Dire cricketers who had a successful test career

[NZTailender]

41 is strictly mediocre.

No it isn't. It's good, but not great, nor is it mediocre. Mediocre would be low 30s.
I should know mediocrity when I see it; I'm a Black Caps fan.

 

[Precambrian]

No it isn't. It's good, but not great, nor is it mediocre. Mediocre would be low 30s.
I should know mediocrity when I see it; I'm a Black Caps fan.

Athers avgs 37 only.

Plus average of 41 is not good imho, just average = Mediocre.

 

[honestbharani]

And similarly aggressive openers like Sehwag and Hayden wouldnt have scored a run in the 90s. I can only imagine the chaos that would ensue if Matty Hayden were to walk down the pitch to Curtly Ambrose to cover drive him, it really would have been disastrous.
Comparing players across eras is almost always ludicrous. Odds are Atherton would have adapted to the standard of cricket today and would have been a bit more aggressive with the number of freebies and half volleys on offer today. This is not too different from the transformation seen in players like Langer and Vaughan who came into test match cricket as 2 of the most defensive batters in the land.

While I understand the gist of your post, you have to get around to the fact that the whole "walk down the track and whack" does not define Hayden's batting. It simply defines Hayden's APPROACH to batting. I have seen him wait out good bowling before and I am sure he would have done it again. His defensive technique would have been found out, I am sure but equally, he would have put off the Ambroses and McGraths too by his unorthodox hitting style. Same with Sehwag. It really could have gone both ways and no one knows how much they would have worked to adapt themselves... I generally am of the opinion that the greats of any one era would always have been able to adjust and be a great in any era...

 

[NZTailender]

Athers avgs 37 only.

Plus average of 41 is not good imho, just average = Mediocre.

Since when? Averaging 40 in Test cricket is a good feat. Averaging 50 is a great feat. Averaging 30 to 35 is average, while 35 to 40 is an area where a batsman floats between being average and being good.

But then, I guess guys like Ganguly and Slater are just mediocre players.

 

[Precambrian]

Since when? Averaging 40 in Test cricket is a good feat. Averaging 50 is a great feat. Averaging 30 to 35 is average, while 35 to 40 is an area where a batsman floats between being average and being good.

But then, I guess guys like Ganguly and Slater are just mediocre players.

Ganguly and Slater were just above average. Ather's is clearly mediocre. Upto 40, imho is mediocre.

 

[Ikki]

While I understand the gist of your post, you have to get around to the fact that the whole "walk down the track and whack" does not define Hayden's batting. It simply defines Hayden's APPROACH to batting. I have seen him wait out good bowling before and I am sure he would have done it again. His defensive technique would have been found out, I am sure but equally, he would have put off the Ambroses and McGraths too by his unorthodox hitting style. Same with Sehwag. It really could have gone both ways and no one knows how much they would have worked to adapt themselves... I generally am of the opinion that the greats of any one era would always have been able to adjust and be a great in any era...

What's overlooked is that Hayden did very well in State cricket against someone like McGrath. Australia' domestic competition had some of the best bowlers in the world at the time, even if they weren't picked for Australia and Hayden was a run machine at state level. To suggest he would have failed in the 90s is simply myopic and obliges one to remain ignorant of the possibility that Hayden would/could have gotten better had he had more chances.

I find it unbelievable how someone like Atherton is given so much leeway, yet Hayden's handful of tests in the 90s stains the rest of his career for a certain few members here

 

[NZTailender]

Ganguly and Slater were just above average. Ather's is clearly mediocre. Upto 40, imho is mediocre.

You're falling into the classic mistake of reading stats and making a judgement based on them.

 

[Manee]

I find it unbelievable how someone like Atherton is given so much leeway, yet Hayden's handful of tests in the 90s stains the rest of his career for a certain few members here

Just quietly observing this thread and must note that that is a very good point.

 

[Uppercut]

It's also quite funny that when people talk about the 90s/00s divide, much to do with flat pitches, they're much more willing to use it to detract from quality batsmen in that era than give credit to bowlers. Glenn McGrath, since 2000, has played 66 matches and taken 297 wickets at 20.53. If the same rigour applied to batsmen was applied to him he'd be statistically head and shoulders above any bowler to play cricket since the war.

 

[tooextracool]

It's also quite funny that when people talk about the 90s/00s divide, much to do with flat pitches, they're much more willing to use it to detract from quality batsmen in that era than give credit to bowlers. Glenn McGrath, since 2000, has played 66 matches and taken 297 wickets at 20.53. If the same rigour applied to batsmen was applied to him he'd be statistically head and shoulders above any bowler to play cricket since the war.

Whats the argument that he isnt? I watched Mcgrath bowl before 2001 and watched him bowl after and there is little doubt in my mind that he was a considerably better bowler. Mcgrath wasnt even the best bowler in the 90s, he was never considered as such, he was inferior to all of Ambrose, Donald, Wasim and Waqar. However he was still a damn good bowler. Since 2001, he has developed the sort of variety and the cricketing nouse to make him IMO better than all 4 of them. With age and experience comes the ability to think out batsman and Mcgrath has unquestionably showed that (not to mention developed his game by adding reverse swing, a more sophisticated slower ball and bowling more cutters) and IMO only Malcolm Marshall and possibly Waqar (debut-1996) have a case for being comparable. Mcgrath is hands down the best bowler (pace or spin) I have seen live and I dont think I am likely to be changing that opinion anytime soon.

 

[tooextracool]

What's overlooked is that Hayden did very well in State cricket against someone like McGrath. Australia' domestic competition had some of the best bowlers in the world at the time, even if they weren't picked for Australia and Hayden was a run machine at state level. To suggest he would have failed in the 90s is simply myopic and obliges one to remain ignorant of the possibility that Hayden would/could have gotten better had he had more chances.

I find it unbelievable how someone like Atherton is given so much leeway, yet Hayden's handful of tests in the 90s stains the rest of his career for a certain few members here

Players who have also done well at this high level include Michael Bevan, Matthew Elliott and many others who werent so lucky at being able to revive their careers in the 2000s.

 

[tooextracool]

While I understand the gist of your post, you have to get around to the fact that the whole "walk down the track and whack" does not define Hayden's batting. It simply defines Hayden's APPROACH to batting. I have seen him wait out good bowling before and I am sure he would have done it again. His defensive technique would have been found out, I am sure but equally, he would have put off the Ambroses and McGraths too by his unorthodox hitting style. Same with Sehwag. It really could have gone both ways and no one knows how much they would have worked to adapt themselves... I generally am of the opinion that the greats of any one era would always have been able to adjust and be a great in any era...

Firstly, let me get things straight about my post. It was not to indicate that Hayden WOULD HAVE definetly failed had he played more in the 90s. My point was merely to counter the argument made by a poster stating that Atherton would have failed in this era because of his 'defensive approach' not being suited to this kind of era. To counter that point I mentioned that Hayden and Sehwag's offensive approach would not have yielded them many runs in the 90s against those bowling attacks as well. And then I went on to suggest that players like Langer and Vaughan changed their game across eras to produce the style of game that was more prominent as the times changed. Which means that others like Atherton or Hayden would have probably done the same.

I am well aware that Hayden can change his game when the time calls for it and has played some mighty fine innings of late against quality seam. However, it is too difficult to speculate whether he would have been successful or not in that era, just like it is too difficult to speculate whether Atherton would be successful in this era as there is no way you can know for sure. Therefore doing so is futile. What we do know is that Hayden is one of the best openers of his era and thats the way it is. However, I dont buy for one second that planting his front foot down against the likes of Ambrose and Donald as Hayden has often done in this era would have brought him many runs against bowlers of that caliber in those conditions. Whether he would have changed his game to do so is not something I know, but if he played like he did in this era (which I believe he did the few times he played) he would have failed miserably.

 

[tooextracool]

Fun thing is how 90s bowling = Ambrose, Walsh, or the WWs, Donald. Even if a batsman is owned by one or two of them, he'd be still good to make runs of the others.

eg- Ponting has been owned by Harby and Ishant (15 dismissals between them). His avg in India is 20. But does it have any effect on his overall performances? Or the fact that he is one of the greatest modern batsmen? To suggest Hayden would not have been successful in the 90s because there were bowlers like Ambrose, etc is ridiculous. He might be owned by Ambrose, but would have made tons against the others.

Except in that era, if you were playing against a team that wasnt England, India or Sri Lanka, you were often playing at least 1 or 2 quality pace bowlers. SA had Donald, Pollock DeVilliers and for a short while Klusener and Kallis in their prime. Australia had Fleming, Gillespie, Mcgrath, Reiffel, Mcdermott and Hughes. Pakistan had the WWs and Aaqib. New Zealand had Cairns, Nash, Doull and a few others. West Indies had Bishop, Walsh, Ambrose and occasionally W Benjamin. Essentially you could run but you couldnt hide if you had a weakness against pace. Its not like Ponting where he plays on average 1 game on a turner every 3 years and therefore has little to worry about in terms of his weakness being exposed.

 

[Ikki]

Players who have also done well at this high level include Michael Bevan, Matthew Elliott and many others who werent so lucky at being able to revive their careers in the 2000s.

And? So? "Lucky?' They were unlucky they were Australian. They could have gotten more chances/time in another country and could have been better or could have not have been great like Hayden at all. In essense, you are answering a question with a question.

And unlike Bevan and Elliott he didn't get 20 or so tests in the 90s. He only played 7. Sobers after his 7th test averaged not that much better than Hayden with only a 50. In fact, it took him 16 tests to score a century and until then he hovered between high 20s and low 30s. Point being, you can't make any sort of conclusion based on 7 tests Hayden played in the 90s and make a sweeping generalisation that he would have failed had he battled with Ambrose in his prime.

 

[Precambrian]

You're falling into the classic mistake of reading stats and making a judgement based on them.

Not at all, I've followed them through the 1990s. Though I would gladly accept if am mistaken, provided a valid counter argument is made.

 

[Precambrian]

Except in that era, if you were playing against a team that wasnt England, India or Sri Lanka, you were often playing at least 1 or 2 quality pace bowlers. SA had Donald, Pollock DeVilliers and for a short while Klusener and Kallis in their prime. Australia had Fleming, Gillespie, Mcgrath, Reiffel, Mcdermott and Hughes. Pakistan had the WWs and Aaqib. New Zealand had Cairns, Nash, Doull and a few others. West Indies had Bishop, Walsh, Ambrose and occasionally W Benjamin. Essentially you could run but you couldnt hide if you had a weakness against pace. Its not like Ponting where he plays on average 1 game on a turner every 3 years and therefore has little to worry about in terms of his weakness being exposed.

An example to the contrary is provided by UC

It's also quite funny that when people talk about the 90s/00s divide, much to do with flat pitches, they're much more willing to use it to detract from quality batsmen in that era than give credit to bowlers. Glenn McGrath, since 2000, has played 66 matches and taken 297 wickets at 20.53. If the same rigour applied to batsmen was applied to him he'd be statistically head and shoulders above any bowler to play cricket since the war.

That.

2000s bowling has not become ultra bad as your post suggests, TEC.

Aus - McG, Warne, Lee, Gillespie (he was very good save for last 2 series)

Ind - Kumble, Harby and now Zak, Ishant (India's bowling is way better now than it was in the 90s)

NZ - Bond, Vettori and some others who combined are comparable to Cairns, Nash etc. And Cairns played to middle of this decade

SA - Pollock, Ntini, Donald (upto 03), and now Steyn

WI - Taylor, but no way near the class of Ambrose and Walsh

Pak - Asif, Akthar, Gul

Eng - Harmy, Fred, Jones, Anderson, Sidey (England's bowlers are n times better this decade than last)

So, overall, the quality of bowling has not come down drastically as you assume.

 

[NZTailender]

Not at all, I've followed them through the 1990s. Though I would gladly accept if am mistaken, provided a valid counter argument is made.

There's a difference between a mediocre player and a mediocre output of statistics.

Guys like Hick and Ramprakash won't go down in the history books as Test greats because of their record, but to call them mediocre based on averages overlooks the fact they posses/possessed better than mediocre cricketing skills.

By your reasoning, players like Stephen Fleming, Jayasuriya, Ramnaresh Sarwan, Tony Greig, Mark Waugh, Michael Vaughan, Jimmy Adams, Basil D'Oliveira, Bill Edrich and Alec Stewart were/are all mediocre players. Obviously this is not the case. While some of them you wouldn't call all time greats, you wouldn't call them mediocre either - that'd actually be insulting to some of those names listed. Simply good players.

If you want some mediocre batsmen, try Bryan Young, Sherwin Campbell or Matthew Horne.

 

[tooextracool]

And? So? "Lucky?' They were unlucky they were Australian. They could have gotten more chances/time in another country and could have been better or could have not have been great like Hayden at all. In essense, you are answering a question with a question..

The point, which might not have been clearly elucidated, is that there were two other cricketers that rose up the ranks of the 'quality' Australian system that were clearly found out at the international level. Therefore, Hayden's success at the state level doesnt guarantee that he would have been successful has he played more back then.

And unlike Bevan and Elliott he didn't get 20 or so tests in the 90s. He only played 7. Sobers after his 7th test averaged not that much better than Hayden with only a 50. In fact, it took him 16 tests to score a century and until then he hovered between high 20s and low 30s. Point being, you can't make any sort of conclusion based on 7 tests Hayden played in the 90s and make a sweeping generalisation that he would have failed had he battled with Ambrose in his prime.

I didnt though. I clearly stated that he would fail, if he batted with the same STYLE as he did for most of this decade. Whether you agree with that or not is just a matter of opinion. I never said he would fail, he could well have changed his game and scored runs. You have to remember that the argument was made to counter someone who said that Atherton would fail in this era because of the manner with which he scored his runs.

 

[Precambrian]

There's a difference between a mediocre player and a mediocre output of statistics.

Guys like Hick and Ramprakash won't go down in the history books as Test greats because of their record, but to call them mediocre based on averages overlooks the fact they posses/possessed better than mediocre cricketing skills.

By your reasoning, players like Stephen Fleming, Jayasuriya, Ramnaresh Sarwan, Tony Greig, Mark Waugh, Michael Vaughan, Jimmy Adams, Basil D'Oliveira, Bill Edrich and Alec Stewart were/are all mediocre players. Obviously this is not the case. While some of them you wouldn't call all time greats, you wouldn't call them mediocre either - that'd actually be insulting to some of those names listed. Simply good players.

If you want some mediocre batsmen, try Bryan Young, Sherwin Campbell or Matthew Horne.

I used mediocre primarily to refer to Athers.

From http://www.wordreference.com/definition/mediocre

2 .average, fair, mediocre, middling
of no exceptional quality or ability; "a novel of average merit"; "only a fair performance of the sonata"; "in fair health"; "the caliber of the students has gone from mediocre to above average"; "the performance was middling at best"

Athers was simply OK. Not exceptional by any means,

And yes, I accept it is my folly to regard all guys averaging 40 to be classified as mediocre.

 

[tooextracool]

An example to the contrary is provided by UC



That.

2000s bowling has not become ultra bad as your post suggests, TEC.

Please read above, this post has already been argued.

Aus - McG, Warne, Lee, Gillespie (he was very good save for last 2 series)

I clearly stated pace bowlers, so theres little relevance in including spin bowlers.

Mcgrath, Gillespie and Kaspa were obviously a force, but they were the only good pace attack going around

Ind - Kumble, Harby and now Zak, Ishant (India's bowling is way better now than it was in the 90s)

Ignoring the spinners for they have no relevance to the argument, Zak and Ishant have been around for as long as it takes to go from sunrise to sunset.

NZ - Bond, Vettori and some others who combined are comparable to Cairns, Nash etc. And Cairns played to middle of this decade

Bond who has played for all of 16 test matches spanning the course of 7 years Cairns isnt and never was a quality bowler, and classifying him as such would be extremely optimistic about our resources this decade.

SA - Pollock, Ntini, Donald (upto 03), and now Steyn

Pollock was nothing more than ok post 2001, Ntini the same and Donald was more or less finished and well past his prime. Theres no point including someone who had his prime in the 90s.

Pak - Asif, Akthar, Gul

An attack that has played together all of 0 times. Asif and Gul are mere fledglings when you consider the number of tests they have played. This attack definetly had potential, but it never happened and one can say which is almost certainly never going to happen.

Eng - Harmy, Fred, Jones, Anderson, Sidey (England's bowlers are n times better this decade than last)

So, overall, the quality of bowling has not come down drastically as you assume.

I think just including Sidebottom provides an idea of how deplorable bowling standards are these days. The fact that a bowler that can bowl an inswinger with his opposite hand at 80 mph and little else went on to become one of the highest ranked bowlers in the world suggests as much. I honestly cant imagine anyone with a straight face comparing Sidey with any of the WWs, Donald, Walsh, Ambrose, Pollock, Fleming, Mcgrath, or even McDermott, Hughes, etc.
Harmy? come now this is turning into a real joke.
And I doubt there is a bigger Jones fan than me on this forum but he played all of 1 legitimate series where he was genuinely a top drawer bowler.
My thoughts on Fred have been documented before.

The only pace bowlers that we have had this decade that could be termed great are Mcgrath and Akthar. You could get generous and throw in Gillespie and even then you would have a hard time creating a 4 man all-great pace bowling attack that has stood the test of time from this era