Strauss

Phurt he's not better than Anwar.

spangler wrote:Better than Kirsten, Anwar, Taylor, Slater?

no. no. no. no

slater and Anwar...what a combo

spangler wrote:Better than Kirsten, Anwar, Taylor, Slater?

I can't honestly say as I recall any of those fine players ever opening the batting for England.

Growler wrote:

spangler wrote:Better than Kirsten, Anwar, Taylor, Slater?

I can't honestly say as I recall any of those fine players ever opening the batting for England.

Give that Growler a Bone.

Can we at least agree that he was a fine slips fieldsman?

Paul Keating wrote:Can we at least agree that he was a fine slips fieldsman?

So was Mark Waugh...


He was a fine slipper....assuming he'll lose his good hands soon Ponts?

Paul Keating wrote:Can we at least agree that he was a fine slips fieldsman?

What was it - 87 catches in 115 tests? Good, but hardly Bothamesque.

Stewart belongs in the Anwar/Tubby/Slats/Kirsten group. Athers doesn't.

Danny - I wouldn't argue with that.

Rob I - the thing I was trying to say was that, to my mind at least, he's comparable to Fred, in the sense that he was better than pure numbers might suggest regarding his value to the side.

Chas was quite right saying that Athers was always regarded as the prize wicket, even though Stewie, Nasser & Thorpe had better stats.

I'm in no doubt at all that England would generally have been even easier to beat than we were for those years if Athers wasn't playing - would you disagree?

Do agree with you regarding his slipping - but then, we were hardly awash with world class bowlers to give him the chances were we?

Athers definitely had his worth, for starters he'd get to play spin a lot more than Stewart - the opener - and was inherently better at playing it. His short-comings have been documented well, off-stump problems to probing quick bowlers. They complimented each other well and, to my mind, I don't think I've seen a better player of new-ball bowling than AJ Stewart - his cover drive was probably the best I've seen and he's not far behind a couple in the pulling/hooking stakes.

Growler wrote:

Rob I - the thing I was trying to say was that, to my mind at least, he's comparable to Fred, in the sense that he was better than pure numbers might suggest regarding his value to the side.

Possibly. I'm starting to wonder how much good Fred is any more. These days, he's a good stock bowler who doesn't get many wickets, and who doesn't bat much.

I'm in no doubt at all that England would generally have been even easier to beat than we were for those years if Athers wasn't playing - would you disagree?

I'm unsure. He got us off to an awful lot of failed starts after his back went. But he also got sixteen test centuries.

Do agree with you regarding his slipping - but then, we were hardly awash with world class bowlers to give him the chances were we?

Gus, Goughy and Caddy weren't too shabby. The only world-class-ish bowlers Both caught off were Willis and the tail-end of Unders.

Would anyone have ever written Strauss off?

I mean his form's always been pretty consistent, hasn't it?

Consistently weak, or joking? It dipped pretty badly from autumn 2006.

Maybe he is back up at last, though.

Zat wrote:Would anyone have ever written Strauss off?

Nearly.

I mean his form's always been pretty consistent, hasn't it?

No.