Mark Butcher vs Johnny Bairstow

[Flem274*]

TIL Mark Butcher snagged 71 tests for an average of 34, which basically makes him Bairstow's cricketing dad. I thought he had like 40 tests for some reason.

Who was better?

 

[trundler]

English mediocrity spam XI

Mark Butcher
Trevor Bailey
Nasser Hussein
Mike Gatting
Paul Collingwood
Johnny Bairstow
Moeen Ali
Ashley Giles
Phil DeFreitas
Matthew Hoggard
Devon Malcolm

They'll have you believe all of these blokes were just unlucky to play a million tests while never making an impression but don't fall for the English media spam.

Shout-out to a million bits and pieces straight breakers like Emburey, Panesar and Tufnell who just missed out. Oh and Michael Atherton is not undersold by his stats, he was mediocrity personified too.

 

[honestbharani]

Hoggard, Colingwood and even Hussain a bit hard done by IMO. They were all genuinely test class. Moeen is a test class allrounder IMO its not his fault he is always played out of position or that he exists at the same time as Ben Stokes.

 

[Red]

Trevor Bailey was far from mediocre. Excellent gritty all-rounder who bought a lot of value to his teams.

 

[Bijed]

Collingwood averaged 40.5, I know he had his ups and downs and averages don't tell the whole story, but that's not a mediocre test career

Whilst I'm being picky, Panesar was not a straight-breaker either, his issues were in basically every aspect of his game other than ability to spin the ball

As for the actual question, I guess it's probably Butcher for maintaining a similar record in the tougher context of batting in the top order. I don't actually know a whole lot about his career though, apart from Headingley and the last couple of years when I'd started watching cricket

 

[Teja.]

English mediocrity spam XI

Mark Butcher
Trevor Bailey
Nasser Hussein
Mike Gatting
Paul Collingwood
Johnny Bairstow
Moeen Ali
Ashley Giles
Phil DeFreitas
Matthew Hoggard
Devon Malcolm

They'll have you believe all of these blokes were just unlucky to play a million tests while never making an impression but don't fall for the English media spam.

Shout-out to a million bits and pieces straight breakers like Emburey, Panesar and Tufnell who just missed out. Oh and Michael Atherton is not undersold by his stats, he was mediocrity personified too.

Hick played 65 tests for a batting average of just over 30. Ramprakash played 52 tests for a batting average of 27 and 2 centuries.

 

[Flem274*]

English mediocrity spam XI

Mark Butcher
Trevor Bailey
Nasser Hussein
Mike Gatting
Paul Collingwood
Johnny Bairstow
Moeen Ali
Ashley Giles
Phil DeFreitas
Matthew Hoggard
Devon Malcolm

They'll have you believe all of these blokes were just unlucky to play a million tests while never making an impression but don't fall for the English media spam.

Shout-out to a million bits and pieces straight breakers like Emburey, Panesar and Tufnell who just missed out. Oh and Michael Atherton is not undersold by his stats, he was mediocrity personified too.

hmm Collingwood was really good and Hoggard was very good in the context of his era. Hoggard would average 27-28 in another time tbh. Hussain was fine, as per the 35 rule and he tailed off towards the end I think. Gatting's average played catch up and Moeen had a very good peak.

Hick and Ramps set up camp in this side and I reckon we'd be spoiled for choice with better opening options here too. Bowlers might be tricky to find given England are very good at producing bowlers who are at least competent. Spoiled for choice in the allrounder department.

 

[grecian]

Yes, Colly and Hoggard don't desrve to be there, I've never heard of Bailey being called mediocre before, oh and Gatt had a mid part of his career where he was nearly World Class. I mean I don't even know what the English Media Spam is TBH. Yet obvs needs more Crawley.

Oh Butcher possibly, can't get much enthusiasm for either. Really odd Butch never played a ODI, useful fielder, could bowl, and yeah may not have been quick with the bat but the likes of Atherton, Hussein and others who played plenty.

Must have been the guy in the modern era to play most Tests without 1 limited overs appearance.

 

[kevinw]

Hoggard averaged just over 30, which was comfortably better than Harmison, say.

Collingwood's average was less than half a run lower than Strauss, who'd be considered one of England's best modern batsmen.

As others have said, Hick and Ramps should be the middle order engine room of this side.

 

[Starfighter]

Moeen is a test class allrounder IMO

He isn't.

its not his fault he is always played out of position or that he exists at the same time as Ben Stokes.

If he wasn't playing out of position he wouldn't be playing at all. A bodge pick. Plus he's batting 6, 7 or 8 the vast majority of the time anyway.

 

[GIMH]

English mediocrity spam XI

Mark Butcher
Trevor Bailey
Nasser Hussein
Mike Gatting
Paul Collingwood
Johnny Bairstow
Moeen Ali
Ashley Giles
Phil DeFreitas
Matthew Hoggard
Devon Malcolm

They'll have you believe all of these blokes were just unlucky to play a million tests while never making an impression but don't fall for the English media spam.

Shout-out to a million bits and pieces straight breakers like Emburey, Panesar and Tufnell who just missed out. Oh and Michael Atherton is not undersold by his stats, he was mediocrity personified too.

Collingwood has zero business being here. Had his lean spells but also played some belting innings. Didn’t see it through to the close but his performance on day 5 at Cardiff in 09 was utterly crucial in the context of a series we won 2-1. He played more of the same under the pump in South Africa that winter. He scored a ****ing double ton away to Australia. Plus he was a gun fielder and semi useful bowler too. I’d give my left arm to have someone like him in the England team now.

Sticking Hoggard in there is presumably a troll because you can’t have actually meant it.

 

[Burgey]

TBF to the OP, there's just so much English mediocrity to choose from that you're spoiled for choice.

Personally don't think Gatting belongs here. Played on way too long but had some genuinely important performances across his career. Averaged 40 batting three in a tough era as well.

Atherton belongs here though. Terrible player tbh.

 

[GIMH]

Obviously it got taken to absurd lengths on here, mainly by Dicko, but I do think Atherton would have fared a lot better in the decade that followed.

plus we’d defo take an opener averaging 37 now. And to do that with ankylosing spondylitis is not to be sniffed at tbf

 

[Burgey]

Well sure, but Michael Clarke had it and averaged 48 or so. None of this excuse making for Atherton please

If anyone is having a bad day, get on YouTube and watch him falling over going for his 100th run in the Lord's test of the 93 Ashes. Magnificent. Highlight of his career.

 

[GIMH]

Clarke has AS? I didn’t know that. Knew he had back issues obviously.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Atherton every single time for me. Not only does his simplistic career average say little about him (need to look deeper than that in almost any career of any length) but Trescothick's scorebook-average flatters him enormously. His scorebook average against Test-class teams is 41; his first-chance average, over his entire career, is actually just over 30. And while that accurately sums-up the fact he was never a Test-class player, even Trescothick had his moments, mostly during the summer and winter of 2004 and 2004/05. And his mostly good 20s, 30s and 40s undoubtedly helped smash the wayward Australian seamers onto the back-foot in 2005 too. Exclude this and he did nothing of note whatsoever, but the fact he was mostly awful shouldn't completely obscure the fact he played an important part in this time.

Anyway, Atherton. What so few people seem to realise is that his injury was not a constant thing. There were 2 series where it affected him really badly; knock these out and you have a summation of what Atherton was capable of without the injury. And really, I don't see any reason to consider these 2 series (Zimbabwe in 1996\97 and Australia in 1998\99) of any importance whatsoever. So he couldn't score when he could barely move; WTF does this matter? He played another 90-odd Tests where he did score, very well.

Atherton, of course, also had 2 Tests at the start of his career (which he shouldn't have played) and 10 at the end where his performances were not good at all. Again, there's nothing unusual there whatsoever, more players than not have bad starts (especially when selected too early) and ends.

Since I last posted an Atherton analysis, StatsGuru has been improved, and I can now offer a true assessment of the part of his career that matters. So here it is. Excluding the meaningless series in which he was injured, the meaingless series where he was picked too early, and the last 3 series in which he was on the way down.

The most annoying thing is the fact that there were 4 series against Australia that, in my view, were either completely or fairly meaningless. And this led to the conclusion that he couldn't play against Australia, which as you see from the fact that he played 44 innings against them in the time which does matter and averaged 35 is completely and totally untrue.

His record against the typically weaker attacks of his day - India, New Zealand and Zimbabwe - is excellent, lending weight to the suggestion that in the post-2001\02 age where most bowlers were poor he could easily have averaged in the 50s.

I watched most of Atherton's career, and am willing to open my eyes to the fact there is a massive difference between the fit Atherton and the unfit Atherton (and that the last 10 games don't really mean too much compared to the 97 in the middle when fit). And I could tell you without even looking at the averages that he'd done damn well. Then you look at the fact he averaged 41.54, when attacks were more often strong than weak, and you see he's been one of the best England batsmen of recent times. Often he was the best in the side.

Why anyone would deny this is beyond me.

Atherton was God.

 

[GIMH]

Clarke has AS? I didn’t know that. Knew he had back issues obviously.

Quick google and can’t find anything that says he has it. Michael Slater came up, which rang a bell.

It’s a condition I have some level of awareness of. I first heard of it via Mick Mars’s chapters in The Dirt. But more pertinently my GPs soft diagnosed me with it after some tests a good 4-5 years ago. It’s never been confirmed, and if I do have it I’m one of the lucky ones as my issues could be a lot worse, but it does give me a fair amount of respect for Atherton to have gone about his career the way he did, knowing how restricted even I feel doing simple tasks that involve any form of bending (@Smudge )

 

[TheJediBrah]

Quick google and can’t find anything that says he has it. Michael Slater came up, which rang a bell.

It’s a condition I have some level of awareness of. I first heard of it via Mick Mars’s chapters in The Dirt. But more pertinently my GPs soft diagnosed me with it after some tests a good 4-5 years ago. It’s never been confirmed, and if I do have it I’m one of the lucky ones as my issues could be a lot worse, but it does give me a fair amount of respect for Atherton to have gone about his career the way he did, knowing how restricted even I feel doing simple tasks that involve any form of bending (@Smudge )

I doubt he had the exact same medical condition, but I don't think that was the point

 

[Chubb]

Butcher had a career of two halves, prior to his Ashes hundred he averaged less than 30, after that (I think) it was 40+ although the last year or so brought it down again.

 

[morgieb]

Was Butcher the definition of mediocrity? Yes. But England would still kill for him now - even if you rate Burns higher he’s still quite a bit better than Hameed or Malan.