Worst Player to Play 100 Tests?

[Bolo]

Boucher was an exceptional keeper to pace. Comparable to Healy. Donald looked like the toughest quick I can think of to keep to- moved the ball both directions, completely wild with line and erratic with length.

Early Pollock was at times even worse, with completely unpredictable seam movement and lift.

Against spin, Boucher was some combination of very poor (whether it was just lack of practice or lack of talent as well, I'm not sure), and plain unknown.

He was a more useful bat than his average suggests, because he had a habit of making valuable runs, but considering his era, he wasn't good enough.

Boucher is about as worthy of this list as anyone else, but I'd say Healy doesn't deserve the nomination, if for no other fact than that Boucher exists.

 

[vcs]

Yeah Boucher was a useful bat and better than his average suggests. Healy beats him overall because he kept so well to Warne, but I think Boucher was a better batsman than Healy.

 

[trundler]

Healy was picked in Australian team of the century. He was obviously an elite 'keeper and a good enough pre Gilchrist bat. Should not be in the discussion.

 

[Dendarii]

Boucher's batting suffers a bit in comparison to other keepers because of his longevity and the change in the role of the wicketkeeper. At the start of his career one who averaged over 30 would be regarded as a good keeper-batsmen. However, by the end of it a wicketkeeper was almost expected to average in the mid 40s and able to be picked for his batting alone.

 

[cnerd123]

Boucher also played in a team rich with all-rounders. Kallis, Pollock, Hall, Boje, Klusener, and a bunch of others. SA could afford the luxury of a keeper who batted at 8. There wasn't much competition in terms of pure glovework during his career, and he was well known as being a great influence in the dressing room. He added more to that side than the raw sum of his stats would suggest.

 

[Pratters]

What happened to Steve Palframan? Played the 96 world cup and then not much else.

 

[Hicheal Michael]

Boucher warrants a mention for the sole reason alone of sledging Tatenda Taibu, who ended up with the better test batting average.

Taibu - 30.31
Boucher - 30.30

 

[TheJediBrah]

Taibu was a really decent player. Really unfortunate that his career was never allowed to fully flourish (or he chose it not to)

 

[Daemon]

Boucher was an exceptional keeper to pace. Comparable to Healy. Donald looked like the toughest quick I can think of to keep to- moved the ball both directions, completely wild with line and erratic with length.

Early Pollock was at times even worse, with completely unpredictable seam movement and lift.

Fair enough, never saw him that early in his career.

 

[Dendarii]

Boucher also played in a team rich with all-rounders. Kallis, Pollock, Hall, Boje, Klusener, and a bunch of others. SA could afford the luxury of a keeper who batted at 8. There wasn't much competition in terms of pure glovework during his career, and he was well known as being a great influence in the dressing room. He added more to that side than the raw sum of his stats would suggest.

He actually tended to come in at 7, ahead of those guys, but your point is still valid as South Africa often batted quite deep. Boucher outlasted those guys, but even though they left and South Africa no longer had that batting depth, they then had a lineup containing Smith, Amla, Kallis, and De Villiers, meaning that runs from the lower order weren't as essential as they had been in the past.

 

[Bolo]

he was well known as being a great influence in the dressing room.

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

 

[OverratedSanity]

Each time this topic is discussed, I'm amazed Hooper isn't the overwhelming consensus. Really mediocre player. One of the best slip catchers I've ever seen though.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Healy is arguably the best wicketkeeper Australia has ever had.

That legside stumping off Bevan is still probably my favourite piece of wicketkeeping ever.

 

[tooextracool]

Each time this topic is discussed, I'm amazed Hooper isn't the overwhelming consensus. Really mediocre player. One of the best slip catchers I've ever seen though.

Hooper had an extremely poor start to his career and it was only after 1992 that he really started to push on and perform consistently at the test match level (He was always a force to reckon on the domestic scene). For the next 9 years, his record is certainly well above average (40+), particularly when you consider the quality of bowlers going around at the time and one of the chief reasons (along with Ambrose, Walsh and Lara) that WI went largely undefeated at home through the 90s. This is the Hooper that everyone remembers. For the benefit of server space, I won't go into any detail of his value as a bowler or slip fielder.

Do I think Hooper is anywhere other than close to the bottom of the list of players who played 100 tests? No I don't. But I'll be damned just standing by seeing someone refer to him as mediocre while the likes of Ian Bell and Saurav Ganguly get a free pass.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Each time this topic is discussed, I'm amazed Hooper isn't the overwhelming consensus. Really mediocre player. One of the best slip catchers I've ever seen though.

Not mediocre but for the talent he had he was. He makes Chris Lewis look like someone who made full use of his god given talent.

 

[Pratters]

Hooper had an extremely poor start to his career and it was only after 1992 that he really started to push on and perform consistently at the test match level (He was always a force to reckon on the domestic scene). For the next 9 years, his record is certainly well above average (40+), particularly when you consider the quality of bowlers going around at the time and one of the chief reasons (along with Ambrose, Walsh and Lara) that WI went largely undefeated at home through the 90s. This is the Hooper that everyone remembers. For the benefit of server space, I won't go into any detail of his value as a bowler or slip fielder.

Do I think Hooper is anywhere other than close to the bottom of the list of players who played 100 tests? No I don't. But I'll be damned just standing by seeing someone refer to him as mediocre while the likes of Ian Bell and Saurav Ganguly get a free pass.

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.

 

[Zinzan]

Not saying it should be him, but Stephen Fleming has feared well to not even get a mention in the 4 pages to date. Although like Hooper, Fleming was arguably one of the top 5 slippers of all-time, and certainly one of the better skippers (considering he was the captain of some fairly ordinary sides) going around.

 

[AndrewB]

Hooper had an extremely poor start to his career and it was only after 1992 that he really started to push on and perform consistently at the test match level (He was always a force to reckon on the domestic scene). For the next 9 years, his record is certainly well above average (40+), particularly when you consider the quality of bowlers going around at the time and one of the chief reasons (along with Ambrose, Walsh and Lara) that WI went largely undefeated at home through the 90s. This is the Hooper that everyone remembers. For the benefit of server space, I won't go into any detail of his value as a bowler or slip fielder.

Do I think Hooper is anywhere other than close to the bottom of the list of players who played 100 tests? No I don't. But I'll be damned just standing by seeing someone refer to him as mediocre while the likes of Ian Bell and Saurav Ganguly get a free pass.

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.

 

[Engle]

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.

 

[Athlai]

Healy is arguably the best wicketkeeper Australia has ever had.

Keepers in general can and should be replaced by a scarecrow with a big basket.