Dire cricketers who had a successful test career

[silentstriker]

If you had a successful test career, you weren't a dire player to begin with. I don't think its possible to be a bad player and end up being successful in Tests over any long length of time. You would get exposed too quickly. You can be weak in certain areas, definitely, but you can't be a bad player. No way. Excluding players from minnow teams of course.

 

[Precambrian]

Atherton didn't do well for a short period of time. Between 1990 and 2000 (calendar years in full) he averaged 41 when fit. Considering the bowlers he faced this is a superb achievement. There are 90 Tests in this period. Not short at all.

Not at all. During this period, he has played in 91 tests and averages 38. Strictly mediocre for a guy who's played that many tests as a specialist batsman. And he was consistently mediocre, in the sense that except for 1991, he never averaged more than 50 in any calendar year.

He isn't, he's actually considerably underrated. England were far from outstanding in most of the 1990s, but the way some people speak it was the worst time in the history of English cricket, which it emphatically wasn't.

He is not underrated by any means. Just playing so many tests because England lacked a quality opener is by no means a good yardstick. I never said England was the worst team in the 90s, but one of the worse teams.

 

[Precambrian]

Atherton actually had just 1 bad series against WI and Aus when fit and when established as a good Test player. These came in 1997 and 1998.

Nonsense. If he was not fit, then he was robbing England's chances by playing. That itself is a huge crime. And the basis for establishing his ability as test played is bollocks. How many series

Vs Aus

1989 - Avg 18
1990/91 - Avg 31
1993 - 46
1994/95 - 40
1997 - 23
98-99 - 14
01 - 22

No 100s since 90-91 (Only 100). Had he been in any other team, he'd never be selected after 97. And by no means 46 is an exceptional average, it is just good. And there ends it

Vs WI

1991 - 5 tests, avg 9
1993-94 - 5 tests, avg 56
1995 - 6 tests, avg 40
1997-98 - 6 tests, avg 18
2000 - 5 tests, avg 35

Again 1 very good series in 1993-94 (Although 1 of the 2 100s he made was on the infamous road at Antigue where Lara made his 375)

Atherton simply faced Australia before he was Test-class once (2 Tests in 1989), after he ceased to be Test-class once (5 Tests in 2001; he also faced SL and Pak in this time and did poorly), and when he was woefully unfit once (1998/99 - he also faced Zimbabwe in 1996/97 in a similar condition and did similarly woefully, proving that the calibre of attack was completely irrelevant and the only reason for his poor performance was lack of fitness). This disguises the fact that there were 21 Tests in which he actually performed perfectly respectably against Australia.

Not at all excuses for poor performance. Did he himself knew he was not test class when called up? Could he have said "No" at that point? No, so your argument is not valid

Atherton played one hell of a lot of superb knocks against West Indies. The only series that went by without him playing one at the very least was 1997.

Hell of knocks? Apart from 2 100s in Windies, one of them on a road, and another on a first day surface.

Another 100 was at Trent Bridge, where it was again on a first day pitch, and on a good pitch that (Both teams made 400+ in the first dig) against an attack which had Walsh, Benjamin, Bish and Dhanraj.

The last 100 however was a classic which helped England win the test at Oval, although it may argued that Walsh and Ambrose were past their prime.

 

[Precambrian]

If you had a successful test career, you weren't a dire player to begin with. I don't think its possible to be a bad player and end up being successful in Tests over any long length of time. You would get exposed too quickly. You can be weak in certain areas, definitely, but you can't be a bad player. No way. Excluding players from minnow teams of course.

That is applicable for poor players. But Atherton was not poor. He was mediocre. And in any other team at that point in time, wouldnt have played so many number of test matches he eventually played. Atherton playing for 10+ years for England denotes lack of a good opener during that period, than being endorsement of Atherton as a test batsman.

 

[Goughy]

Atherton was certainly impacted by injuries but that still doesnt change the fact that he was a limited batsman with a range of technical issues that were compensated for, to a certain extent, with stubborness and concentration.

I dont think he fits into this thread category. He isnt a "Dire cricketers who had a successful test career."

He was a good cricketer that had a long and decent Test career.

 

[Precambrian]

Atherton was certainly impacted by injuries but that still doesnt change the fact that he was a limited batsman with a range of technical issues that were compensated for, to a certain extent, with stubborness and concentration.

I dont think he fits into this thread category. He isnt a "Dire cricketers who had a successful test career."

He was a good cricketer that had a long and decent Test career.

I don't think he is dire. But he certainly deserved to play so many tests that he eventually played. Hence my nomination to this thread.

Carl Hooper is another such person.

Nasser Hussain too.

 

[Ikki]

I don't think Atherton was "dire"...certainly not as good as Richard makes him out to be. 41 is "superb achievement" ? No, it's very average. Which is what Atherton was.

 

[Goughy]

I don't think Atherton was "dire"...certainly not as good as Richard makes him out to be. 41 is "superb achievement" ? No, it's very average. Which is what Atherton was.

He was a respectable looking lad that went to the right places and could bat well in an obdurate style that certain types looked favourabley on.

Lots of non-productivity reasons played a part as they often do in England, and as Im sure happen all over as well.

 

[Precambrian]

Two more nominations:

Devon Malcolm who played 40 tests despite averaging 37
Mohd Sami

 

[Ikki]

Actually, I wish to retract saying Athers was very average. He wasn't. He was good and nifty at times and on the whole probably gave something to his side. With respect to the exaggerations and the reasons that Richard brings up for him though, I thought averaging 41 was not much to even speak about. In truth, it's actually pretty decent.

 

[Precambrian]

Actually, I wish to retract saying Athers was very average. He wasn't. He was good and nifty at times and on the whole probably gave something to his side. With respect to the exaggerations and the reasons that Richard brings up for him though, I thought averaging 41 was not much to even speak about. In truth, it's actually pretty decent.

Decent for an Englishman during the 90s. Mediocre on an overall scale.

 

[Richard]

Not at all. During this period, he has played in 91 tests and averages 38. Strictly mediocre for a guy who's played that many tests as a specialist batsman. And he was consistently mediocre, in the sense that except for 1991, he never averaged more than 50 in any calendar year.

Atherton averaged 41 between 1990 and 2000 when the series' in Zimbabwe in 1996/97 and Australia in 1998/99 (in which, as I say, he was in a state of fitness where not one player in Test history would have performed remotely well) are excluded. Atherton when fit was obviously unrecogniseable for Atherton when not fit and pretending the two were the same is pretty pointless.

He is not underrated by any means. Just playing so many tests because England lacked a quality opener is by no means a good yardstick.

England had several good openers - Gooch, Atherton, Stewart.

I never said England was the worst team in the 90s, but one of the worse teams.

They were, but only because it was a very strong time in general. England have had many worse times.

 

[four_or_six]

Not even close. The best pace bowlers of that era were from WI, Aus and Pak. Against whom Athers averaged 31, 29 and 41 respectively.

Donald?

 

[Richard]

Nonsense. If he was not fit, then he was robbing England's chances by playing. That itself is a huge crime. And the basis for establishing his ability as test played is bollocks. How many series

Vs Aus

1989 - Avg 18
1990/91 - Avg 31
1993 - 46
1994/95 - 40
1997 - 23
98-99 - 14
01 - 22

No 100s since 90-91 (Only 100). Had he been in any other team, he'd never be selected after 97. And by no means 46 is an exceptional average, it is just good. And there ends it

1989 is irrelevant, he shouldn't have been called-up yet. 1998/99 is completely and totally irrelevant, he was unfit and no-one in that state of fitness would ever have performed. 2001 isn't irrelevant, but he wasn't Test-class any more and that was shown by his performance against other teams.

In 1990/91, 1993, 1994/95 and 1997 combined his record is more than acceptable. The only time he had a genuinely poor series was 1997.

Atherton was far from superlative against Australia, but he was nowhere near as bad as some think. Players don't stay the same all career and Atherton was no exception.

Vs WI

1991 - 5 tests, avg 9
1993-94 - 5 tests, avg 56
1995 - 6 tests, avg 40
1997-98 - 6 tests, avg 18
2000 - 5 tests, avg 35

Again 1 very good series in 1993-94 (Although 1 of the 2 100s he made was on the infamous road at Antigue where Lara made his 375)

As I say - just one bad series, in 1998. He had a shocker in 1991, but he wasn't fully fit then either. He doesn't seek to use this as an excuse, however, but I do.

Not at all excuses for poor performance. Did he himself knew he was not test class when called up? Could he have said "No" at that point? No, so your argument is not valid

No-one refuses a call-up. Atherton played in 1989 only because England's cricket that year was an utter shambles. However, more players than not who turn-out Test-class struggle early in their careers. I always ignore such a time, particularly when it comprises of 2 Tests. Look back through my posts, you'll find hundreds of examples concerning many different players.

Hell of knocks? Apart from 2 100s in Windies, one of them on a road, and another on a first day surface.

Another 100 was at Trent Bridge, where it was again on a first day pitch, and on a good pitch that (Both teams made 400+ in the first dig) against an attack which had Walsh, Benjamin, Bish and Dhanraj.

The last 100 however was a classic which helped England win the test at Oval, although it may argued that Walsh and Ambrose were past their prime.

They weren't - Ambrose and Walsh were both as good that tour as ever. Atherton's batting in that Oval Test (he scored 80 and 100 - almost carrying his bat in the second-innings) was quite brilliant.

As I say - plenty of good knocks, those were just the very best of the best.

 

[four_or_six]

Basically, when Athers got out you thought 'oh crap'. That's how important a player he was to us.

 

[Richard]

I don't think Atherton was "dire"...certainly not as good as Richard makes him out to be. 41 is "superb achievement" ? No, it's very average. Which is what Atherton was.

It was pretty damn good for the bowlers he faced. Had he faced the bowling of 2001/02 onwards, it wouldn't be that great an achievement. But had he done that his average would be considerably higher - more like 50. If Herschelle Gibbs can do as well as he did, Atherton certainly can. And yeah, I won't even mention a thing about Matthew Hayden.

 

[Richard]

Decent for an Englishman during the 90s. Mediocre on an overall scale.

Not mediore. Certainly far from outstanding, and Atherton wasn't an outstanding batsman. As one person has said, he had limitations. But he was good, and an average of 37 isn't an accurate reflection of his ability, as career averages rarely are.

 

[Ikki]

It was pretty damn good for the bowlers he faced. Had he faced the bowling of 2001/02 onwards, it wouldn't be that great an achievement. But had he done that his average would be considerably higher - more like 50. If Herschelle Gibbs can do as well as he did, Atherton certainly can. And yeah, I won't even mention a thing about Matthew Hayden.

Certainly not. The difference between batting in the 2000s and 1990s was nowhere near 9-10 runs on average. More like 2-3.

 

[Manee]

Depends what you think has happened to the standard of batting. After all, the standard of bowling has certainly decreased.

 

[Richard]

Certainly not. The difference between batting in the 2000s and 1990s was nowhere near 9-10 runs on average. More like 2-3.

Not all batsmen are the same, not all batsmen react the same way to the same situation, so the average run difference is irrelevant. Some batsmen's averages would go up minimally; some would (and did) go up loads.

Some might even go down, if they weren't good at cashing-in when the going was good. Nasser Hussain for example might quite easily have done less well in the post-2001/02 period than he did earlier. The likes of him are in a pretty small minority however.