BBC Sport Online: Sports Talk

Atherton and Stewart: Who's the best?

Only five other England players - Colin Cowdrey, Geoff Boycott, Ian Botham, David Gower and Graham Gooch - have reached a century of Test caps.

How do Atherton and Stewart measure up against this illustrious quintet?

Are they truly world-class, or is their longevity due mainly to a lack of talent in English cricket which has left the selectors short of alternatives?

The pair have been near permanent fixtures in the England side for the past decade and between them have contributed 27 hundreds and 75 fifties to England's cause.

Atherton and Stewart won their 100th Tests together and have similar records, but who is the better player?

It is impossible to compare these two cricketing greats. Alec Stewart is a stylish, attacking player who is capable of annihilating any bowling line up. Atherton is a gutsy cricketer, possibly the best player of the new ball in the world. Atherton and Stewart are the creme de la creme of English cricket.
Yilmaz Mamedy, United Kingdom

For a West Indian any batsman who can score two centuries against the West Indies at Kensington Oval, Bridgetown, Barbados against a West Indian attack that include Curtly Ambrose and Courtney Walsh has to rank among the best of contemporary batsmen. This is what Alec Stewart did some time ago.
Bryan Sykes, Jamaica

Neither Atherton nor Stewert can be regarded as great batsmen, as a glance at their respective averages will reveal. Playing a hundred times for England may suggest longevity but it is not an indication of quality, rather a comment on the quality of other resources available.
Piers Jessop, Morocco

Don't compare them, accept they have different strengths, are both great players and what a pity it was that selectorial expediency (and Stewart's keeping) meant they weren't allowed to open together more often. Others should also be wary of lauding one too much over the other. Chris Murgatroyde, of the UK, said "Atherton's behaviour has always been exemplary, but Stewart takes gamesmanship to the point of cheating." One of these played was caught on camera rubbing soil onto the ball and then lied to the match referee. It wasn't Stewart.
Robin Marshall, Hungary

When England's form was at its lowest, it was always Atherton who stood tall and was the only on who ever looked like saving us. Atherton's confrontation with Donald two summers ago alone gives him my vote.
Adam Bridgeman, England

I don't think there is a need to compare Stewart and Atherton as they are both great players. That's the reason they have survived 100 tests. The problem England has is finding replacements for these two greats, as no one is visible in the near future.
Dev Doifode, USA

Cricket Statistics rarely mislead - just look at the averages of the truly great players. On that basis alone Stewart should be considered the better batsman. When one takes into account the fact that Stewart has fulfilled a wicket-keeping role and been moved through the batting order, the difference is even more marked. That both players have such tremendous records in a side that has, all too often, under-performed is testament to their world-class status.
Julian Goddard, UK

I think the criteria you should use is which player could be included in an opposing Test side. Atherton at his peak was an excellent opener but unfortunately for him I think Stewart is the man on the opposing captain's mind. Verdict: Stewart.
Gary Taylor, UK

Both are beautiful players; it is difficult to say who is the best. Time and again they have come to England's rescue with brilliant batting in different conditions. So let us be fair and say, Atherton AND Stewart - you are the best.
Prasad, India

Stewart's 100 matches are only due to the fact that the selectors have failed to pick a proper wicket keeper for several years. Also the selectors have their golden boys...those who can do no wrong (ie those who don't open their mouths at the wrong time). If I was chairman of selectors these two players would not have got anywhere near 100 test matches.
Piggie, England

Its certainly a close call. Stewart is the more versatile player, moving around the order as well as keeping wicket. Atherton is a stronger character, and probably is more reliable when needed to produce a match winning (or more likely match-saving) innings. Without the combination of both of them just how much worse would the last few years have been.
Stuart Riches, England

Although Atherton's form is returning, his best days have gone. Stewart just gets better and better. His batting and keeping record in recent years speaks for itself.
Joe Gillam, England

One thing is certain, when Atherton or Stewart are at batting things are extremely tough for the opposition. But that aside, it takes more than two players to make a team. Who will replace them?
Dale Summers, Canada

Alec is clearly the best batsman in my opinion and he can keep wicket. He has been messed about in the past regarding his batting position and wicket-keeping responsibilities and has never really had had an established position in the England order. Michael is a world-class player no doubt, but remember that Alec averages more and half the time has been using the gloves.
Stewart Alexander, UK

Atherton and Stewart have been the backbone of English cricket over the last ten years. Without them, we'd have done a lot worse than our current record suggests. If Stewart had never picked up the gloves as a lad, he and Atherton would have been one of the most prolific opening partnerships in recent history.
Dan, England

Not really a question which needs comment from armchair pundits. Simply look at the opposition's reaction when they get Atherton out.
Johny Golightly, England

It really doesn't matter does it? They both have similar statistics and both failed as captains. So what's the point in trying to determine who's better?
Noah All, Algeria

Please don't compare the two. Comparisons really are odious as the saying goes, and these two have both been fantastic players in their own right.
John Divver, UK

I think that the big question stemming from Atherton and Stewart simultaneously reaching 100 caps for England is who will be the next player after them to do this? The inconsistency of selection, and the lack of faith shown in young talent suggests it could be a very long time before any Englishman emulates the careers of Atherton and Stewart.
James, UK

Both these two are indeed outstanding cricketers, however, I would opt for Alec Stewart based on his undoubted all-round abilities as well as his attacking approach to batting.
Ramon Ellis, Toronto, Canada

Both have contributed immensely to English cricket over a fairly barren decade. Stewart is certainly the more naturally talented batsman, but Atherton's determination reminds me of Geoff Boycott. Atherton's behaviour has always been exemplary, but Stewart takes gamesmanship to the point of cheating which is a shame. He is an excellent keeper, but I wish he'd cut out some of the utterly ridiculous appealing.
Chris Murgatroyde, UK

Michael Atherton, you couldn't get more grit down a gravel pit. If ever there were a paradigm for stolid 'Englishness' it's this man.
Barny, England

With Graham Gooch, Atherton was part of the most successful England opening partnership of all time. That is how he will be remembered.
Jack Price, England

It's fantastic that these two great players will be celebrating their 100th Test together. Let's hope that the whole team can give them the reward their determination and class deserves. Comparisons, forget it - come on England!
Neil Sullivan, England

I think this one comes down to the style of cricket you prefer - Test or one-day. Athers is quite clearly a born and proven Test performer but Stewart is more of a one-dayer. But then, so was Sir Vivian and he didn't do too bad in Tests, did he?
Tony Foster, England

What yard stick can be used in measuring which of the two is the better player, Atherton and Stewart are both players of different calibre, yet they are both unique and are a joy to watch when they get going. Should any of the two make a century in their the 100th test appearance, he can be labelled the better of the two.
Shanta Dowlatram, Guyana, South America

Atherton is probably the better batsman technically, but Stewart is the best batting wicketkeeper around which is too easy to forget.,
Rich Pedley, England

I think that if Stewart had been allowed to open the batting throughout his career he would have had a much better average than the one he has which is better than Atherton's anyway. I believe that if he had opened, then there would be no question that he would be classed as one of the best players in the world. I believe England would have been more successful if the selectors had kept these two as an opening partnership.
Alan Revel, UK

It's hard to admit this as a Mancunian but Stewart has done more for England over the years. Atherton is technically the better batsman but he should never have captained England. He lost his way and if he had concentrated on batting he could be compared to the greats. Stewart wasn't a good captain either but his natural talents blossomed and he won more games for England.
John Chapman, Belgium

Atherton has been a solid opener and fairly decent captain. However Stewart has always done the job asked of him is a

Atherton is a great batsman but has failed too often when it really matters. Stewart almost always top scores and England never win except when he delivers. To compare the two is a little laughable, Atherton is a great county and England player but Stewart is world class.
Chris Clarke-Williams, Great Britain

It's hard to judge how good Stewart is. Although he'd never say it publicly, he's been stuffed around by the selectors not being sure what they want to do with him. Atherton is certainly the English wicket that opposition bowlers prize most because they know that once he's in, he has the temperament to build a big innings. You always suspect Stewart will lapse in concentration somewhere along the way. As players, their contribution to England has been immense, in that they are some of the few world class players that the selectors can put down on the sheet year after year.
David Meiklejohn, Australia

Whilst Atherton has perhaps enjoyed a more prolific career we must remember the sacrifices made by Stewart for his country. Atherton is often perceived as gutsy but I believe that for a man to risk his career by agreeing to take the gloves and open the batting and remain such a potent threat is a testament to Stewart's talent and temperament.
Tom Ogden, England

Mike Atherton in my opinion is by far the best batsman,

It's difficult to compare the two as they are such different players. On technique alone, it's got to be Atherton, the perfect opener. As an all rounder though, it's got to be Stewart. A devastating batsmen and a great wicketkeeper. Different men for different occasions.
Craig Pratt, England

It is a pity that they haven't opened together more. When you think of the consistency England have lacked over the decade or so, this can be partly accountable to the fact that Atherton has opened with every opener at county and club cricket for England. They would surely have succeeded in the Haynes-Greenidge role as they possess a total contrast in styles. After Gooch retired that no. 2 spot has always been vacant. England have never realised that the perfect player has always been there.
James Allred, England

The argument will always be between the contrasting styles of the players but I wonder how many runs Alec Stewart would have made or not had he stayed as an opener and England not given him the gloves, would he have kept his place. Therefore in contrast Atherton has to be the better opener and Stewart the better utility player. No comparison.
Richard de Prieelle, England

Without a doubt, Alec Stewart is a better batsman and cricketer. Atherton has served England well, but Stewart has the advantage of being capable of swinging a match's balance with his performance alone. While Atherton frustrates, Stewart scores.
Munibullah Khan, Pakistan

Whilst Athers is obviously a top quality player who has served

I feel that Atherton is the better player because of his grit and determination. Stewart comes in and plays some brilliant innings for his country but when you need somebody to take on the new ball and stay there for a length of time Athers is your man. If we don't find replacements for these two before they quit the international stage the future of the English game could be a lot rockier it has been over the last decade.
Mark Haydock, Lancs, England

Both players are superb representatives of our country, and as to who is best, it would have to be Stewart. Top test scorer in the world during the 90's and still capable of winning a series almost single handedly at the age of 37.
James Hathaway, England

Atherton is marginally the better as he has a superior technique, temperament and even more guts than Stewart does. Stewart is poor against world class spinners, but Atherton can handle any type of bowler.
Stuart Brown, England

Atherton has never let England down. He has the courage to take on any opening attack in the world whatever the conditions, and has saved us on numerous occasions with his dogged style.

Michael Atherton is the wicket that other teams want to get. His average is lower than Stewart's is because he has faced Donald, Pollock, Ambrose, Walsh, McGrath etc first up more often. Quite simply, Athers has had a bagful of unplayable deliveries during his career. When this hasn't happened, he has made runs. How often has he got himself out in Test cricket? Not very often.
Daniel Bowerin, UK

Alec Stewart is unquestionably our best batsman. Anyone who averages over 40 in test cricket and has to bat anywhere from one to seven to cover others' inadequacies as well as keeping wicket has got to be a world class performer. He averages 45 when not keeping - better than Gooch, Gower and Boycott, let alone Atherton. He would probably get into the side purely on the basis of his wicket keeping. What a player.
Rob Weaver, England

If I had to choose between these two cricketing gods I'd go for Alec Stewart. He has got more Test runs than any other player in the world in the 1990's, which in itself would automatically tip the balance, but he has also been an outstanding wicket-keeper and was captain of the side that won a test series against the South Africans. I think Athers is brilliant with his temperament and courage in batting with a dodgy back and I'm sure he will play a major role for years to come.
James Cochrane, England

You cannot compare the two because of their contrasting styles. What we are forgetting is that the two of them together have been England's most successful opening partnership in recent years as they have complementary styles. They both give 100% and do not shirk responsibility.
Mike, UK

Both are excellent cricketers and have carried England's batting flag for the past decade. No doubt Atherton has played some match winning innings in his time and I feel that he is a better player than his figures show. It might come from not having a solid partner at the other end. Stewart has always produced the maximum in all capacities as batsmen, wicketkeeper and captain. I think Stewart has an edge over Atherton.
Khurram Shahzad, Pakistan

Both players have been indispensable to the England team over the years. Alec Stewart is the consummate professional and Atherton's patient technique shows why test bowlers regard his as the key wicket in any innings. To say that Atherton's average is not high enough, I would point to Allan Lamb and Mike Gatting who had similar averages and who wouldn't include them in a list of England's best batsmen over the past 25 years? Without these two great players' runs how low would English cricket be now?
Robert Russell, England

I don't think anyone can argue with the quality of Mike Atherton, if you ask any international team which English wicket they valued the most, throughout the 90s it was Atherton's. As for Stewart, the fact that he is still one of England's top performers at the age of 37 speaks for itself, the man is an example to sportsmen of any discipline. To choose one of them over the other is impossible because of the different qualities they each bring to the team.
David Birkett, England