the more so, but were effective at times in the test arena. I personally think Atherton stayed on too long (possibly to the detriment of our development too, Strauss was into his late 20s before he debuted) and to my way of thinking Richardson went far too early. As has be demonstrated subsequently, it wasn't as if he was holding back kiwi Huttons or Hobbses, was it? Was his partly a Bracewell-inspired exit, perhaps?

 

[_Ed_]

He did say that having 9994 FC runs made him feel Bradmanesque.

 

[BoyBrumby]

He did say that having 9994 FC runs made him feel Bradmanesque.

Ha, cool. Didn't know that.

Comes across as a nice bloke on the commentry I've heard too. Quite dry.

 

[Athlai]

Always thought Richardson left early due to being a Test specialist in a country which played very few Tests at that period in time.

 

[JimmyGS]

In matches where New Zealand lost the toss and were sent in (meaning that the opposing team chose to bowl) Mark averages 50.93, Atherton on the other hand averages 35.12.

End of argument.