Could Nathan Lyon break Shane Warne's wicket tally?

[OverratedSanity]

Hooper by far. Almost everyone else who played 100 had something that can atleast be called a good career. Hooper played for a very long time and was thoroughly mediocre for almost the entire duration.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah I’d say Hooper as well.

 

[Starfighter]

Thank the goodness of god in that case that Guptill was stopped short of the big 50.

fwiw Ken Rutherford made 56 tests while averaging 27 against Guptill's 29. Probably a more difficult era for batting, but at least Guptill was never captain.

 

[morgieb]

fwiw Ken Rutherford made 56 tests while averaging 27 against Guptill's 29. Probably a more difficult era for batting, but at least Guptill was never captain.

Take Zimbabwe and Bangladesh out of the equation and Guptill would be lucky to average 25.

 

[Starfighter]

Just over actually. But he never made it to 50 tests, thank God.

 

[vcs]

Hooper by far. Almost everyone else who played 100 had something that can atleast be called a good career. Hooper played for a very long time and was thoroughly mediocre for almost the entire duration.

He looked soooo classy though, and generally hammered India. Was good in ODIs also. Definite underachiever.

 

[andruid]

Australia have already dropped him several times after he didn't perform for about five minutes. If an exciting young leg spinner comes around in the next few years it'll only take a brief dip in form for him to be unceremoniously booted.

In agreement, don't see how this is at all likely.

Or they bring back Jason Krezja

 

[stephen]

Hooper was the definition of a bits and pieces cricketer. He was a part of the West Indian side for a long time because he could bowl off spin well enough to give the 4 quicks a break and bat well enough to not be a complete bunny.

I remember him being better than his stats suggested as well.

 

[Starfighter]

The divergence between Hooper's test and FC batting averages is quite remarkable for someone who had such a long career.

 

[Black_Warrior]

I wonder if Hooper benefited from playing in an era when stats and records were not so much under scrutiny across a few television channels and internet. A lot of players in the early 90s used to be quite unaware of their records. Very recently, possibly during the Pak-WI series earlier in the year, Waqar was on some show and the anchor asked him about some of the best WI bats he played against and he mentioned Hooper. The anchor was surprised and asked him Hooper? Waqar was like yeah why? And the anchor replied because Hooper does not have a great record at all and Waqar seemed genuinely surprised that at that.

The way stats get held up and commentators are encouraged and prodded to talk about them on air, it was totally different back in those days and most broadcasters did not even have access to them...can't imagine anyone laying into him for averaging 36

 

[srbhkshk]

Read an article about Hooper a few years ago which basically stated that he was somewhat of a mini-Viv, as in he could dominate the bowling if he really put his mind to it (so I'm not surprised by Waqar's comment) but generally didn't, but those few times where he did were enough, and of course he bowled. (And it's not as if WI were overflowing with batsman at that stage.)

 

[stephen]

During the 90s I remember thinking that batsmen who averaged 40+ were really good batsmen. It's only since the tien of the century that most teams seem to have the majority of their team averaging 40+.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah because the 2000s in particular was a very batting friendly era.

 

[quincywagstaff]

Yeah, Hooper is the clear standout. Actually was averaging sub-35 after 90 Tests so only a great Test series v India in 2002 got his average as high as it was.

Always looked capable and talented but had a remarkable ability for lazy and wasteful dismissals; he was carried in the late 80s/early 90s in the strong West Indies team when his record was really poor.

Re: Bell, he was one of the first I thought of as well but it's probably a bit harsh as not only Hooper but Mark Taylor & Mark Waugh have worse batting averages than him (them playing in a tougher batting period of the 1990s notwithstanding).

 

[TheJediBrah]

I wonder if Hooper benefited from playing in an era when stats and records were not so much under scrutiny across a few television channels and internet. A lot of players in the early 90s used to be quite unaware of their records. Very recently, possibly during the Pak-WI series earlier in the year, Waqar was on some show and the anchor asked him about some of the best WI bats he played against and he mentioned Hooper. The anchor was surprised and asked him Hooper? Waqar was like yeah why? And the anchor replied because Hooper does not have a great record at all and Waqar seemed genuinely surprised that at that.

The way stats get held up and commentators are encouraged and prodded to talk about them on air, it was totally different back in those days and most broadcasters did not even have access to them...can't imagine anyone laying into him for averaging 36

36 really isn't that bad for someone who's partly in the team for their bowling

 

[DriveClub]

Hoopers bowling wasnt anything to write home about

 

[Red]

Thing was, Hooper was a very good batsman. Just ended up with a very middling average.

Had way more talent than plenty of guys who have achieved much more statistically. Does that mean he is the worst, or just the most underachieving numerically?

Hooper's probably the WI version of MWaugh. Watch either of them bat without worrying about stats and you'd think they were the best in the world, no doubt.

FWIW, Hooper played Warne as well as anyone.

 

[Second Spitter]

Hoops gave in to the myth that Windian players only had to play with talent and not grit.

 

[Arachnodouche]

He didn't have much scandal about him though, did he? A fairly clean-cut guy who just couldn't give as much of a **** as his talent warranted. Was still one of my favorites to watch growing up.

 

[adub]

All right, I'm going waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out on a limb and say that Botham is the worst player to 100 tests.

Without question young Botham was one of the greatest things ever on a cricket field. Had he finished up say in 84 with 70 or so Tests then he'd have had a >37 batting average and a <25 bowling average and his memory wouldn't be tarnished by the last 30 or so tests when he really was about Alex Tudor quality. England should have stopped picking him for his own sake in 85.