Talk:Mike Atherton
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] International career
"The next two years followed a similar pattern. Some success against the lower rated sides - India, New Zealand, Zimbabwe - but struggles against Australia and Pakistan."
- Since when was India ever a "lower rated" side? And NZ at the time were on a par with England at Test level.
- The preceding information is regarding the Australian team who were ranked number one in the world, ergo other teams would indeed be lower ranked. Incidentally India's form away from home in the period mentioned and the previous 5 years was pretty dreadful. Played 24, won 1, lost 9 with 14 draws. And the one win they did get was in Sri Lanka. --LiamE 23:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
"Where Ricky Ponting has made his runs recently off Andre Nel and an ageing Shaun Pollock, Atherton scored runs off Ambrose, Walsh, McGrath, Gillespie, McDermott, Wasim, Waqar, Warne and others when all were at their very best."
- Mcgrath dismissed Atherton a record 19 times and the english opener averaged a meager 29.68 against australia in 66 innings which would indicate that he infact did not score runs againts them, unless you implied that he did very loosely.
- Not surprisingly, it was added by an anonymous editor. I'll add a WP:NPOV tag so that the regular editors will take a look. Tintin (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV is against only one para(?)
"Many cricketing aficionados would argue that the current crop of international bowlers does not come close to these players in ability." This is not the kind of opinion for Wikipedia, surely. With a few exceptions of the very great (eg Warne), a player is only ever judged to be great retrospectively. Hence there is logically always a current lack of great players. In the early 90s people were decrying the lack of Bob Willis' and Viv Richards...
This whole paragraph needs to be re-written, in which it keeps the reference to the number of very high class players Athers played against, but also adding the ammendment above re: McGrath (and Alan Donald, as mentioned earlier in the article) getting him out so much, and possibly his low average against Australia. The key thing it to drop the constant implication that 'players aren't as good as they used to be'. If it turns out that in fact that is the only point being made in this paragraph then it should be deleted and the key points transfered to a later paragraph summarising his career.
Perhaps if these changes were made, it would be NPOV after all (or are there further problems?). --Rob2000 16:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted the dodgy Ponting comparison and the rubbish about bowlers being better in them days.... Rose tinted glasses methinks. --LiamE 23:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] hagiography
This whole article reads like hagiography - a nostalgic apologia for Athers. Positive spin, unencyclopedic tone. --Peripatetic 08:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Article rename: Mike or Michael?
Most of the time when I hear his name on telly, he is referred to as Michael Atherton. Obviously, I have heard him referred to as Mike, but more often than not I think he's called Michael. What does everyone else think? - PeeJay 17:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely Michael Atherton. I've watched hundreds of hours of cricket and can't think of a time when he's been called Mike. Not even by his peers in unguarded moments. What's next? Renaming Flintoffs article Freddy? Let's be respectful of the last gentlemans game and those who play it. 86.139.27.124 (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] FEC
Do we really need the full spelling of the scatalogical version of FEC? Would asterisks not suffice? Children read these pages.PDAWSON3 (talk) 08:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I've deleted the Lancashire CC bit. It's obscene and unworthy and epitomises the worst of the English class system. Millbanks (talk) 08:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)