Flintoff launches stinging attack at Atherton.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jun/21/andrew-flintoff-attacks-michael-atherton

Andrew Flintoff, the former England all-rounder, has launched a stinging attack on Michael Atherton, calling his former England and Lancashire colleague a "f*cking pr!ck".

Speaking to an Evening Standard journalist at a Sky TV dinner at the Oxo Tower restaurant in London, Flintoff strongly criticised Atherton, who now works as a Sky commentator and Times journalist.

"He's a Tinkywinky," said Flintoff. "He's a f*cking pr!ck. He sits there making judgments about players that are much better than he ever was, believe me, he's a pr!ck.

"How can he talk about a player like Alastair Cook who is 10 times the player he ever was – he has a much bigger average and will go on and on. Atherton averaged in the 30s for England and yet he thinks he can judge others."

Flintoff was then asked if he wanted his comments to be taken as off the record, but replied: "I don't care. Say what you like. There's no love lost there."

Atherton last year criticised Alastair Cook for a lack of dynamism with the bat but has since retracted his comments after the England one-day captain's performances improved, while his relationship with Flintoff is believed to have been placed under strain when in 2006 when Atherton wrote in the Telegraph: "The only positive benefit of the injury to Flintoff may be the end of his immediate captaincy ambitions.

"I don't subscribe to the view that England's underperformance against Sri Lanka was entirely down to Flintoff's captaincy but equally I have never subscribed to the view that he is the man for the job."


Is Freddie right, or is he going completely over the top?
Personally, I think the latter

Sounds like a drunken, and bitter, rant.

Atherton is one of cricket's good guys, and one of the finest sports journalists there has ever been. He is paid to offer an opinion, which he has on Flintoff's captaincy etc. And I think Flintoff's record as captain suggests that he was right.

As for Flintoff's comment about Atherton being a "f*cking pr!ck", well it takes one to know one, particularly after the way Flintoff behaved at times when he played for England, most notably during the 2007 World Cup where it was Flintoff himself who not only acted like one but looked like one after pint to many. Also I don't agree at all that Cook is 10 times the player Atherton was, since Atherton played in a poor England team and had to open England's batting in an era where there were so many great bowlers like Ambrose,Walsh,Bishop,McGrath,Akram,Younis,Akhtar,Donald,Pollock,Warne,Kumble. In contrast what truely great bowlers does Cook have to face? Steyn perhaps but that is about it really. Had Atherton played in this current era, I believe that he would have had an overall average nearing 50.

Ridiculous from Flintoff. Atherton is paid to give his opinion on cricket and that is what he does very well. He's one of the best about - writing and commentating.

I'm getting a bit sick of sportsmen taking the 'what's he ever done' line in response to journalists. It shows a real lack of maturity. Debate the points in hand, don't make childish swipes in the press when you've had a few.

And Atherton's spot on about Flintoff. He was never captain material and looking at the way England have performed since his retirement it could be argued he was always a detrimental presence to England's long-term planning.

Fred's record was never outstanding (in either discipline), either. Granted that was due to some ropey early years, but it is hardly like he is in a Bradmanesque position to be overly critical.

It seems that Flintoff has made that age-old error of playing the man and not the ball. In this case however he has not only played the man, but played the wrong man as well: there are quite a few respected cricket writers in the UK such as Derek Pringle, Mike Selvey, Vic Marks, Angus Fraser; of all those, Michael Atherton is undoubtedly the most successful cricketer (although Fraser was of course a good cricketer too).

I would even argue that Ahterton was a more successful cricketer than Flintoff, certainly for England: Freddie was a very good player, but his only "great" years were 2003-2005, where he was truly world-class with bat and ball, and in all formats of the game (there was a period where he was England's only real successful ODI batsman). He enjoyed great performances not only against Australia, but also South Africa with that brilliant match-winning 98 or so at the Oval.

Atherton on the other hand carried England's batting for much of the 90s. Certainly in both the 1993 and 94/95 ashes Australia knew once they got rid of Atherton there wasn't much left. Thorpe struggled with injury, and Stewart seemed weighed down by having to keep wicket. In th 98 series against South Africa it was Atherton's fantastic battle with Donald, and subsequent 98 not out (regardless of what Athers said, Stewart should have played for his hundred at the end) which swung the momentum around.

Moreover, Atherton was always a team player: indeed against his better judgement he agreed to stay on as captain after the 97 ashes because those in power asked him to for the good of the team. The above-mentioned 98 not out is an excellent example.

I don't want to say Flintoff played for himself, but there is no doubt he enjoyed the limelight and actively went looking for it. Nothing illustrates this more than his role in the 2009 ashes, first by anouncing his retirement before the series, and then by his series of "look at me" celebrations (which I really dislike, I don't like Afridi's either). I always thought Flintoff would struggle once he was out of the sun, and I hope this isn't illustrative of things to come - I really hope he doesn't become cricket's equivalent of Paul Gascoigne, but there are similarities there (although Freddie did a lot more with his talent than Gazza did).

There is no doubt in any case that England have been a far better team since Flintoff's retirement. Firstly, because in his latter years he unbalanced the side - neither good enough to bat at 6, nor fit enough to bowl the overs required in a 4-man attack. Secondly and as importantly, his ethos was completely at odds with the professional ethic Fletcher then Flower were trying to install, and his numerous charades undermined the management quite severely. It is a wonderful illustration of Fletcher's man-management that he managed to get the best out of Flintoff in spite of this.

I don't want this to all sound too harsh: Flintoff was a very good international cricketer, and on his day a great one. He worked very hard at his fitness early on in his career, and transformed his batting from that of a biffer to a genuinely attacking number 6 (for a while). I'm just not sure he was as good as a lot of people, apparently himself included, think.

In any case, I too here am being guilty of playing the man not the ball, so should comment on these particular words.

First of all, I really don't buy the line that you can't comment on players less good than yourself. It is the same thing being spouted by Pietersen against Nick Knight, and of course ignores that many of the most successful pundits and coaches weren't necessarily great players. I do think that to make a meaningful contribution, some in-depth knowledge is required, and it is hence preferable to have had a taste of what you are talking about, in order to provide insight, but to suggest only the best players are allowed to pass judgement is ridiculous. Duncan Fletcher should never have been a coach then? What about Gary Kirsten? Both of these guys will have had to criticise players who were much better than they ever were - I doubt that was ever a problem.

On a more personal level, I myself coach players who are better than I will ever be, and they have in general no problem with that.

I happen to think Atherton is very qualified to comment on Alistair Cook: he has afterall been there, done it and knows what the challenges are.

Secondly the offensive language used is eminently unnecessary, and does unfortunately suggest this may have been a bit of a drunken rant.

Lastly, Ahterton was IMO right about Flintoff's captaincy. First of all, because if you can't manage your own behaviour, what chance do you have of managing others? What respect can you have from your team? But more importantly Freddie had little idea of tactics, in fact I can't remember a single time where he made a tactical move and I thought "hummm that's interesting". He had no idea of how to use a spin bowler: I always remember his field setting to Monty Panesar at the MCG, and also how Monty bowled 30 overs only when England failed to bowl out Sri Lanka on a final day pitch - Flintoff bowled more than 50.

So yes Freddie, Ahters was right, and you are very much in the wrong here. Please don't make this kind of rant any kind of regular occurence: we all want to remember you for your exploits on the field, not for the stupid things you did off it.

A number of current (or recent) players have moaned recently about reporters/commentators having no right to comment on players "better" than them. I guess they want an all round love in?

Does sound like a drunken rant from Freddie, and makes him look rather silly. Atherton is a good writer and commentator who makes fair points and never makes out he was better than he was.

If you don't like someone, what is wrong with saying so. Well said Freddy. He is entitled to his opinion. All this Freddie bashing is ridiculous.

Like all, Flintoff is entitled to his opinion. However, when made publicly, there should be no surprise or condemnation expressed at those who choose to object to the language used and point out the many flaws in his reasoning.

I liked Ollie Holt from the Mirrors take on this on Twitter, "Loved watching Flintoff play cricket but as a bloke, Id take Atherton every time. Top man + fine player who has become a brilliant journalist." Pretty much sums up my views on the matter.

It probably doesnt help that in cricket pretty much all the TV commentators are ex players rather than professional presenters, and that cricketers get plenty of time to watch the coverage during a game. The level of sensitivity to comments from one of their own is far greater than it is from journos. Its not just England players who are getting precious, that west Indian chap with his sign the other day a case in point.
Given the pains presenters seem to go to these days to avoid unfair criticism (even Boycott!) I don think they are getting over sensitive about it all. Atherton may well be a Tinkywinky of epic proportions but Flintoff has bowled a massive wide with this one. Its done nothing but give people the impression hes a drunken oaf with an ego problem, and he doesnt even have the excuse of being Australian.

Mike Selig wrote:
.... First of all, I really don't buy the line that you can't comment on players less good than yourself. It is the same thing being spouted by Pietersen against Nick Knight, and of course ignores that many of the most successful pundits and coaches weren't necessarily great players. I do think that to make a meaningful contribution, some in-depth knowledge is required, and it is hence preferable to have had a taste of what you are talking about, in order to provide insight, but to suggest only the best players are allowed to pass judgement is ridiculous. Duncan Fletcher should never have been a coach then? What about Gary Kirsten? Both of these guys will have had to criticise players who were much better than they ever were - I doubt that was ever a problem. ....

Mike - that's an excellent post. If I were to be critical at all, I would question whether Flintoff's outburst merits such a considered and well constructed response.

The paragraph I've reproduced above particularly caught my eye. A coach should always be trying to get the very best out of his player. Whilst it is preferable for the coach to have had sufficient playing experience to provide insight as you say, it is otherwise pretty immaterial how good the coach was in his playing days. It is similar with a cricket broadcaster or writer.

You make the very valid point that Duncan Fletcher and Gary Kirsten are amongst the very best in the field of coaching but fell some way short of that accolade as players. Sometimes the opposite is true as well. Elsewhere in your post, you gave a football analogy and referred to Paul Gascoigne. Allow me to supply another one from an even earlier time. Bobby Charlton. Always remembered as a cultured and skillful player who did so much to win silverware for his country and club, it is probably just as well that it is now largely forgotten or unknown that he had a short lived and disastrous spell in football management. There are plenty of others from plenty of sports.

Many of my fellow Surrey supporters (although not particularly on this forum) believe the Club's current batting woes would be transformed by making Mark Ramprakash our batting coach. Whilst I would be delighted to be proved wrong, I fear such a move would be inappropriate and unsuccessful (even assuming he were agreeable). So much of Ramps' success as a batsman has stemmed from his natural talent and his self absorbed outlook. I do not see those batting attributes aiding him as a coach. Indeed, I feel they would be counter productive.

Finally, I couldn't but contrast Flintoff's comments with the respectful, dignified and encouraging words conveyed by Richie Benaud towards your young leg spinner on the link you supplied the other day. Now Benaud is someone who could play and coach. One of the reasons making him so great.

I think I'd pretty much echo Mike's post on this. Very disappointing rant from Freddie, Atherton was probably my first cricketing hero (for the way he stood up to some truly great bowling attacks) and was, in his own right, a great cricketer. He's also one of the better cricket writers out there (and a very good commentator). The fact he actually retracted his comments on Cook show that he's willing to admit he's wrong too, something I'm not sure I can see Freddie doing.

guildford: I must say I didn't even know Bobby Charlton had a spell in management (assume it was before my time obv.) but it's well known the best players rarely make the best coaches (n'est-ce pas, Mike?). Having said that, Graham Gooch seems to be doing a very good job as English batting coach, so there are examples out there.

Now that Flintoff's cricketing career is over, do you not think his subsequent 'media' career smacks much of not being able to be out of the limelight?

Mad for Chelsea wrote:
guildford: I must say I didn't even know Bobby Charlton had a spell in management (assume it was before my time obv.) but it's well known the best players rarely make the best coaches ....

Mad - I'm probably only able to recall things that were before your time . After his playing career with Manchester United finished, Bobby Charlton moved to a managerial position with Preston North End in the '73-'74 season and promptly led them to relegation from the old Division Two (now the Championship). Kinder for all not to feature this in his career highlights.

Talking of great players not making great coaches:

Platini would rank in most people's top 5 ever european footballers (wouldn't he?), but it is recalled that when he was managing the french side he got frustrated by their poor free-kick taking and is quoted as saying "it's not hard, you just have to do what I did".

An article in cricinfo which raises more or less my points:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/569522.html

Rather surprised and somewhat saddened by this business ... Not that I don't think Flintoff has a right to be critical of Atherton or his opinions about Cook , but I find the intemperate language of his attack quite appalling. Has he nursed a grudge since 2006 over Atherton's (quite sensible, if not very tactful) dismissive view of his captaincy credentials? Or was he just interviewed in a pub ?
The respective records of Cook and Atherton really don't come into it. Anyone ( even people like us tapping away at keyboards) has a right to form and express an opinion about the merits or otherwise of any sportsman , and events often show that a "layman's" judgement may prove sounder than that of an expert. Which of us has not heard one of Sir Ian's on air pronouncements , thought "what rubbish" and been able to sit back shortly afterwards with a satisfied "told you so !" ... Of course Atherton - like Botham - gets paid to air his views , so he is there to be shot at. But unless he himself were guilty of making unpleasant and irrelevant remarks about the character of a player in question he surely doesn't deserve to be called a xxxxx xxxxx.
Freddie is bang out of order and has lost a bit of respect from me at least.

Re the other tangential issue raised above , about great players not always making great coaches... Seems to me this is not altogether surprising. Many - not all - of the finest players in any sport played in an instinctive manner virtually from the start of their careers. They had an obvious flair even as juniors , rose through the ranks quickly and just kept improving all the way to the top. It is probable that they did not really have to stop and think too much about how they did what they did , just let the natural talent have its head...
Even with the modern emphasis on a scientific approach to sport I suspect truly outstanding players are not pestered too much by coaches and analysts as long as they produce results.
Coaching is a totally different thing. You have to understand the processes that produce the desired outcomes , and be able to take apart components of an individual's game in order to fix what he or she might be doing imperfectly...whereas the star player always just did it naturally and can't really see why anyone else can't just do the same ... Of course I am oversimplifying , but what I mean to say is it is often the player who was not initially a huge success , but had to work hard at his game , think about every aspect of it , take a lot of advice from his own mentors , who is best equipped to pass on skills to others.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote: but Flintoff has bowled a massive wide with this one.

Or maybe an attempted yorker that turned into a full toss on the leg stump?

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote: Its done nothing but give people the impression hes a drunken oaf with an ego problem, and he doesnt even have the excuse of being Australian.

The ironic thing is that Flintoff says that Atherton can't criticise Cook due to him being an inferior player. Given that, on paper at least, a case could be made for Atherton being more successful than Flintoff surely Flintoff should follow his own advice...

Flintoff = legend

Atherton = only in side cause tresco was ill or we had no better .

Flinty was obviously drunk but obviously hates him . At least he was honest. Nice to know people's real feelings

mystiroakey wrote:Flintoff = legend

Atherton = only in side cause tresco was ill or we had no better .

Flinty was obviously drunk but obviously hates him . At least he was honest. Nice to know people's real feelings

In a direct comparison, who would you rate as the better player between Strauss and Flintoff?

I only ask, because in my opinion Atherton was a better player than Strauss (taking into account his chronic back problems). Atherton in this era would average over 45, whilst Strauss in the 90's would have averaged below 40. Just my opinion, but I do think that Atherton is underated.

mystiroakey wrote:Flintoff = legend

Atherton = only in side cause tresco was ill or we had no better .

Flinty was obviously drunk but obviously hates him . At least he was honest. Nice to know people's real feelings

Isn't that the point. Atherton was the best we had. He averaged around 40's in a time of Donald, Walsh and Ambrose and pretty much was our batting in the 90's.

Strauss by a mile. Atherton was part of a losing set up. A time where other openers had much better SRs. That England team done my head in

mystiroakey wrote:

Atherton = only in side cause tresco was ill or we had no better .

Not true. His career only briefly overlapped with Trescothick, and he was arguably the mainstay of the England side throughout the '90s, both as skipper and as a batsman. Thorpe, Stewart and Hussain had their moments, but were often up and down the order and in and out of the team. Of those Thorpe was the most naturally talented, but Atherton had humungous mental application (see Johannesburg '95).

Yep . We had no better. Forget the tresco part. Which didn't overlap for that much but obviously a bit..

Atherton. Best of a bad bunch. But a dieing breed of batsman

Ask a rival fan what they think or atherton ? We prided mediocre players in them day's

ask the rival sides mysti and they'd probably say for much of the time he was in the side Atherton was the wicket most prized by the opposition (certainly Aus targeted him regularly, as did the WI and Pakistan). I think that's enough of an endorsement of his capabilities...

Maybe . Maybe not

mystiroakey wrote:Flintoff = legend

True. Not a great player by any means though (he was a good player, great on his day, and very good for a while).

mystiroakey wrote:Atherton = only in side cause tresco was ill or we had no better .

Nonsense. You could say that about anyone. Atherton was England's best batsman throughout the 90s (with Thorpe, probably) and as MfC pointed out the one targeted frequently by oppositions. Your comment about strike-rates is irrelevant, cricket was played differently back then: Australia's top 3 included Taylor and Boon - neither renowned for being fast scorers. South Africa had Kirsten. Atherton was certainly one of the top 5 openers of his time. [/quote]

mystiroakey wrote:Flinty was obviously drunk but obviously hates him . At least he was honest. Nice to know people's real feelings

One can be honest without using obscene language, and talking nonsense about a player's career and the right it gives him to criticise others.

Slow annoying cricketer born to late to be great

Cook is the best opener at present. Atherton mmaybe top 10 and a losing captain. Part of a backwards set up... and the worst England in my lifetime.

Flinty was a breath of fresh air when he came in and was the start of something new and exiting . A match winner and an exiting player to boot

Shelsey93 wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Atherton = only in side cause tresco was ill or we had no better .

he was arguably the mainstay of the England side throughout the '90s, both as skipper and as a batsman.

That is a bit like being the turd that blocked the sewer though isnt it.

I would never argue Atherton was "great": I would say he was a very good opening bat, England's best player for the best part of a decade, and over the course of his career probably just a bit better than Flintoff. I actually enjoyed watching Atherton bat - not only because he played some very attractive shots (I remember him making 70 and dominating an opening stand of 100 with Butcher in South Africa, in I think the 3rd test of the series with the match-fixing final test match - IIRC England typically collapsed once Athers got out and lost by an innings), but mainly because he brought out the best in opposition bowlers which led to some fantastic battles.

Could you really name 5 cricketers who played at any stage between 93-98 and were better test match opening batsmen than Atherton? I think you could argue Taylor, Slater, Saeed Anwar, perhaps Gary Kirsten, but who else? West Indies: opener was a struggle from then post Greenidge-Haynes; India? Aamir Sohail? Sri Lanka? Jayasuriya wasn't as good (in tests) and certainly not around then...

Flintoff was overweight and not good enough at either discipline when he first came into the side (98 against South Africa - arguably Atherton's finest hour as a cricketer) and seemed destined to join the list of not-so-great new Ian Bothams. That he didn't is testament to the hard work he put in, and the faith shown in him by the England management, led by Fletcher and Hussain. He does both those a disservice with outbursts such as this one.

Look there is no smoke without fire mike .. I would believe an honest lad like flinty over an Atherton type ..

If Atherton is held in such low esteem by one of our best performers. Maybe Atherton was the problem with England in that era. We were so flat, so boring. So mediocre. So stagnant

mystiroakey wrote:I would believe an honest lad like flinty over an Atherton type ..

I don't see what there is to believe - as far as I can tell Flintoff has said nothing of any value, and Atherton has not sought to contradict anything he's said. I don't see how you can say Flintoff is honest - he certainly wasn't honest during his playing career all the time.

mystiroakey wrote: Maybe Atherton was the problem with England in that era. We were so flat, so boring. So mediocre. So stagnant

So the problem was our best player... right...

England's problem wasn't they were boring - they weren't boring, cricket was just played differently back then. England's problem was poor management of players, poor and non-existant gameplans, no pathway to bring players into the test side, and (partly as a result of all the above) poor talent pool.

Australia went boring in that era mate I can tell ya.

England were and so was Atherton

mystiroakey wrote:Australia went boring in that era mate I can tell ya.

England were and so was Atherton

Whatever. If you found Atherton's battle with Donald in 98 boring then perhaps we should stop this conversation.

Australia's top 7 included Taylor, Boon, S. Waugh and Healy. None of whoom were renowned for quick scoring. It was Waugh's Australians (starting around 2000 with Hayden opening the batting and Ponting moved up to 3) who started the recent tradition of fast-scoring. Taylor's Australians were all about grinding down the opposition with the bat, and then relying on scoreboard pressure and 2 world-class in being bowlers.

Atherton minces his words.. he had a pop at flinty before but in a pompos way. Flinty said it straight. Good on him .thank gawd we got no one li.ke Atherton in this England team.. could you ever imagine anyone calling cook or Strauss a pr$/k. No chance. To much respect..

Australia's rr in that era was at least 1 above England I am sure of it mike

mystiroakey wrote:Atherton minces his words.. he had a pop at flinty before but in a pompos way.

Eh? He said Flintoff wasn't fit to be captain. Atherton is a sports journalist paid to give his take on things, and did just that. Flintoff had a (probably) drunken rant at Atherton. I know which one made the most salient points, and who came out looking the better person.

mystiroakey wrote:Australia's rr in that era was at least 1 above England I am sure of it mike

At least 1 run per over? That is absolute balderdash. I am happy to retract the previous statement if you can find stats to back your statement up. Just looking at the series in 97, Australia scored at 3.39 per over and England 3.01.

In fact a basic Statsguru search on cricinfo yields the following:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/team/2.html?class=1;spanmax1=23+Apr+1999;spanmin1=15+Mar+1993;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team
so Australia scored at 3.01 per over
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/team/1.html?class=1;spanmax1=07+Jun+1999;spanmin1=15+Mar+1993;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team
so England scored at 2.70

Notice that 0.31 is not at least 1...

And South Africa at 2.82...

In fact I hazzard a guess that all test match sides between 1993 and 1999 scored at between 2.5 and 3.1 runs per over. Possibly the West Indians a bit quicker...

EDIT: I couldn't resist it, West Indies 3.09, so...

"I know which one made the most salient points, and who came out looking the better person."

yeah flinty..

england won 16 out of 67 tests in that period- omg. thanks for the stats

Mike Selig wrote:And South Africa at 2.82...

In fact I hazzard a guess that all test match sides between 1993 and 1999 scored at between 2.5 and 3.1 runs per over. Possibly the West Indians a bit quicker...

EDIT: I couldn't resist it, West Indies 3.09, so...

Wow. Mike's reeling the stats off

Openers Atherton (av 38) played tests with :

Curtis: av 16
Moxon : av 28
Gooch : 43
Stephenson: 18
Stewart: 40 (although a lot of his runs came down the order he did get affected by keeping wicket)
Lathwell : 20
Knight : Av 24 .. ... KPs picked a softer target
Butcher : 35
Tresco : 44

Looking at that he certainly wasnt bad but was nothing remarkable by England opener standards for his period. the start and end of his career overlapped with 2 legends though.

A good player, not a great.

All of which is irrelevant when it comes to telling Flintoff to stop drinking.

It would be interesting to see the averages for all openers in that era. I can't access the cricinfo stats page at work due to using IE6 but as has been said many times before, Atherton opened in one of the greatests eras for bowlers in one of the worst England teams ever. From that perspective, his average actually looks more impressive than Trescothick's IMO.

What's more I suspect Atherton knows full well the limitations he had, I'm not so sure we could say the same of Andrew 'look at me' Flintoff.

Taylor averaged lowish 40s, as did Slater and Anwar from memory. Atherton of course played in England where the ball swings a lot more.

In PSW's list, Gooch played most of his cricket pre-Atherton, and Trescothick post. There is no doubt that Atherton was one of England's best 3 players during his 93-99 spell (with Thorpe and Gough - Stewart would have been had he not had to keep so much).

I didn't want to make this into a Flintoff-bashing excercise though: Freddie was a good player in his own right, and at his best very good, arguably great.

One thing Ahterton does have going for him is he's not afraid to admit when he's wrong either. Unlike some on these boards...

Well some of the famous one...Boon 44 ( I round all these off btw)
Taylor 43
Slater 43
Jayasuria 40
Haynes 42
Ramiz 32 ( I guess being sh1t is the best way to get a tv job in england)
Sohail 35
Sidhu 42
Kirsten 45
Gibbs 42 (Ok mostly later by played his first test in 98)
Grant Flower 30 (played a lot down the order)
Mahanama 29 (made a fortune writing songs for the muppets)


Thats just a selection of ones who played a lot of tests, I guess overall the figures would be a lot lower, probably a spread much like the England lot. Atherton wasnt one of the great openers of his or any era, but a well respected player who played a lot of tests and who England wouldve been weaker without.

Going even further off on a tangent its interesting looking through the scorecards and seeing the number of makeshift and failed openers that were around in the 90s across the globe. Its common beleif that proper openers are few and far between now, but the modern players actiually arent doing much different in terms of scoring runs than their counterparts 20 years ago despite better fielding, DRS making it possible to get out LBW, and yes Im going to say it more consistent bowling. Obviously they cheat by having big bats and hitting the ball now.
One thing of course that does aid batsmen nowadays is not having to worry about Atherton doctoring the ball.

Mike Selig wrote:Taylor averaged lowish 40s, as did Slater and Anwar from memory. Atherton of course played in England where the ball swings a lot more.

In PSW's list, Gooch played most of his cricket pre-Atherton, and Trescothick post. There is no doubt that Atherton was one of England's best 3 players during his 93-99 spell (with Thorpe and Gough - Stewart would have been had he not had to keep so much).

I didn't want to make this into a Flintoff-bashing excercise though: Freddie was a good player in his own right, and at his best very good, arguably great.

One thing Ahterton does have going for him is he's not afraid to admit when he's wrong either. Unlike some on these boards...

haha- i admit i was wrong about the RR's, however by saying 1 run less/more pushed you into digging through cricinfo and realing of the stats rather than myself