Carl Hooper, so much talent, but so few starring performances to show for it

[dass]

Carl Hooper was one of my fav players, but i agree with the wikepdia article that Hooper could have done so much more with his career.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Hooper

[Perm]

Thanks, don't think this thread isn't really needed though.

[dass]

also cricinfo also talks about his wasted potential. http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/west...yer/52066.html

[shortpitched713]

Carl Hooper was always an underachiver. He did play more of a supporting role in the West Indies team though, supporting batsmen like Lara, and bowling his handy offspinners.

[Pratters]

If any one saw Hooper bat for the first time, he would be enthralled. Such skill, such ease with which he would play his strokes. However, the person could be shocked if he glanced at Hooper's test average - just 36.46. Hooper oozed class. A lot of players are all flair and no talent. They can play the most brilliant strokes but do not have the defence required. Hooper was not one of them. Hooper had a lot of skill and was immensely talented. Far too often though, he used to get out just playing a lazy or loose stroke. I would put VVS Laxman in the same category. His test average of 42 hardly does his talent justice and it would fall further if you exclude that innings at Kolkata.

[ripper868]

Originally Posted by Pratyush

If any one saw Hooper bat for the first time, he would be enthralled. Such skill, such ease with which he would play his strokes. However, the person could be shocked if he glanced at Hooper's test average - just 36.46. Hooper oozed class. A lot of players are all flair and no talent. They can play the most brilliant strokes but do not have the defence required. Hooper was not one of them. Hooper had a lot of skill and was immensely talented. Far too often though, he used to get out just playing a lazy or loose stroke. I would put VVS Laxman in the same category. His test average of 42 hardly does his talent justice and it would fall further if you exclude that innings at Kolkata.

agree totally

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Originally Posted by Pratyush

If any one saw Hooper bat for the first time, he would be enthralled. Such skill, such ease with which he would play his strokes. However, the person could be shocked if he glanced at Hooper's test average - just 36.46. Hooper oozed class. A lot of players are all flair and no talent. They can play the most brilliant strokes but do not have the defence required. Hooper was not one of them. Hooper had a lot of skill and was immensely talented. Far too often though, he used to get out just playing a lazy or loose stroke. I would put VVS Laxman in the same category. His test average of 42 hardly does his talent justice and it would fall further if you exclude that innings at Kolkata.

Hooper and Samuels are some much alike in so many ways. Hopefully Samuels goes further.

[Pratters]

Yeah good comparison. I have always loved watching Samuels bat but it has been frustrating at times. He has time and hopefully he has turned the corner and I wish he does very well in cricket in the future.

[aussie]

Hooper in his first part of his career from what i have heard & the little i saw (between 97-99) looked totally classy but always found ways to get himself out. But when he came back as captain in 2001 he batted the way he should have batted between 87-99. Now he if he had batted throughout his career like his post 2001 stats he would have had a superb career, since he was the only windies batsman that could have challenged Lara for skill & ability to take an opposition attack apart.

[Beleg]

I loved watching Hooper bat. As others have alluded to, his timing was often breath-taking and his batting was often a joy to watch. He was a fairly useful twirlie as well.

I really am at a loss to explain why he didn't score more runs at a better average.

[Richard]

Amazing to think that after Lara's debut he was dropped for 18 months with Hooper preferred...

For ages Hooper was one of the Simmons', S Williams', Arthurtons, D Williams\Murray\Brownes who failed to live-up to the Fredericks-Greenidge-Haynes-Kalli-Viv-Lloyd-Gomes-Richie-Dujon-Logie class.

Unlike the former three, he at least resurrected his career at a later date. It's easy to forget, but he was actually a damn good player for a time before his first "retirement".

Then he was terrific again for a short time, before experiencing the common slump-at-the-end.

[dass]

i wonder what Hooper thinks after reading his career Bio ?

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Originally Posted by Richard

Amazing to think that after Lara's debut he was dropped for 18 months with Hooper preferred...

Lara has always said that that period of time - sort of an apprenticeship - made him into the player he was and is. He's always recommended that for the players of the modern generation - that they be with the team for a period of time before getting an extended run.

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Originally Posted by dass

i wonder what Hooper thinks after reading his career Bio ?

He certainly can't disagree.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Mr Mxyzptlk

Lara has always said that that period of time - sort of an apprenticeship - made him into the player he was and is. He's always recommended that for the players of the modern generation - that they be with the team for a period of time before getting an extended run.

I don't dispute that for a second but was that really the intention of the selectors? I don't often see people picking someone they beleive to be inferior just to give the superior an apprenticeship. I presume Hooper was picked because in 1990 and 1991 whoever was in charge believed that at that stage Hooper was the better batsman (and who knows - maybe he was).

Short-term dominates in selection, and presumably did so even more in the more reticent days.