Atherton vs Stewart? Old school 90s english cricketers! Who was better?

[grecian]

didn't atherton's average plummet right at the end?

and digging up a richard post was cruel for a sunday morning.

Not that much TBH,averaged just about under 37 the last two years of his career, and it's a Saturday night here.

Again as people can see from the footage, the narrative of him getting out to deadly bowling all the time is flawed, the hook was his demise constantly.

 

[GIMH]

One suspects Athers would be embarrassed by Richard's assessments

In fact if am not mistaken he's referenced CW before so probably fully aware of the lunacy

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah Atherton has an account to the point of recognising people's usernames; he's probably aware of the whole him > Hayden thing.

 

[mr_mister]

That's awesome, is there audio evidence of Athers doing this?

Also does Richard still post here?

 

[Geoffboycott]

Just watched the West Indies awful pitch test In 1998. And Stewart stays in line with the ball right to the end. Very brave player. Both players are as brave as one another. Atherton was never scared of any bowling either. I just think Atherton was more solid and that makes him the best english batsman from the 90s. Atherton Stewart and Thorpe in that order

 

[Furball]

One suspects Athers would be embarrassed by Richard's assessments

In fact if am not mistaken he's referenced CW before so probably fully aware of the lunacy

Do we think Richard would be embarrassed by Richard's efforts?

 

[GIMH]

Do we think Richard would be embarrassed by Richard's efforts?

Doubtful

 

[The Battlers Prince]

Athers was a top opening bat, particularly early on. I suspect that I didn't give enough leeway to Stewart the keeper bat and just the batsman. Both had several great knocks, but I felt Atherton was the better of the two.

 

[AndrewB]

stewart by a considerable distance. outrageously good tons against wasim & waqar, those two fellas from the west indies, mcgrath and his cronies. a hugely talented opener who was ruined to some degree by the english selection policy of the 90s. see russell & fraser.

but in fairness to him, regardless of his patchy career, athertons 98* and 185* are as good as anything played by contemporaries in his era. man was capable of incredible high ceiling efforts.

Stewart scored 1 ton against Aus in 33 matches (as did Atherton), 3 against West Indies (4 by Atherton), and 2 against Pakistan (1 of them in a game where 900 runs were scored for 11 wickets, and Wasim wasn't playing).

Comparing their career figures, Stewart's career was more up-and-down; he had great series mixed with moderate ones almost throughout his career, whereas Atherton was consistently very good for 4 years (from the start of the 1993 Ashes to just before the 1997 Ashes, he averaged 40+ most series and 47 overall), but was only good in patches before and after that.

 

[ImpatientLime]

Stewart scored 1 ton against Aus in 33 matches (as did Atherton), 3 against West Indies (4 by Atherton), and 2 against Pakistan (1 of them in a game where 900 runs were scored for 11 wickets, and Wasim wasn't playing).

Comparing their career figures, Stewart's career was more up-and-down; he had great series mixed with moderate ones almost throughout his career, whereas Atherton was consistently very good for 4 years (from the start of the 1993 Ashes to just before the 1997 Ashes, he averaged 40+ most series and 47 overall), but was only good in patches before and after that.

how many of those games did atherton keep and bat out of position in?

 

[AndrewB]

How many did Atherton play when not fully fit?

FWIW, I've voted for Stewart, I just think some of the comments (both praising him and criticising Atherton) are a bit OTT and was giving some perspective.

Curious fact about Stewart, incidentally: when he was keeping wicket, his averages in the 4 innings were 33, 38, 38, 27; when he wasn't, they were 51, 41, 50, 44; if (as it seems) keeping wicket affected his batting, you might expect the 1st innings averages to be closer than the others... I had a theory at one point that it wasn't actually keeping wicket that hurt his batting, more that he tended to have to keep wicket when things weren't going so well for England, and that it usually meant he was batting out of position (not sure if this theory really holds up).

Has Stewart actually said what his feelings were? I have a vague memory of him saying he preferred to open, but can't remember if he said he preferred not to keep wicket.

 

[ImpatientLime]

averages 46.70 from 51 matches without keeping. 34.92 when keeping from 82 matches when keeping.

kumar for instance is 40 v 67, keeping v non keeping. england ****ed stewart hard by making him keep. especially when they had the best keeper in the world in russell in reserve during most of his career.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

averages 46.70 from 51 matches without keeping. 34.92 when keeping from 82 matches when keeping.

kumar for instance is 40 v 67, keeping v non keeping. england ****ed stewart hard by making him keep. especially when they had the best keeper in the world in russell in reserve during most of his career.

Stewart by averaging 34.92 with the bat was higher than Jack Russell's 27 with the bat. The selectors need to make their primary concern the team, not an individual's more favourable statistics. Now if they could not find someone else to bat in Stewart's place and average 41.92+ or so, maybe 40+, then there is an argument that the selection backfired and had a negative impact on English cricket.

 

[GIMH]

Stewart by averaging 34.92 with the bat was higher than Jack Russell's 27 with the bat. The selectors need to make their primary concern the team, not an individual's more favourable statistics. Now if they could not find someone else to bat in Stewart's place and average 41.92+ or so, maybe 40+, then there is an argument that the selection backfired and had a negative impact on English cricket.

What did the specialist bats who batted in place of Stewart average though?

 

[Neil Pickup]

Given that we picked a couple of batsmen for 100 Tests between them who barely averaged 30, I think it's fair to say that 41.92+ wasn't going to happen...

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

What did the specialist bats who batted in place of Stewart average though?

Do your own homework.

 

[GIMH]

Do your own homework.

I can't be bothered, and wasn't actually expecting you to work it out. Just making the point that's it's not as simple as Stewart's keeping average V Russell's.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Given that we picked a couple of batsmen for 100 Tests between them who barely averaged 30, I think it's fair to say that 41.92+ wasn't going to happen...

Well with Jack Russell averaging 27,

Stewart averraging 46.7 (sums 73.7) down to 34.92 means its 38.78.

Stewart didn't open often the innings when keeping, did he? I take it that was when he batted 3, 4 and 5?

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

I can't be bothered, and wasn't actually expecting you to work it out. Just making the point that's it's not as simple as Stewart's keeping average V Russell's.

Then you would suggest that Russell was a superior keeper. But you did not. You asked what the other batsmen averaged who batted instead of Russell. 38.78 is the benchmark needed to surpass Stewart and Russell as a batting and keeping combination.

 

[Furball]

Then you would suggest that Russell was a superior keeper. But you did not. You asked what the other batsmen averaged who batted instead of Russell. 38.78 is the benchmark needed to surpass Stewart and Russell as a batting and keeping combination.

Hick, Ramprakash and Butcher got nowhere near that, 3 stalwarts of England's middle order.