Worst Player to Play 100 Tests?

[Motorwada]

Ishant tbh has been pretty good for the last 4-5 years and will end with a Zaheer Khan like average if he can continue this for say 4-5 more years (he's 29 now)

 

[AndrewB]

I don't understand why Carl Hooper is often considered in these discussions and Mike Atherton is not. Hooper batted with much greater flair, had a wider range of attacking shots, could be relied upon to bowl with control, and was an excellent catcher. As I explained last year, Atherton had some technical flaws that consistently made him easy prey for certain top quality fast bowlers such as Curtley Ambrose and Glenn McGrath. The only thing Atherton had over Hooper was that he appeared to always give 100% effort and did everything he could to get the most out of his ability. Hooper sometimes came across as too cool to care, and often either lost concentration or appeared to think he had done his job after making just 40 or 50. Hooper was easily the more gifted cricketer and had a wider variety of strings to his bow.

I don't see why "batted with greater flair" or "more gifted" are relevant to deciding who was the better cricketer. It's not as if you could say "Well, Hooper had so much talent; if only he'd been given enough chances".

The fact that he was a useful bowler and fielder, however, is obviously relevant, and I'm also not sure why Atherton hasn't been mentioned.

 

[a massive zebra]

Alec Stewart pretty lucky to play 130 odd.

Not really. I expect you have used nothing but overall raw career stats to come to this conclusion. Alec Stewart averaged 45 as an opener and 46 when not keeping, in an era with more quality fast bowlers and lower scoring than at any point in your lifetime. He was mismanaged by the England selectors who forced him to keep wicket for much of his career even though England had a far better wicket keeper waiting in the wings. If England had have got their selections right in the 1990s, Stewart could probably have been a 45-50 averaging opener and near an ATG. Instead, rather than opening with Stewart and allowing Russell to keep, they made Stewart bat low and keep, thereby reducing the quality of their keeping and making Stewart bat when exhausted.

 

[srbhkshk]

Vettori?

 

[weldone]

Wow, Ishant touched 100 already!

 

[Bolo]

Wow, Ishant touched 100 already!

Not yet, which is why there is still debate on the issue.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

A great captain and slipper but Fleming's poor conversion rate and average in relation to his ability (9 100s and 40 average) has him in the conversation. He really should have been close to 20 centuries and 45 average. He owned Murali in SL but got out for more pretty 50s than Joe Root and really struggled in NZ

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Nasser Hussain must be in the mix. Good player but not that good and had lots of runs of low scores while captain.

 

[Burgey]

I’m sure there was a thread about this a few years back, but Hooper still probably wins this. Not that he was a bad cricketer, just that compared with a lot who played 100, he wasn’t as good.

He’s probably the best slip fielder I’ve seen though, along with M Waugh and Taylor.

 

[AndrewB]

Nasser Hussain must be in the mix. Good player but not that good and had lots of runs of low scores while captain.

Didn't play 100 Tests (the link at the start was to "players with most Test appearances" and goes down to 90).

 

[a massive zebra]

Nasser Hussain must be in the mix. Good player but not that good and had lots of runs of low scores while captain.

Only cricketers who played 100 Tests or more are eligible for the title of worst player to play 100 Tests.

 

[ImpatientLime]

I don't understand why Carl Hooper is often considered in these discussions and Mike Atherton is not. Hooper batted with much greater flair, had a wider range of attacking shots, could be relied upon to bowl with control, and was an excellent catcher. As I explained last year, Atherton had some technical flaws that consistently made him easy prey for certain top quality fast bowlers such as Curtley Ambrose and Glenn McGrath. The only thing Atherton had over Hooper was that he appeared to always give 100% effort and did everything he could to get the most out of his ability. Hooper sometimes came across as too cool to care, and often either lost concentration or appeared to think he had done his job after making just 40 or 50. Hooper was easily the more gifted cricketer and had a wider variety of strings to his bow.

atherton had superior peaks

185* and 98* are two of the great modern day, back to the wall efforts

 

[mr_mister]

Atherton had a good record against Ambrose

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Didn't play 100 Tests (the link at the start was to "players with most Test appearances" and goes down to 90).

Only cricketers who played 100 Tests or more are eligible for the title of worst player to play 100 Tests.

oooops, guess who had too many ales last night. It was 100 on his last appearance not his 100th test wasn't it.

He played 96, so got out before winning this list.

 

[Athlai]

Boucher or Healy probably deserve a shout.

 

[Pratters]

Hooper for me. 100 wickets yes but at 50 a piece and not a good average batting for the talent he had. Yes, he was a tremendous slip fielder but still I would rather have Atherton open than Hooper bat irresponsibly in the middle order.

 

[Burgey]

Boucher or Healy probably deserve a shout.

Healy is arguably the best wicketkeeper Australia has ever had.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yes Boucher defo in the running. He was ordinary as ****. Wasn't even a particularly good keeper. Always fascinated me that South Africa could produce so many great cricketers but for the whole decade+ Boucher was around couldn't get a better WK/batsman.

 

[Daemon]

Yes Boucher defo in the running. He was ordinary as ****. Wasn't even a particularly good keeper. Always fascinated me that South Africa could produce so many great cricketers but for the whole decade+ Boucher was around couldn't get a better WK/batsman.

Yeah he didn't have a hard job did he. No spinners of note to keep to and guys like Pollock are every keepers dream.

I don't think he was "ordinary" though. Defs an above average keeper bat.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah he didn't have a hard job did he. No spinners of note to keep to and guys like Pollock are every keepers dream.

I don't think he was "ordinary" though. Defs an above average keeper bat.

Yeah probably just seem him that way because SA were such a strong team. He was definitely no Geraint Jones or Kamran Akmal.