Worst Player to Play 100 Tests?

[Bolo]

I don't know about that. He was definitely one of the most obviously active captains, in that he tried a lot of funky tactics, which leads to his captaincy being talked about a lot more than someone who used more standard tactics (even if they were better). Whether that makes him a great captain I don't know.

I'd say he's probably one of the best though, but I'm not really basing that on much. It's hard to really rate captaincy from the sidelines.

It's very hard to rate captaincy from the sidelines.

Tactically it's pretty easy. Hindsight is 20/20. Fleming was great tactically. The funky calls were pretty good in general. The 50/50 calls where any captain could have gone either way he was great at.

Beyond tactics I think you can look at win % compared to quality of resources. His team didn't exactly dominate, but the resources were garbage, and I reckon NZ punched way above their weight. How much of the credit a captain deserves is debatable though.

 

[Red]

Mark Waugh getting nominated on the basis that he didn’t average 50 is ridiculous.

The guy was amazing. Would make runs at times when no one else could.

 

[tooextracool]

Mark Waugh being mentioned here is absolutely shocking. For context, only 4 players (who played over 20 tests) averaged more than 50 in the 90s - Lara, Tendulkar, S. Waugh and Gooch. Compare this to 2000s, when 21 players averaged over 50 using the same qualification. Of course, many would like to think this is because the quality of batsmen miraculously improved rather than the flatter pitches or the quality of bowlers. But for the record 9 out of the 22 players that averaged over 50 in the 2000s were averaging well below 50 in the 90s (Ponting, Kallis, Flower, Inzamam, Kirsten, Tillakaratne, Thorpe, Chanderpaul, Cullinan). Granted some of these players just happened to peak in the 2000s, but my point is that averaging 50 or 40 was no simple feat in a decade of Donald, Pollock, McGrath, Walsh, Ambrose, Wasim, Waqar, Bishop. The people suggesting Atherton, M. Waugh, Hooper etc. over Bell, Fleming, Ganguly etc. are really off point.

 

[Bolo]

Following on from the era argument, what about Gayle? Averaged 42, which is good for an opener, but only played 2000 on, plus had soft home pitches. Feel like he might be behind Fleming and Atherton as an opener.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Mark Waugh being mentioned here is absolutely shocking. For context, only 4 players (who played over 20 tests) averaged more than 50 in the 90s - Lara, Tendulkar, S. Waugh and Gooch. .

I thought John Wright did but he only played 18 tests @ 55. Martin Crowe would have if his knee didn't blow out and he toured India when he could hardly walk. Shame he (Crowe) couldn't play as long as Steve Waugh - was only a couple of years older and potentially could've had similar statistics.

 

[quincywagstaff]

In order my choices would be:

Atherton
Vettori
Hooper

Yes, Atherton for a couple of years in the mid-90s was one of the best bats in the world but there was a lot of dross during his career. I'm probably biased because I saw him underachieve consistently in Ashes contests - even when he scored his solitary Ashes century he scored it so slowly in a match England needed to win to stay in the Ashes race he helped ensure Australia escaped with a draw.

I always liked Vettori as a player but tbh his improved Test batting over his career hid the fact that he was no more than an honest toiler as a Test spinner and rarely played a decisive role. I guess he was a bit like Greg Matthews (except Matthews was a better batsman and worse bowler).

 

[quincywagstaff]

Re: Mark Waugh, while I don’t think he should be a top contender for this poll it’s fair to say he underachieved in his career; even he himself after he retired admitted he probably should’ve averaged 45.

I think part of the problem is he was kept on too long. From 1993 to 1998/99 he was a largely excellent Test batsman, making a valuable contribution in pretty much every series he played. But his last few years were pretty mediocre – 4 centuries in 42 Tests – and was lucky not to be discarded on at least a couple of occasions. And it wasn’t like there was a lack of batting talent options back then.

 

[jimmy101]

Poor Junior, didn't get picked often enough at the beginning of his career, picked too often at the end of his career.

Now he's being labelled as "worst player to play 100 tests" by a bunch of armchair observers who are a thousand times worse at cricket than him.

Vicious cycle isn't it?

 

[Pratters]

Hooper's bowling is way over rated in tests. I have seen him bowl pies for ages. Complete non threatening offies. There is a reason he averages 50.

 

[mr_mister]

Why we just arguing batsmen. What about Harbajhan or Ntini?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Ntini was pretty damn good.

 

[Athlai]

In order my choices would be:

Atherton
Vettori
Hooper

Yes, Atherton for a couple of years in the mid-90s was one of the best bats in the world but there was a lot of dross during his career. I'm probably biased because I saw him underachieve consistently in Ashes contests - even when he scored his solitary Ashes century he scored it so slowly in a match England needed to win to stay in the Ashes race he helped ensure Australia escaped with a draw.

I always liked Vettori as a player but tbh his improved Test batting over his career hid the fact that he was no more than an honest toiler as a Test spinner and rarely played a decisive role. I guess he was a bit like Greg Matthews (except Matthews was a better batsman and worse bowler).

Vettori at the end of his career was possibly a better batsman than some of the blokes with 100 caps that were specialists. Severe underrating of the value of an allrounder.

 

[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.

Poor Junior, didn't get picked often enough at the beginning of his career, picked too often at the end of his career.

Now he's being labelled as "worst player to play 100 tests" by a bunch of armchair observers who are a thousand times worse at cricket than him.

Vicious cycle isn't it?

Nobody was saying that Mark Waugh actually was the worst player to play 100 tests. Only that he was fortunate to get as many tests as he did. He played 128 tests and underachieved based on his potential. Meanwhile he had a domestic circuit back home filled with first class batsmen who were averaging in the 50s piling on the pressure.

Cricket Records | Records | Sheffield Shield / Pura Cup | | Most runs | ESPNcricinfo

Bevan ended up with a shield average over 60! And he got a single short run of tests and never got a second chance.

Bloody Bradman is still in 17th place on this list with his 110 average. But the guys ahead of him on the list? 13 of them played a significant portion of their career in the 90s.

These were some of the guys Mark Waugh was keeping out during the 90s:

Lehman
Hayden
Bevan
Langer
Love
Di Venuto
Hodge
Blewett
Law

Now some of them actually did get to play tests, but none of them got to play as many tests as Waugh did. Hayden and Langer's careers eclipsed what Waugh accomplished but they both got less tests than Waugh got.

Having said all that, I'm a huge fan of Mark Waugh and tend to think he was pushed too early from the ODI side, which was always more him jam anyway. And Waugh produced so many incredible knocks during his time against quality opposition. His hundreds against the WIndies of the era are particularly notable.

 

[quincywagstaff]

Nobody was saying that Mark Waugh actually was the worst player to play 100 tests. Only that he was fortunate to get as many tests as he did. He played 128 tests and underachieved based on his potential. Meanwhile he had a domestic circuit back home filled with first class batsmen who were averaging in the 50s piling on the pressure.

Cricket Records | Records | Sheffield Shield / Pura Cup | | Most runs | ESPNcricinfo

Bevan ended up with a shield average over 60! And he got a single short run of tests and never got a second chance.

Bloody Bradman is still in 17th place on this list with his 110 average. But the guys ahead of him on the list? 13 of them played a significant portion of their career in the 90s.

These were some of the guys Mark Waugh was keeping out during the 90s:

Lehman
Hayden
Bevan
Langer
Love
Di Venuto
Hodge
Blewett
Law

Now some of them actually did get to play tests, but none of them got to play as many tests as Waugh did. Hayden and Langer's careers eclipsed what Waugh accomplished but they both got less tests than Waugh got.

Having said all that, I'm a huge fan of Mark Waugh and tend to think he was pushed too early from the ODI side, which was always more him jam anyway. And Waugh produced so many incredible knocks during his time against quality opposition. His hundreds against the WIndies of the era are particularly notable.

Blewett played 46 Tests at a sub-35 average; he was given more than enough chances.

 

[stephen]

As for Fleming - his average does not really reflect how good of a batsman he actually was. He played a lot on green NZ tracks and that's reflected in his home and away averages. He averaged 33 at home and 45 away. He was also one of the best captains I've seen.

Vettori is a better shout for this "honour". He wouldn't have made most sides around the world when he played and he never set the world on fire but was good enough to hold his spot for a very long time. Still, as I said earlier, he was a special player. You don't get 100 tests if you don't have something going for you.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Having said all that, I'm a huge fan of Mark Waugh and tend to think he was pushed too early from the ODI side, which was always more him jam anyway. And Waugh produced so many incredible knocks during his time against quality opposition. His hundreds against the WIndies of the era are particularly notable.

No way he was hopeless at the end. His last "ok" innings was 50* against SA chasing 100-odd and it was all play-and-misses and edges. In 2001 Aus briefly had Gilchrist/Waugh/Hayden rotating through the opening spot but it became obvious pretty quickly that Waugh was done.

Vettori at the end of his career was possibly a better batsman than some of the blokes with 100 caps that were specialists. Severe underrating of the value of an allrounder.

not sure I'd go that far, but he was definitely a classy Test bat for a few years there. Easily better than a lot of the top/middle-order batsmen that NZ had during the time.

 

[Pratters]

Mark Waugh was a terrific player. Holding a place in a strong Australian team is no easy task. The reason he was able to do it was that he was good every where and consistent for a lot of his career. He could also bowl a few overs when necessary. Taking wickets at 40 a piece is not bad at all. He was an important part of that Australian side.. playing 128 tests for Australia is no mean feat..

 

[quincywagstaff]

Mark Waugh only really fell away as a ODI player in the 01/02 tri-series when he looked vulnerable against the new ball but even then he wasn’t helped by being run out a couple of times.

Until then his ODI performances were still very good – indeed he scored 4 ODI tons (including a career best 173) in early 2001.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Vettori?!

Not even the worst Kiwi to play 100 tests. Better than Fleming and McCullum

 

[stephen]

Mark Waugh was a terrific player. Holding a place in a strong Australian team is no easy task. The reason he was able to do it was that he was good every where and consistent for a lot of his career. He could also bowl a few overs when necessary. Taking wickets at 40 a piece is not bad at all. He was an important part of that Australian side.. playing 128 tests for Australia is no mean feat..

But that's the point right. Every player who played 100 tests has something special about them.

Mark Waugh underachieved. But he still has a list of incredible knocks that were massively valuable to winning important series'.