| | |
| | |
| Welcome to the World-A-Team Cricket Forum. We promote friendly, good-natured, quality cricket discussion. |
| |||||||
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
10-12-2004, 09:25 PM
in reply to flanflinger's post starting "Rachael,
Atherton who you praise-
..." | ||||
| ||||
| Did I also mention that Atherton had a massive 20 ducks - Trescothick only has 7... Stats don't explain everything, but they do highlight a lot. Atherton had a great techique, and was selected by many bolwers to be the wicket they wanted, but Trescothick has a had to face great bowlers too... For a full analysis http://stats.cricket4.com/player_ana...y=5&FromForm=1 http://stats.cricket4.com/player_ana...3&FromForm= 1 Oh and by the way which one of these two averages more than one catch a match....Hmmm let me think Last edited by flanflinger : 10-12-2004 at 09:28 PM. |
|
10-12-2004, 10:36 PM
in reply to flanflinger's post starting "Rachael,
Atherton who you praise-
..." | |||
| |||
| I'm generally sympathetic to the cases you make Flanflinger.. but the notion that Tresco is even fit to tend Atherton's boots is too extreme. Tresco might have averaged more than Atherton.. but if you strike out at balls you should leave and try riding your luck you'll always do OK on the stats front: flashing hard outside the off stump has ALWAYS enabled batsmen to boost their averages through mistimed balls that pierce the outfield and edges that clear the slips and race for four.. but has never (ever) marked a player out as a better opener. Curiously, one reason Atherton lost his wicket during the more incredible spells from Ambrose, McGrath and Donald was actually his quality: firstly he got the bat on balls that would have comprehensively beaten lesser batsmen.. and secondly his great touch and soft hands meant that any ball which DID catch an edge tended to present a chance in the slips rather than fly past gully or over the top of the slip cordon. On a related point... no-one, including me, would dispute that a guy attempting to ride his luck and put bat to ball is more likely to find his timing quickly than a guy who is more patient, who plays himself in with the most chanceless innings he can manage.. but I'd trust that no-one would actually hold up the former as a superior approach to a critical Test innings - it's one that's more likely to work when it isn't needed (poor attack) and less likely to work when it IS needed (good attack).. and whilst there will always be exceptions (where the riskier approach paid off) a player like Atherton will always be better at delivering when it really counts. Think Jo'berg and a 13.5 hour innings.. do you think Tresco could have matched that? No-one, including me, disputes that an opening batsman needs to try and get after the bad ball... or that there are times when it's helpful to apply pressure, even as an opener, by taking the attack TO the bowlers.. but it also remains an fact that there is a lot, lot more to be said for taking the attack to a second rate bowler (who might panic, try too hard or in some other way concede an advantage to the batsman... than there is for taking the attack to a decent bowler.. who's just goiing to say "oh, wonderful, this man wants to give me his wicket". I dispute, entirely, the notion that Tresco has actually faced bowling of the sort of callibre that merits comparison with Atherton.. and whilst acknowledging that Tresco has occasionally managed to ride his luck against some decent bowling.. I'd submit that over the course of his career... Atherton showed that he was the man of choice for the situations where sheer class mattered. It also says it all of Tresco that he's hardly ever improved DURING a tour: one early set back and he's generally going backwards for the forseable future. Sure, it's better news if he gets off to a good start.. but when on tour.. underprepared.. acclimatising slowly.. and up aainst it.. you ned to play yourself into a series. Tresco's NEVER done that.. which is why he sucks when it counts. What's the point of a player who can only do it when he's got home advantage and the chance to take on a touring side who haven't got into their stride when he first sets about them? Bugger all. Atherton all the way I'm afraid: It saddens me that Gooch will go down as more effective.. but I rest easy knowing that Tresco will NEVER earn the same acclaim. Last edited by Rachael : 10-12-2004 at 10:39 PM. |
|
10-12-2004, 10:56 PM
in reply to Rachael's post starting "I'm generally sympathetic to the cases..." | |||
| |||
| Just for the record... Trrescothick's average against the one good attack that he's ever faced (Australia) is actually poorer than Atherton's: Tresco has played 20 innings and average 29.1 where Atherton played 66 innings (and faced Warne at his peak rather than as he is now) and averaged 29.69. Atherton's record against Walsh and Ambrose IS better than Tresco's against the likes of Collymore and Dillon.. which is no surprise.. but Atherton's record against Wasim, Waqar and co at their peak is quite a bit better than Tresco's against the pale imitation of that attack that he has faced. Unsurprisingly, Atherton (who faced Donald and Pollock at their peak) averaged less (at 43.82) than Tresco has done against an over-worked Pollock backed by the likes of Ntini and lusenor. Doesn't prove much. Moreover, against the Indian attack... which in Atherton's time (unless I'm much mistaken) boasted Srinath and the odd decent support seamer as well as quality spin) Atherton averaged nearly 60.00.. which is all Tresco has managed in an era where the best seamer was dearest Khan. It's perhaps also worth noting that whilst both ahave a best average of 68... Atherton's was managed against New Zealand.. and Tresco's has the illustrious "Bangladesh" tag attached to it. I rest my case. |
| ||||
| just to make a point, Atherton finished his career with an ordinary average, Trescothick in an unknown quantity yet, he has to face the best as a mature player. It will be interesting next year to see how Trescothick faces up to Glen McGrath, who we all know had Atherton as his Bunny. I have thought myself, and have heard others say"Atherton was better than his average sugests", but how can this be, if he finished his career with an average of around 37, then that was the measure of the guy. I think that puts him behind the likes of Gatting and Gooch, says it all.
__________________ Ern  |
| ||||
| Rachael, What it come down to is the fact that as good as Atherton was (and I actually think he was a great batsmen) batting is all about scoring runs, and whther that it is cover drive or a nick down to third man, it doesn't actually matter how you score. Also, you can only score runs against the players on the pitch. The fact is that for all his talent the ultimate conclusion about Atherton was that an average of only 37, only 16 hundereds in 116 Test and a massive 20 ducks, means that he under-performed. My main bone of contention with what you said about Trescothick was that he fails to score enough hundreds, and yet he is scoring them at a higher rate than Atherton, who you had just prasied!! The fact is that players are judged on volume of runs, hundreds and their average. Trescothick has less than half the Test's of Atherton and more than half than runs; a similar ratio of hundreds and a superior average. Yet you would drop him from the Test side, but I doubt you wouyld have said the same about Atherton. But Ern is right, we cannot judge one guy in the middle of his career fully against a guy who has finished, but I am willing to put money on Trescothiock bettering Atherton by the end. Last edited by flanflinger : 11-12-2004 at 10:22 AM. |
| |||
| Quote:
__________________ Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy. Spike Milligan |
|
11-12-2004, 11:52 AM
in reply to Occasional Fan's post starting "That's true. And given what's going on..." | |||
| |||
| Quote:
|
| |||
| Going from bad to worse. England 159/7, Jones not out 35 the only hope for a respectable total |
| |||
| Quote:
Atherton rarely had the good fortune to play in a side that had the luxury of focussing exclusively on Test victories. Rarely in his career did he EVER have a side that made that a credible option. The Test side, throughout most of his career, was under pressure to avoid disgraceful failures to compete.. and under pressure to make sure that games did at least last 5 days. Atherton was charged first and foremost with ensuring the side wasn't rolled over without resistance, not with giving the bowlers some runs to play with. Along with basically having to focus the collective innings on survival.. Atherton also had a particular responsibility as an opener who was followed by a succession of second rate players: to wear out the opposition bowlers to the point where the middle order batsmen stood a fighting chance. In working out Atherton's value to the side it's as important to look at how the team performed as a result of the way he soaked up the tough overs at the start of the innings. Consider two scenarios: Atherton scores 38 off 120 balls... during which time he's seen off the new ball partnership.. seen off the first change.. and seen off the strike bowlers during their short, explosive flings just before and just after lunch. The middle order batsman to replace him comes to the crease half way through the afternoon session with England having made a solid start (perhaps an opening partnership of 96) and under relatively little pressure. Tresco scores 48 off 56 balls... and all before 75 balls (12.3 overs) have been bowled. There's been less than an hour of play, the balls still relatively new, the bowlers are stil relatively fresh, the balls still swinging around in the morning dampness... and no 3 comes out to play with another hour to get through to lunch.. and with England under pressure on 68/1. Tresco scored more individual runs.. but England are more likely to score more runs as a result of the Atherton innings. Batting is all about scoring runs? No. Last edited by Rachael : 11-12-2004 at 04:10 PM. |
|
12-12-2004, 01:23 PM
in reply to Ernest's post starting "just to make a point, Atherton finished..." | ||||
| ||||
| Well this thread has been turned on it's head, it would seem at least in this match we have neither, the time is 13:31 on the 12 of december and England are 3 for 3. Burcher, well is this the End?. Flintoff and Simon Jones the pick of the bowling. see link below. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/shared/.../scorecard.stm Well Fletcher don't blame England Huh http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cric...nd/4088815.stm Last edited by Ernest : 12-12-2004 at 01:25 PM. |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |
Linear Mode
