Worst cricketer to play 100 tests

[Chakdephatte]

56 minutes ago, nevada said:

He may not pass the ICF test of greatness(has any batsman ever?).

 

The greatest sentence in the history of ICF 

[Majestic]

Stats are not everything. Bell was a good support batsman but he was no Graham Gooch, David Gower or Graham Thorpe. He was just a Tom Latham level batsman.

 

It is true that a lot of England batters are better than their averages but Bell wasn't one of those.

[Real McCoy]

[Vancouver]

Ishant

 

Future candidate - Pant

[Clarke]

19 hours ago, Chakdephatte said:

You guys never heard of Ian Healy?

 

There was a reason Gilly's test debut came later, his keeping had surgical precision to compliment the bowling of Warne. I have always held the view that Gilly should have started earlier in tests but Healy was without doubt outstanding as a keeper although avg as a batsman.

 

 

13 hours ago, Adamant said:

Ian Bell? 

An average of 42 for an English batsman is gold standard. 

I don't know why you considered putting him there also Saleem Malik was a pretty good batsman but still you can put him there coz of fixing and stuff but based on batting credentials he was great and doesn't deserve to be here.

 

Michael Atherton was good too. 

 

Actually I think the title itself doesn't do justice to the players, someone who played 100 tests had a successful career, it's a bit like deciding who is the most poverty stricken man amongst a list of millionaires. 

 

Sums up the thread, its shocking to see the names in the list. Guys like Boucher, Hooper etc would walk into most XIs. Collectively brings down the forum's cricketing IQ.

 

I'm also surprised how no one mentioned Vettori yet. Guy's got 360 odd wickets and 4500+ runs. Before his shoulder surgery, he'd be NZ's attacking as well as defending option, giving insanely long spells like this game where he bowled 55 overs out of 148 as a 20 year old while getting Dravid, Tendulkar & Ganguly. 

Edited January 10, 2022 by Clarke

[Mesky99]

5 hours ago, Majestic said:

Stats are not everything. Bell was a good support batsman but he was no Graham Gooch, David Gower or Graham Thorpe. He was just a Tom Latham level batsman.

 

It is true that a lot of England batters are better than their averages but Bell wasn't one of those.

Bell was a high quality player, judge him by the position which batted at most of his career, he was as good as Thorpe if not better, except for his average of 27 in India he has done great elsewhere. 

[Chakdephatte]

6 hours ago, Majestic said:

Stats are not everything. Bell was a good support batsman but he was no Graham Gooch, David Gower or Graham Thorpe. He was just a Tom Latham level batsman.

 

And what's wrong with Tom Latham. It will not be a disrespect to the 100 test club if Latham joins it.

[Majestic]

21 minutes ago, Chakdephatte said:

 

And what's wrong with Tom Latham. It will not be a disrespect to the 100 test club if Latham joins it.

Nothing wrong with that. The thread is only referring to the limited list of players who have played over 100 tests and among them, who all the worst are?

 

Nobody is saying that since these guys have played over 100 tests, so arrest them or send to jail 

[Majestic]

52 minutes ago, Mesky99 said:

Bell was a high quality player, judge him by the position which batted at most of his career, he was as good as Thorpe if not better, except for his average of 27 in India he has done great elsewhere. 

Don't think so. Thorpe had great success with bat in helping his team win series in Pakistan and Sri Lanka during the time when they were a good side.

 

I would say Thorpe is in same league as Laxman.

[neel roy]

9 hours ago, Trichromatic said:

 

If they face those bowling attacks in similar conditions which Ganguly faced, they will score 5 centuries. 

And if Ganguly had the bowlers india had now he would have been the best captain india ever produced ( he drew in aus and england. Lost to nz in souped up pitches in 2002, lost to south africa 1-0.) Unfortunately if Ifs and buts were pots and pans..

[neel roy]

20 hours ago, Adamant said:

Ian Bell scored 22 centuries in his test career and by all means he was as good or even better than Ganguly (in test cricket). 

 

I didn’t make that list. Ian Bell is one of the best england has produced in last 20 yrs barring Cook Root Pietersen Vaughan Trescothick. I ll keep him above Trott, Hussain anyday. Bell was never fazed against pace. I remember the oval test of Kumble in 2007. He single handedly stopped india from winning with a fighting 4th innings century. He won 5 ashes. In 2013 ashes he scored 3 centuries. England would give anything to have a batsman like him today. 

[bowl_out]

On 1/8/2022 at 2:37 PM, Texan said:

Ishant Sharma and Harbhajan Singh

 

I think people are not seeing through how useless Harbhajan was in his last few years in the team. Since 2006, he had a bowling average of 37 overall and even in India, it was 35. We were just carrying an extra deadweight everywhere we played. 

Yet he thinks he was unfairly dropped

[SrinjayDutta]

On 1/9/2022 at 6:23 PM, Trichromatic said:

 

Which current crop?

 

Pujara has 5, Rahane has 4, KL Rahul has 4, Pant has 2 centuries in SENA and none of their careers is over.

 

Also none of them scored centuries against greats bowlers like Peter Martin, Allan Mullaly, Chris Lewis, Dominic Cork, Min Patel, Mark Elham, Simon Doull, Chris Cairns, Dion Nash, Hoggard, Caddick, Tudor, Giles, Bracken and Andy Bichel and Gillespie.

 

They got their centuries against average bowlers like Cummins, Hazlewood, Steyn, peak Anderson, peak Broad, Rabada, Ryan Harris, Starc etc.

 

Yes current crop only dream of those.

Some of Ganguly's special innings were not always hundreds. For example, I can mention his performance in Joberg 2006, which was pretty good after getting dropped and being under huge pressure on a spicy pitch, against pollock, ntini, steyn, kallis. I remember his 1999 hundred with dravid, a match saving one. A superb 75 in 2002 port of spain in 2nd innings, when ind was under pressure. It put a fighting total on board and ultimately secured a victory. I would obviously count the Kandy test also. He is not such a bad test batsman as ICF points him out to be, a really good foil for the Fab 3,4 and 5. The way Rahane and Pujara are regressing, soon they cannot be compared with Ganguly unless they pull up their career. Him being a left hander was a crucial reason how he fit into the equation.

[SrinjayDutta]

5 hours ago, neel roy said:

I didn’t make that list. Ian Bell is one of the best england has produced in last 20 yrs barring Cook Root Pietersen Vaughan Trescothick. I ll keep him above Trott, Hussain anyday. Bell was never fazed against pace. I remember the oval test of Kumble in 2007. He single handedly stopped india from winning with a fighting 4th innings century. He won 5 ashes. In 2013 ashes he scored 3 centuries. England would give anything to have a batsman like him today. 

Ian Bell is very underrated. I would put him over Trescothick and Vaughn. 

[SrinjayDutta]

You guys talk about andy bichel in brisbane 2003, but Gillespie played in that test too  and bichel was in form of his life post 2003 WC success. Stuart Mcgill was not an incompetent bowler, 200 wickets during time of Warne era speaks volumes. What I wont give for Kohli to emulate Ganguly's brisbane innings tomorrow! The captain's innings set up the whole tour. Another reason Ganguly is looked down upon is getting compared to the great batsmen of his era.

[neel roy]

Gangulys average overseas:nothing to be frowned upon

 

Australia :35

England: 66

NZ: 28
Saf:36

Pak:49

Windies:40

 

 

1 hour ago, SrinjayDutta said:

You guys talk about andy bichel in brisbane 2003, but Gillespie played in that test too  and bichel was in form of his life post 2003 WC success. Stuart Mcgill was not an incompetent bowler, 200 wickets during time of Warne era speaks volumes. What I wont give for Kohli to emulate Ganguly's brisbane innings tomorrow! The captain's innings set up the whole tour. Another reason Ganguly is looked down upon is getting compared to the great batsmen of his era.

 

 

[kubrickian]

I dont get how some people think Ishant Sharma is worst. Please check his average and strike rate in last few years. Its probably one of the best in the world. Agreed, before this turnaround he was not good.

Edited January 11, 2022 by kubrickian

[Chakdephatte]

4 minutes ago, kubrickian said:

I dont get how some people think Ishant Sharma is worst. Please check his average and strike rate in last few years. Its probably one of the best in the world. Agreed, before this turnaround he was not good.

Relatively bad. Don't think any other specialist bowler has played as many matches with 32 average. 

[kubrickian]

Ishant Sharma in last 5 years in test cricket: 

 

[Majestic]

My reasoning for having Boucher in the list is that although he was a great keeper vs pace, he didn't really faced much stuff challenges keeping vs spinners behind stumps. South Africa didn't had quality spinners so the adjustments that are required for keeping to spinners like Murali or Warne won't have been required in Boucher's case. Hence, I feel he should have done better with time and maintained around 35 average with bat atleast.