Worst Player to Play 100 Tests?

[tooextracool]

LOL, you gotta be kidding me. Ganguly was a far better batsman than Hooper. You don't get points for being a pretty batsman, else Trevor Gripper would be better than Bradman.

Do you really think so? Ganguly never scored a century against a side that included McGrath or Warne. For that matter, he never score one against Donald, Pollock or Steyn. Never scored a century against Ambrose, Akram or Walsh (though I understand that this is a much smaller sample size than the others). These were the premier attacks of his day and considering how many opportunities he had to change this, that is a pretty pathetic record. The strategy against him was always a simple one - bounce him first and then pitch it up and get him to drive. It's easy to look back with rose tinted glasses based on an average of 40 odd and consider him to be very good without recognizing that he was part of the problem as far as India's overseas record is concerned.

 

[tooextracool]

The trouble with this type of argument (and I've done it myself) is you can end up comparing the peak of player X with the whole career of players Y and Z.
Yes, Hooper had a 50+ match spell where his average was 45; but Bell had a similar spell with an average of 52.

The reason I don't rate Bell as highly as most is twofold:

1) He quite clearly feasted on touring sides who struggled to adapt to English conditions (or just didn't have the pace bowling resources capable of taking advantage of the conditions). These tended to be visiting Asian sides for most of the 2000s - Bangladesh in 05, Pakistan 06, Bangladesh '10, Sri Lanka '11 and India '11. Generally his record against these same countries (excluding Bangladesh) abroad was distinctly average (27 in India, 38 in SL, 19 in UAE).
2) He had a 4 year period from 2009 - 2013 where one could really consider him a world class player. I know you would argue that this is similar to Hooper in that they both had distinct periods when they were excellent, but whereas Bell returned to being distinctly average for a period of 25 tests after 2013, Hooper maintained his excellence until the dying days of his test career.

 

[Pratters]

It's not like Hooper distinguishes himself. He struggled in Australia (27) and South Africa (23). Obviously Ganguly was not the best player of the best pace bowling or any thing, far from it. However, he checks every thing else in his career. Hooper also averages 35.5 in England, where Ganguly is quite good. If Hooper had a good record in Australia or South Africa, you could have had some ground. Currently, none.

 

[tooextracool]

No he didn't but he scored a mountain of runs against Wasim and Waqar in their pomp which is far more meaningful than anything that Ganguly did over his career no matter how highly you rate Chris Lewis.

 

[Pratters]

I know. My point stands. Hooper didn't do well in Australia or SA. Ganguly actually has an excellent record v Pakistan. He did not score a 100 in this match but that is an important 62* in the second inning which I value above many 100s: 2nd Test, Pakistan tour of India at Delhi, Feb 4-7 1999 | Match Summary | ESPNCricinfo

 

[tooextracool]

I am not arguing that Hooper is an all time great. I am arguing that he's a better player than Ganguly which is a pretty easy argument to make because Hooper is indubitably the better fielder, bowler and arguably a better batsman as well.

 

[Pratters]

He was the more talented, you can argue, but where productivity is concerned he is below Ganguly.

 

[Bolo]

Glorious thread for mud-flinging. To play 100 tests you cant be too bad, and some people will hold you dearly enough to defend. But looking at the worst of them means everyone has plenty of ammunition to roast whoever they don't like.

As you were, gentlemen.

 

[cnerd123]

Disagree with this. Boucher got himself dropped for being arrogant early on in his career.

Later on in his career, the RSA dressing room became notoriously cliquey, with himself, Smith and Kallis being fingered as the main culprits. Even a spot in the side was somewhat dependent on either being part of the clique or able to work with it. I think Bouchers own career was extended past the point it should have for this reason, with a couple of other controversial selections and non-selections. There was a ton of team continuity towards the end of bouchers career, so you don't see too many people complaining about it, but also because not fitting in was a fast track out the side.

As an experienced player, I'm sure he had a lot to add, but this doesn't make him unique

This is interesting, because guys like Kallis, Smith etc singing Boucher's praises is why I rate him.

There is always that element of a clique in any team I suppose. Never really know the dressing room dynamics

 

[morgieb]

The reason I don't rate Bell as highly as most is twofold:

1) He quite clearly feasted on touring sides who struggled to adapt to English conditions (or just didn't have the pace bowling resources capable of taking advantage of the conditions). These tended to be visiting Asian sides for most of the 2000s - Bangladesh in 05, Pakistan 06, Bangladesh '10, Sri Lanka '11 and India '11. Generally his record against these same countries (excluding Bangladesh) abroad was distinctly average (27 in India, 38 in SL, 19 in UAE).
2) He had a 4 year period from 2009 - 2013 where one could really consider him a world class player. I know you would argue that this is similar to Hooper in that they both had distinct periods when they were excellent, but whereas Bell returned to being distinctly average for a period of 25 tests after 2013, Hooper maintained his excellence until the dying days of his test career.

My main issue with Bell is that apart from the 2013 Ashes, he only ever seemed to do well when England was doing well (and by that I mean there probably would've been negligible difference between England's performance with him and without him). Massive downhill skiier.

 

[Hicheal Michael]

My main issue with Bell is that apart from the 2013 Ashes, he only ever seemed to do well when England was doing well (and by that I mean there probably would've been negligible difference between England's performance with him and without him). Massive downhill skiier.

Pak '05 and SA '09 were good series for Bell.

0 100's in a losing test match - i have never known if that supports the idea of scoring runs in easier circumstances or not?

 

[stephen]

Honestly you have to be doing something right to get to 100 tests.

Atherton is probably the worst though Hooper "I tweak the ball so I get to play 100 tests" is also a good shout.

But the one who hasn't been mentioned is Mark Waugh. For a non- opener to average 41 and get as many tests as he got was very fortunate, especially with guys like Langer, Bevan, Law, Love and di Venuto languishing in the shield. It probably paid off in 95 though when we beat the Windies. But boy was he fortunate.

 

[morgieb]

Honestly you have to be doing something right to get to 100 tests.

Atherton is probably the worst though Hooper "I tweak the ball so I get to play 100 tests" is also a good shout.

But the one who hasn't been mentioned is Mark Waugh. For a non- opener to average 41 and get as many tests as he got was very fortunate, especially with guys like Langer, Bevan, Law, Love and di Venuto languishing in the shield. It probably paid off in 95 though when we beat the Windies. But boy was he fortunate.

With Waugh it's worth noting that averaging low-fourties in his time is different to what it is now. Apart from his brother, Lara and Tendulkar it's hard to think of many of his contemporaries that were better than him.

Plus he played a lot of great innings. Just that he didn't really score wanker runs. In today's climate he'd average 50+ IMO.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Hooper has over 5,000 Test runs. HS of 233. 13 Centuries. A batting average higher than Lamb or Gatting.

Over 100 Test wkts. 5w/innings 4 times.

Over 100 Test catches

Mediocre indeed.

It's players with 100+ tests though, so the pickings are slim.

 

[_00_deathscar]

I am not arguing that Hooper is an all time great. I am arguing that he's a better player than Ganguly which is a pretty easy argument to make because Hooper is indubitably the better fielder, bowler and arguably a better batsman as well.

Ganguly is the best (long) captain India have had, and exactly the captain they needed to take them into the next stage. Pretty decent bat too...

 

[Hicheal Michael]

Atherton scored 7 more 100's than Fleming in only 2 dozen or so more innings, having also played 28% of his tests against Australia, compared to Fleming having played 12% of his tests against Australia.

Atherton took 100's off just about every great attack of his time. Pak, and Wi attacks in particularly dropped off hugely by the time Fleming was taking 100's off them.

 

[stephen]

With Waugh it's worth noting that averaging low-fourties in his time is different to what it is now. Apart from his brother, Lara and Tendulkar it's hard to think of many of his contemporaries that were better than him.

Plus he played a lot of great innings. Just that he didn't really score wanker runs. In today's climate he'd average 50+ IMO.

That's kind if what I mean though. It's hard to get 100 tests without being pretty damn good.

Hooper was pretty damn good too. He often felt like a key wicket in the 90s and he was the West Indies best spinner so he fit the team perfectly.

 

[R!TTER]

It's still Ishant #closethread

 

[mr_mister]

That's kind if what I mean though. It's hard to get 100 tests without being pretty damn good.

Hooper was pretty damn good too. He often felt like a key wicket in the 90s and he was the West Indies best spinner so he fit the team perfectly.

yeah Hooper definitely had a the reputation alongside Lara and Richardson as the Windies top 3 batsmen despite averaging insanely less than both of them

 

[Dendarii]

This is interesting, because guys like Kallis, Smith etc singing Boucher's praises is why I rate him.

There is always that element of a clique in any team I suppose. Never really know the dressing room dynamics

Kallis and Boucher are very good friends who had some business ventures together. So neither of them would be likely to say a bad word about the other.