Worst Player to Play 100 Tests?

[stephen]

Vettori would have played regularly for England, and probably WI as well.

NZ, WI, Eng, Zim, Ban he'd have played for and he'd have slotted in very nicely into the South African team as their third all rounder. I doubt he'd have played ahead of Kaneria, Warne, Murali, Kumble or Harbhajan. So we're talking about a guy who probably wouldn't have played for four of the top 5 sides of his era. That's probably an indicator that he's near the bottom of the 100 test players.

Look, I'm not arguing that Vettori is bad. He's actually a very good player. He's easily better than Hooper and probably ahead of Fleming on this list as well (who is another player who probably made the 100 test mark by playing in a weak team for a long time). But there isn't too many Vettori is ahead of.

Vettori was a good spinner and later a good batsman and in between he was decent at both. He'd easily make the NZ all time lineup as the spin bowler.

Calling it nationalistic to say that Warne would have played in every team is as bad as saying Dravid wouldn't have made the Australian team at the time. It's rubbish and it wasn't even me who brought up Warne or Vettori for that matter.

 

[Bolo]

NZ, WI, Eng, Zim, Ban he'd have played for and he'd have slotted in very nicely into the South African team as their third all rounder. I doubt he'd have played ahead of Kaneria, Warne, Murali, Kumble or Harbhajan. So we're talking about a guy who probably wouldn't have played for four of the top 5 sides of his era. That's probably an indicator that he's near the bottom of the 100 test players.

Look, I'm not arguing that Vettori is bad. He's actually a very good player. He's easily better than Hooper and probably ahead of Fleming on this list as well (who is another player who probably made the 100 test mark by playing in a weak team for a long time). But there isn't too many Vettori is ahead of.

Vettori was a good spinner and later a good batsman and in between he was decent at both. He'd easily make the NZ all time lineup as the spin bowler.

Calling it nationalistic to say that Warne would have played in every team is as bad as saying Dravid wouldn't have made the Australian team at the time. It's rubbish and it wasn't even me who brought up Warne or Vettori for that matter.

He's only competing for 1 spot in the team though as you are suggesting it. Batsmen are competing for 5. He'd likely play as a second spinner in SC teams.

And he'd be the number 1 pick amongst nominations for most of the teams he'd make, ahead of guys like Waugh who the thread has decided are too good to nominate.

He's too good for this list. That level of allround quality is rare.

 

[trundler]

The award should rightfully go to an English player.

 

[a massive zebra]

And the worst eligible English player is Atherton easily.

 

[trundler]

Cook at least deserves a mention as Vettori and Waugh have been nominated.

 

[a massive zebra]

LOL. If Cook deserves a mention then half of those eligible should be seriously considered as well. The guy has over 12,000 runs and 32 centuries with series winning contributions in India and Australia.

After Atherton, next in line for England would be Bell, IMO. He had a long period of sustained success, but most of his best work was done either against weak teams or when England were already on top against good teams who were not comfortable in English conditions.

 

[trundler]

LOL. If Cook deserves a mention then half of those eligible should be seriously considered as well. The guy has over 12,000 runs and 32 centuries with series winning contributions in India and Australia.

After Atherton, next in line for England would be Bell, IMO. He had a long period of sustained success, but most of his best work was done either against weak teams or when England were already on top against good teams who were not comfortable in English conditions.

I was speaking only relatively.

Bell and Athers definitely well ahead.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

It is interesting that Vetttori and Boucher were both picked in the Rest of the World XI that played vs Australia in the Super Test. Obviously the selectors thought they could play a bit.

 

[Burgey]

Imagine Warne with curry instead of tins of baked beans. He wouldn't have been the same bowler. Also blokes like Ganguly would've refused to have him on the same team

Probably the only ever compliment to Warne’s character tbh.

 

[Starfighter]

It is interesting that Vetttori and Boucher were both picked in the Rest of the World XI that played vs Australia in the Super Test. Obviously the selectors thought they could play a bit.

Rather, they needed some variety.

 

[Athlai]

NZ, WI, Eng, Zim, Ban he'd have played for and he'd have slotted in very nicely into the South African team as their third all rounder. I doubt he'd have played ahead of Kaneria, Warne, Murali, Kumble or Harbhajan. So we're talking about a guy who probably wouldn't have played for four of the top 5 sides of his era. That's probably an indicator that he's near the bottom of the 100 test players.

Look, I'm not arguing that Vettori is bad. He's actually a very good player. He's easily better than Hooper and probably ahead of Fleming on this list as well (who is another player who probably made the 100 test mark by playing in a weak team for a long time). But there isn't too many Vettori is ahead of.

Vettori was a good spinner and later a good batsman and in between he was decent at both. He'd easily make the NZ all time lineup as the spin bowler.

Calling it nationalistic to say that Warne would have played in every team is as bad as saying Dravid wouldn't have made the Australian team at the time. It's rubbish and it wasn't even me who brought up Warne or Vettori for that matter.

Think it's fairly likely he'd have played for all Test teams barring maybe Australia for the majority of his career. While he'd never be the frontline spinner for Pakistan/SL/India he'd be the best allrounder they have. Could also see him slotting into the Aussie teams as a second spinner on Asia tours during his earlier years and as more of an all-rounder post 2009.

He'd probably have had 100 Tests for everyone except Bangers (who don't play enough) and Australia. He'd still have maybe got a pretty solid 30-50 though.

 

[morgieb]

Strauss should be up there with Atherton/Bell as far as "Worst English Players To Hit 100 Tests" go. His captaincy gives him an advantage but that doesn't change the fact that for large chunks of his career he wasn't all that good.

 

[Zinzan]

NZ, WI, Eng, Zim, Ban he'd have played for and he'd have slotted in very nicely into the South African team as their third all rounder. I doubt he'd have played ahead of Kaneria, Warne, Murali, Kumble or Harbhajan.

Not so sure about Harbhajan tbh.

IIRC Harbhajan's overall career average was only 2 better than Vettori, and he mainly got to bowl in home conditions vs. away batsmen who were on the backfoot to begin with in India playing spin.

I also recall Vettori having a better series in NZ/India 2010 series than Harbhajan with the ball both in terms of wickets and average. And let's be honest, Vettori was bowling at Indian batsmen on their own wickets, while Harby had the daunting task of bowling to NZ's batsmen in very unfamiliar conditions for them.

I distinctly remember thinking that series about how their career records would look if Vettori was Indian and Harbhajan a Kiwi, having to play half his Tests on NZ decks which did NOT spin across most of Vettori's career.

 

[stephen]

Not so sure about Harbhajan tbh.

IIRC Harbhajan's overall career average was only 2 better than Vettori, and he mainly got to bowl in home conditions vs. away batsmen who were on the backfoot to begin with in India playing spin.

I also recall Vettori having a better series in NZ/India 2010 series than Harbhajan with the ball both in terms of wickets and average. And let's be honest, Vettori was bowling at Indian batsmen on their own wickets, while Harby had the daunting task of bowling to NZ's batsmen in very unfamiliar conditions for them.

I distinctly remember thinking that series about how their career records would look if Vettori was Indian and Harbhajan a Kiwi, having to play half his Tests on NZ decks which did NOT spin across most of Vettori's career.

Fair enough. I'd have picked Vettori in my team over Bhaji just because Vettori wasn't a massive ****.

Though India often crapped their pants to nothing offspinners over the years. Was Clarke's 5/9 a fluke or would Warne have taken those wickets if he'd played in that test? Would anyone remember Krezja if he hadn't taken 12 wickets in that crazy debut?

Vettori was a very good spinner who often played on excellent tracks for fast bowling. He did everything that was asked of him and had a fine career. He's probably similar to Hooper in role, but was better with the ball and was a late bloomer with the bat.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Not so sure about Harbhajan tbh.

IIRC Harbhajan's overall career average was only 2 better than Vettori, and he mainly got to bowl in home conditions vs. away batsmen who were on the backfoot to begin with in India playing spin.

I also recall Vettori having a better series in NZ/India 2010 series than Harbhajan with the ball both in terms of wickets and average. And let's be honest, Vettori was bowling at Indian batsmen on their own wickets, while Harby had the daunting task of bowling to NZ's batsmen in very unfamiliar conditions for them.

I distinctly remember thinking that series about how their career records would look if Vettori was Indian and Harbhajan a Kiwi, having to play half his Tests on NZ decks which did NOT spin across most of Vettori's career.

Also Kaneira too (regardless of being a fixer). His bowling average is worse than Vettori's (both in the 34s) despite having better conditions to bowl in. Better strike rate but worse economy. Kaneira, however, was a bunny with the bat while Vettori's batting is well documented.

 

[Zinzan]

I'm not sure how Stephen Fleming wouldn't be a better argument than Vettori for this title anyway.

Fleming averaged 10 more than Vettori with the bat across their respective careers.. (40 vs, 30), and that isn't factoring that Vettori averaged 40 in the last half of his career having started at no. 10 or 11 as an 18 year old.

On top of that Vettori did take a mere 362 Test wickets, and whilst he never had a great strike rate, his ability to control the run-rate as a stock bowler cannot be under-estimated.

It's also worth noting that when Vettori played in tests with Bond, his SR and average was significantly better, suggesting if he did have classy bowlers at the other end throughout his career, he might have taken less wickets, but would have likely had a better average and SR, and would not have needed to purely be a stock bowler.

 

[jimmy101]

^ Spot on Zinners.

 

[Athlai]

Would Fleming have played 100 Tests if he was from another Test team? I reckon England/AU/SA/India and maybe Pakistan would have dropped him for a couple seasons at some stage over his career. Of course the actual answer is Boucher.

 

[vcs]

Not so sure about Harbhajan tbh.

IIRC Harbhajan's overall career average was only 2 better than Vettori, and he mainly got to bowl in home conditions vs. away batsmen who were on the backfoot to begin with in India playing spin.

I also recall Vettori having a better series in NZ/India 2010 series than Harbhajan with the ball both in terms of wickets and average. And let's be honest, Vettori was bowling at Indian batsmen on their own wickets, while Harby had the daunting task of bowling to NZ's batsmen in very unfamiliar conditions for them.

I distinctly remember thinking that series about how their career records would look if Vettori was Indian and Harbhajan a Kiwi, having to play half his Tests on NZ decks which did NOT spin across most of Vettori's career.

Wasn't that the series where Bhajji trolled two hundreds, one match saving? Great times.

 

[Zinzan]

Wasn't that the series where Bhajji trolled two hundreds, one match saving? Great times.

I very intentionally left that fact out. Man we had you ****s 10-5 and then 70-6 IIRC, and were on the verge of a famous and unlikely Test victory.