I think Phil suffered from the somewhat common affliction of 90s WI players in that he seemed more intent on having the swagger of the 80s blokes and less worried with sharing their ability or results.Felt Phil Simmons wasted a lot of potential too and could have been a long term opener for Windies.
It wasn't necessarily a concentration thing either because he averaged 50 with the bat in domestic cricket.Never saw him drop a catch. Ever. He bombed Warne in the ODIs ahead of the 95 test series over there then when the test came he kept getting run out or chipping one in the air off Steve Waugh, unless my memory fails me.
He was such a weird player. If you watched him bat you’d think he was an absolute all timer. Then he’d just get out.
Deadset enigmaIt wasn't necessarily a concentration thing either because he averaged 50 with the bat in domestic cricket.
He looked better than a 49 average bowler too IMO.
I think that sometimes but then I remember Tim Southee and Jimmy Anderson are decent slippers.I truly don’t understand how someone who is that good in the grippers can make such bad split second decisions batting.
Tbf Anderson is currently touring SL as a sub fielder.I think that sometimes but then I remember Tim Southee and Jimmy Anderson are decent slippers.
Reminded me of Mark Waugh in a way as he would look so good then get out having looked a million dollars for the last couple of hours. Waugh was clearly a huge upgrade but given his talent he could/should have averaged 5/6 runs an innings more over his career. I guess Waugh though would get his ton first and get out from boredom not like Hooper who would just give it away stupidly earlier.He was such a weird player. If you watched him bat you’d think he was an absolute all timer. Then he’d just get out.
He had 114 test wickets too!It wasn't necessarily a concentration thing either because he averaged 50 with the bat in domestic cricket.
He looked better than a 49 average bowler too IMO.
Almost seemed like he lacked motivation and found the game too easy, really.Reminded me of Mark Waugh in a way as he would look so good then get out having looked a million dollars for the last couple of hours. Waugh was clearly a huge upgrade but given his talent he could/should have averaged 5/6 runs an innings more over his career. I guess Waugh though would get his ton first and get out from boredom not like Hooper who would just give it away stupidly earlier.
Southee maybe not such a good example, as nobody doubts he has a quality eye. The fact that he manages to average close to 20 in test cricket despite looking like he's picked up a bat for the first time in his life 5 minutes before going out to the crease is testament to that.I think that sometimes but then I remember Tim Southee and Jimmy Anderson are decent slippers.
Yeah but nobody doubts Hooper's eye either. If someone with an eye like a dead fish can be Southee with the bat in Test cricket then they can definitely be Hooper.Southee maybe not such a good example, as nobody doubts he has a quality eye.
Yeah, on that note Michael Atherton as well. Basically he was an Akash Chopra but with far more eloquence.Hooper averaged 30 odd didn’t get? I know his offies were handy, but that’s really ordinary for a bloke who played 100 tests
Still remember an ODI match he took a fifer bowling only cross seam Larsons. Quintessential English cricketer of the 90s.Mark Ealham was a big favourite back in the day.