Bad cricketers who played too long

[Migara]

Chamara Kapugedara, Kusal Mendis, Chris Harris

 

[Migara]

Al amin had a problem with the action

 

[Migara]

Mike Gatting's last five years were generally execrable and he probably should have been discarded earlier.

His ability against spin was a myth. Utterly destroyed by Kumble, Warne and Murali who were in their first or second year of international cricket.

 

[Starfighter]

His ability against spin was a myth. Utterly destroyed by Kumble, Warne and Murali who were in their first or second year of international cricket.

I remember correcting you years ago on some of this. In the 92/93 series against India a 36 year old Gatting averaged 36.5, above his career average of 35.56 (he only played one test in SL, not a big sample size). It was the only series after 87/88 where he averaged over 24.

He also wasn't dismissed by Kumble once (though that doesn't really matter). You could've cited the '87 away series in Pakistan where he fell (heavily umpire assisted) to spin 5/6 times but of course you still don't know how to do research to back up your statements.

His reputation no doubt came from County Cricket, and also his series in India in 1984/85 and his play of the Ind and Pak spinners in '86 and '87. In comparison he had a poor record against NZ and a terrible one vs. WI. All pointing towards him being a better player of spin than pace.

 

[Migara]

I remember correcting you years ago on some of this. In the 92/93 series against India a 36 year old Gatting averaged 36.5, above his career average of 35.56 (he only played one test in SL, not a big sample size). It was the only series after 87/88 where he averaged over 24.

He also wasn't dismissed by Kumble once (though that doesn't really matter). You could've cited the '87 away series in Pakistan where he fell (heavily umpire assisted) to spin 5/6 times but of course you still don't know how to do research to back up your statements.

His reputation no doubt came from County Cricket, and also his series in India in 1984/85 and his play of the Ind and Pak spinners in '86 and '87. In comparison he had a poor record against NZ and a terrible one vs. WI. All pointing towards him being a better player of spin than pace.

Once again none of the spinners he played were even close to class of these three. The utter cluelessness he showed against spin was the most important thing. You need to see the matches to see it. This was against three spinners who were green. Gatting even his top game would got destroyed by these three would have gained experience. Gatting's ability to play quality spin is a myth as fat as Gatting.

 

[AndrewB]

Well usually they weren't bad to start off with, which is why they were initially selected.

But England's sporadic recalls of Brian Close might fit the bill. Had a rather mediocre FC record for someone who played so long too.

A batting average of 33 wasn't bad in county cricket in that era - Don Kenyon, Arthur Milton, Mickey Stewart and Mike Denness all got picked for England as batsmen with that average in the 50s/60s/70s, and there are plenty of county stalwarts who averaged less: David Shepherd (the umpire) played hundreds of matches for Gloucestershire with an average of 24. Plus Close took over 1000 wickets and 800 catches.

 

[Starfighter]

Once again none of the spinners he played were even close to class of these three. The utter cluelessness he showed against spin was the most important thing. You need to see the matches to see it. This was against three spinners who were green. Gatting even his top game would got destroyed by these three would have gained experience. Gatting's ability to play quality spin is a myth as fat as Gatting.

The problem here is that even if you did see the matches there's zero chance - absolutely none at all - that you have an accurate recollection of what happened and what play looked like (and I'm reluctant to judge off highlights how much the numbers reflect reality). You've consistently proven this by your posting on pretty much any subject.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Migara destroyed by subjective analysis

 

[thierry henry]

Lou Vincent had a poor record in every format at both domestic and international level but we were absolutely insistent about trying to make him a thing. Played 102 ODIs averaging 27 with a strike-rate below 70. Then to top it all off it turns out the **** was a match-fixer.

Weirdest thing is the narrative around him is he was treated harshly by selectors because he was moved around the order a bit. Just seems like one of those guys who basically sucks on every level but inexplicably engenders sympathy. He was moved around the order, or occasionally dropped, because he didn't score runs ffs.

 

[Adders]

I’ll believe that when I see it for more than 1 series.

Well jeez mate....I mean we're all hoping he keeps improving just so you're convinced.

 

[Prince EWS]

Lou Vincent had a poor record in every format at both domestic and international level but we were absolutely insistent about trying to make him a thing. Played 102 ODIs averaging 27 with a strike-rate below 70. Then to top it all off it turns out the **** was a match-fixer.

Weirdest thing is the narrative around him is he was treated harshly by selectors because he was moved around the order a bit. Just seems like one of those guys who basically sucks on every level but inexplicably engenders sympathy. He was moved around the order, or occasionally dropped, because he didn't score runs ffs.

@NZTailender

 

[Prince EWS]

He definitely really sucked in ODIs for way too long, but in Tests he played 18 innings not-opening and averaged 40 which was fine and justifies the complaints about him being 'messed around' by being made to open, especially since didn't really do it domestically. But the middle order was strong at the time and he also wasn't very consistent domestically (averaged <35 in FC cricket) so it's hard to say he was really banging the door down.

 

[Silver Silva]

JP Duminy

 

[thierry henry]

He definitely really sucked in ODIs for way too long, but in Tests he played 18 innings not-opening and averaged 40 which was fine and justifies the complaints about him being 'messed around' by being made to open, especially since didn't really do it domestically. But the middle order was strong at the time and he also wasn't very consistent domestically (averaged <35 in FC cricket) so it's hard to say he was really banging the door down.

He never earned his spot in the test team in the first place and it was actually his initial unexpected success opening which bought him a lot of rope. Basically his only marginal justification for being in the team at all was an unexpectedly good debut opening. He had never done enough to earn selection in his preferred position and the **** should have been grateful we had our normal spot open in the team for a substandard or makeshift opener.

The good-ish record not opening basically comes down to the 224 against Sri Lanka and 92 against Zimbabwe shortly before the end of his test career. I'm not one to do the whole "ignore any time he scored runs" thing, but that Sri Lanka innings was about the most lowkey test double you'd ever see. Sri Lanka had left NZ mid-tour in December because of the tsunami and were dutybound to come back months later and play tests here in mid-April. Suffice to say they were not the stiffest competition and that innings did not suddenly make me re-evaluate Vincent.

 

[NZTailender]

Lou Vincent had a poor record in every format at both domestic and international level but we were absolutely insistent about trying to make him a thing. Played 102 ODIs averaging 27 with a strike-rate below 70. Then to top it all off it turns out the **** was a match-fixer.

Weirdest thing is the narrative around him is he was treated harshly by selectors because he was moved around the order a bit. Just seems like one of those guys who basically sucks on every level but inexplicably engenders sympathy. He was moved around the order, or occasionally dropped, because he didn't score runs ffs.

Ok first of all how dare you

Second of all go **** yourself

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Lou Vincent had a poor record in every format at both domestic and international level but we were absolutely insistent about trying to make him a thing. Played 102 ODIs averaging 27 with a strike-rate below 70.

Also his stats were greatly boosted by that 170 against Zim.

Despite his flaws as an ODI bat, he was genuinely world class in the field and must've saved a lot of runs.

 

[Neil Young]

Lou Vincent had a poor record in every format at both domestic and international level but we were absolutely insistent about trying to make him a thing. Played 102 ODIs averaging 27 with a strike-rate below 70. Then to top it all off it turns out the **** was a match-fixer.

Weirdest thing is the narrative around him is he was treated harshly by selectors because he was moved around the order a bit. Just seems like one of those guys who basically sucks on every level but inexplicably engenders sympathy. He was moved around the order, or occasionally dropped, because he didn't score runs ffs.

Vincent was such a golden boy/project of NZC. On a personal level, I like the guy, but as a cricketer he was given the red carpet treatment by the selectors, and **** knows why.

 

[NZTailender]

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Chris Harris

How was he a "bad cricketer"?

He'd make an AT SL ODI XI

 

[OverratedSanity]

Younis Khan was a dreadful ODI player who somehow managed to get selected 250+ games through sheer clout.