Only in 1999, by which time he was long past his best. I have not, yet, fully familiarised myself with his entire story and don't deny that I may be mistaken in having him on the list. All I know is that by 1999 he was truly dreadful, performed awfully in his Tests and was plagued by injury all career.
Even though Wells was 33 by the time he played and there were many better candidates, he actually averaged 48.59 in First-Class county cricket between 1989 and 1995 and had made productive A tours in 1993/94 and 1994/95. If he wasn't going to play earlier he shouldn't have debuted in 1995, but he was a very good batsman for a while and if he'd developed earlier and\or not elected for the Rebel tour he might possibly have had a shot at an OK Test career.
Included on the basis that he was recalled as a 31-year-old whose time was clearly up (he retired a week after his last Test). In 1993, when he played, he was a wreck.
He was pretty bad when first picked, though he did indeed get much better. But as a batsman he was actually one of the worst. Picked based on a single good season in 2003, which he was never to repeat until 2009. Had Stewart retired a year later he'd almost certainly have come nowhere near Test cricket and in all honesty it'd have saved plenty of people plenty of angst had that happened.
Well, clearly Foster wasn't the worst player to turn out for England in the 90s, if you are wanting to consider their overall ability. Even in the 90s with all of his injury problems, I recall him having some very good games for Essex (though I may be confusing the late 80s with the 90s)
I agree it isn't relevant to his selection at the time but it does emphasise just how hasty his selection was. Hamilton looked like he might be a special talent in 1998 and 1999, but he was rushed in before anyone really knew whether he was or was just a flash-in-the-pan. He turned-out to be the latter.
As I say, I'm not saying he was, I think Saj and Dawson were both much worse. But you'd struggle to justify replacing Phillip DeFreitas with him in 1993 regardless of how far you looked - because he was crocked, and had no hope of being around much longer. He wasn't much of a bowler by 1993 and was an awful selection.
He averaged 3, after spending 39 balls making 3* in the second-innings as a dreadfully dreary game was drifting to an inevitable draw.
Memory playing tricks with me I must confess. Not in the best of ways today; though I can never resist a discussion about mediocre English test cricketers. I find it very cathartic.
This kind of contradicts the point you keep making about it being the worst cricketers in general and not the worst performed cricketers in Tests though, doesn't? They may have been poor when they played in the 90s but they were good players all the same.
Quite an exaggeration on Dawson if you ask me. Dawson never had a hope of succeeding at the test match level, but he certainly wasn't the worst spin bowler I have seen, and certainly not worse than Ian Salisbury. Couldn't care less about Salisbury's figures in domestic cricket, he played enough games at the international level to be considered the worst player since 1960. I don't believe the perspective that he 'froze' or underperformed at the international level.
Jarvis may not have been an exceptional bowler but he certainly made a name for himself on the tour to India in 1992/93 where he stood out in the one day series by having Tendulkar in knots and then impressed many in the test series as well although he was probably not test class. Don't think he comes close to as poor as the rest on that list.
Middlesex seamer who, iirc, won his single cap against India in 1990.
The "absolutely awful" Mike Gatting in first class cricket in 1992, before his totally erroneous recall in 92/93:
