Marvan Atapattu vs Mike Atherton

[Migara]

Both debuted very close to each other, ended very close too. Played very similar number of matches, and averages are similar too. Both were stylish opening batsmen, and both were legspinners picking up 1 and 2 wickets in test matches.

Who would you think had the better career ?

Marvan Atapattu
Mike Atherton

 

[ParwazHaiJunoon]

The one who is a better commentator.

 

[mr_mister]

Atherton.

Were either that stylish though? I feel gritty is a more appropriate word.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Hard to say. They did the majority of their batting on vastly different surfaces.

Atherton vs John Wright is a better comparison imo (Wright better, but not much in it).

 

[Senile Sentry]

Didn't realize Atapattu has a decent, however brief record in Aus and Eng. Also the better batsman to watch.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Looks like Attapattu boosted his record against the 3 weakest sides of his era: Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, and England.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Atherton actually scored good runs against quality pace bowlers - Hadlee, Donald, and the 2 Ws. Struggled a lot in the Ashes though like most Ebglishmen of the era.

 

[mr_mister]

Got a string of tons against Ambrose and Walsh too. But averaged a lot less

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Athers, would have averaged about 4 or 5 more if it wasn't for him being a cripple.

 

[Line and Length]

Atapattu played over 10% of his Tests against Zimbabwe where he averaged 95.4 (compared with Atherton's 39.9).
He had a marginally better record than Atherton against Australia (31.2 v 29.7) and the West Indies (35.4 v 31.7)
Against other nations Atherton was clearly superior - against New Zealand (68.0 v 39.5), against India (57.4 v 39.5), against Pakistan (41.4 v 31.6) and against South Africa (43.8 v 26.1)
The overall batting averages may be similar (37.7 to 39.0 in Atapattu's favour) but overall Atherton appears more consistent. Take away the Zimbabwe numbers and Atherton still average 37.7 while Atapattu slips to 33.7

 

[jimmy101]

Tough one. Preferred watching Atapattu bat, so I suppose I'll vote for him.

Also thought how he tore into the SL selectors was genuinely bad-ass.

 

[a massive zebra]

Atherton by far. Although their averages are similar, IIRC Atapattu cashed in against Zimbabwe and averaged about 32 against top 8 teams. Atherton played almost his entire career against top 8 teams. Also, although Atherton declined in the second half of his career (due to a combination of poor form, back problems and technical issues), in the first half of his career he was one of the worlds top tier openers. Atapattu never really consistently reached that level

 

[mr_mister]

I think the '97 ashes was the start of Athertons downfall. He entered that series the prize wicket to get for the aussie bowlers, yet finished the '01 ashes a walking wicket to the aussie bowlers.

His average against Mcgrath must have been sub 10 and from a lot of digs too

 

[_Ed_]

I just noticed they also had a very similar number of ducks - Atpattu 22, Atherton 20.

 

[jimmy101]

Atherpattu.

 

[Chubb]

Atherton's back problem - ankylosing spondylytis - is sometimes underplayed. It was very nearly crippling for him and was likely responsible for his technical issues as well. Really, averaging what he did with that condition and against that era of fast bowling was incredible. Even the 90s Zimbabwe team had a world class opening bowler. There wasn't really any respite.

 

[Migara]

Athers



Atapattu

 

[Migara]

Atherton's back problem - ankylosing spondylytis - is sometimes underplayed. It was very nearly crippling for him and was likely responsible for his technical issues as well. Really, averaging what he did with that condition and against that era of fast bowling was incredible. Even the 90s Zimbabwe team had a world class opening bowler. There wasn't really any respite.

Both are from the same era, faced same bowlers, played almost similar conditions (proportions may be different).

One of the things to note is that Atherton hardly succeeded in SL, and his downfall often brought on by Vaas, who was probably not a top tier Test bowler at the time, but not with spin.

He may have had better chances if he played 2 or 3 down.

 

[Chubb]

Did Atapattu have a back problem as well? I didn't know that. I have a lot of time for him too.

 

[Engle]

The question is not who was the better batsman, it is who had the better career.

Attapattu started his Test career with 5 ducks in his first 3 Tests and ended with 6 double centuries.

Atherton started off much better with a 151 in his 3rd Test, but never breached the Test double.

I'm going for Attapattu, he is more likely to be remembered for his amazing turnaround.