Jump to content

Talk:Michael Atherton

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Mike Atherton)

International career

[edit]

"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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

NPOV is against only one para(?)

[edit]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

hagiography

[edit]

This whole article reads like hagiography - a nostalgic apologia for Athers. Positive spin, unencyclopedic tone. --Peripatetic 08:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article rename: Mike or Michael?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Check out his books. He is listed as Mike on all of them. PDAWSON3 (talk) 09:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FEC

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It is true however. We can't delete the truth, just because we dislike it, surely? That would be censorship...something wikipedia should be free from... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.1.88 (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Birthplace

[edit]

Michael was actually born in the area of Newton Heath, Manchester as opposed to the previously stated district of Failsworth. He attended the local Briscoe Lane school until his teenage years when his family relocated to a home off Lord Lane, Failsworth. He attended Manchester Grammar School and made his name at the cricket club in Woodhouses (Anthony of the Desert (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

CricketArchive says Failsworth, do you have a source saying Newton Heath? A biography would be good, but I don't have one. Nev1 (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian ran this piece some time ago but I'll keep look to find supplemental data to contribute alongside it (Anthony of the Desert (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)).[reply]
We need to be mindful of WP:BLP please. If we have Failsworth in a reliable source, we should mirror that, not what we think is true. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats true but I would say the The Guardian was one of the more reliable newspapers although we'll have track down his book, Opening Up: My Autobiography (Anthony of the Desert (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)).[reply]
To be fair, I think The Guardian is probably more reliable in this case; they're writing about one man, while CricketArchive (a generally reliable source) has to compile data for thousands of cricketers. I don't think BLP comes into play here. Nev1 (talk) 00:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Atherton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michael Atherton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Century list

[edit]

Closer's comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Michael Atherton was Anyone who wishes to rescue the content from behind the redirect, and merge into the main article, is welcome to do so at their convenience. I have therefore done so. There is no point in the redirect if this page doesn't have a list of centuries. Spike 'em (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Where do we draw the line on lists of centuries? If a player scores 1 or scores 30 this sets a precedent that every player in international cricket (including womens) is entitled to their own list. This is just WP:NOTSTATS overkill. Ajf773 (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NOTSTATS allows reasonable use of relevant statistics. An international century is a major achievement and worthy of listing on the player's page. The closer of the AfD said to go ahead and add it. I have no problem with any player (even women) having a list of their international centuries on their own page, and if such a list gets too long then WP:SPLIT into a separate article (as recommended in NOTSTATS). Spike 'em (talk) 11:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with that. Spike 'em (talk) 09:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good for you. Not everyone else does. Ajf773 (talk) 09:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am amazed there isn't some precedent by now for the level of statistics in an international cricketer article. A look at similar-level footballers e.g. Steven Gerrard shows that a list of international goals and one-line annual stats for their career are included. I'd say a test century is probably equivalent to an international football goal.----Pontificalibus 12:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. NOTSTATS != NOSTATS Spike 'em (talk) 12:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, apologies for not noticing the back and forth earlier. Such lists (centuries, five-fors, etc.) are clearly encyclopedic and do not violate NOTSTATS. The only issues here are that more articles don't have them, and split standalone lists exist where they shouldn't. Per Spike's comments above, NOTSTATS not mean "no stats"; these are not indiscriminate or excessive, they have context and explanation, they are reliably sourced. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only details that really matter are the number of career centuries in each format of the game, not every single little detail of when/where/how each one was attained. Ajf773 (talk) 09:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's of value to readers to see at a glance the period(s) in their career a player was most successful.----Pontificalibus 15:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Atherton&oldid=1264593658"