• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Who really is the worst player to play for England since 1990?

Who really is the worst player to play Tests for England since 1990?

  • Wayne Larkins

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • David Capel

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Neil Williams

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Derek Pringle

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Dermot Reeve

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Mike Gatting

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Paul Jarvis

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • John Emburey

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Neil Foster

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Mike Watkinson

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • James Ormond

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Geraint Jones

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Liam Plunkett

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    27
  • Poll closed .

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
In undertaking a recent project it's occurred to me just how many truly awful players have played Tests for England in the last two decades (forget ODIs - the list there is just too depressing to even start on). Things have been better, true, than they were in the second half of the 1980s when England won 3 Tests in 42, virtually no-one had any success and Test caps were thrown around like they were play toys. But there've still been any number of players play in that time who clearly had absolutely no chance of success, some of whom had once been decent or even great players.

So, CWers, who d'you reckon is the worst?

Would probably go for Saj myself, just below Dawson.
 
Last edited:

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Salisbury. Head and shoulders below the rest.
Not talking about who performed the worst when they got to Test level - he clearly takes that out head-and-shoulders indeed - but who was the worst. Salisbury was a good domestic cricketer for a number of years in the 1990s and 2000s, something none of the above were.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
In undertaking a recent project it's occurred to me just how many truly awful players have played for England in the last two decades. Things have been better, true, than they were in the second half of the 1980s when England won 3 Tests in 42, virtually no-one had any success and Test caps were thrown around like they were play toys. But there've still been any number of players play in that time who clearly had absolutely no chance of success, some of whom had once been decent or even great players.

So, CWers, who d'you reckon is the worst?
Test cricket only?

Worst player? or worst selection?
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Tests only, and worst player rather than worst selection. Pattinson is clearly the worst selection for me for reasons I've stated before, though there have indeed been several other truly awful, completely baseless picks.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
First impressions is to be biased against guys of roughly my age that were not that special when I saw them first hand on the field. Guys like Ben Hollioake, Chris Schofield and Richard Dawson would have been the backbone of a decent club side but at International level they never had a chance of being anything but poor.

Thinking about it Id hate to pick a spinner as the worst pick as there has never been a great deal of choice.

So possibly Hollioake (pick one), Amjad Khan, Saj, Bresnan or Darren Maddy.

Going to go with Ben Hollioake as I think it was a desperation selection with zero chance of success.
 
Last edited:

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Thing that always holds me back with Hollioake Jnr. is that we never found-out whether he was going to continue to be as middling as he was during his tragically short life. He may well have done so, but he did seem to me to have talent above the level of most others on my list, so could - to me - conceivably have kicked-on to become an OK player (never the superstar that a few thought BTW).

As for Darren Maddy he was an awful selection given that Steve James had been bashing down the door for God-knows-how-many years only to have someone never fit to lace his boots picked instead. But Maddy has at least had a long and not-too-bad county career.
 

morgieb

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Schofield or Dawson.

Hamilton was clearly the worst performed at test level, but his county record was very good, and he played pretty good for Scotland in 1999 WC.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
Thing that always holds me back with Hollioake Jnr. is that we never found-out whether he was going to continue to be as middling as he was during his tragically short life. He may well have done so, but he did seem to me to have talent above the level of most others on my list, so could - to me - conceivably have kicked-on to become an OK player (never the superstar that a few thought BTW).
A career as what? Not much place for a 7-8 batsman and occasional bowler at Test level. He had swagger and bounce but poor batting technique and below average bowling. It wasnt going to get any better.

At least Bresnan has a bit more about his bowling and I have a soft spot for Capel and he bustled.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
And why the **** are Gatting and Botham on the list?
Because they were both absolutely awful by the time they received their totally erroneous recalls in 1991 and 1992/93 respectively. And Gatting even got picked again in 1994/95. Make no mistake, Botham had once been a brilliant player and Gatting a very fine one, but the fact that either played in the 1990s served to do nothing but taint their legacies. Botham should have played last in 1987 and Gatting should never have returned after electing for that Rebel tour in 1989.
 

morgieb

Request Your Custom Title Now!
And why isn't Sailsbury on the list? He averaged 70 FFS. That's worse than Plunkett or Mahmood most likely.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
A career as what? Not much place for a 7-8 batsman and occasional bowler at Test level. He had swagger and bounce but poor batting technique and below average bowling. It wasnt going to get any better.
I still think he could - possibly - have been an OK county cricketer. Obviously he was never going to be Test-class and his selection in 1997 was, as you say, borne of nothing but desperation and an attempt to reinvigorate the success of the ODIs earlier in the summer where his youthfulness had felt such a part (whether it actually was is another matter). His second selection in 1998 arguably had even less going for it and there's pretty much no way it would've happened had the Test not been a one-off.

But many of those on that list struggled to have much of a career at county level, and of those who did none were that good (except Emburey, Gatting, Botham, Hemmings, Pringle and Foster who had deteriorated notably by the time 1990 rolled around). If Ben Hollioake could have had a successful county career - and I'm not saying I implicitly think he could - then he'd certainly have outstripped most on that list. In the tragically short career he was allowed due to his life being cut short, he definately qualifies for consideration.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
And why isn't Sailsbury on the list? He averaged 70 FFS. That's worse than Plunkett or Mahmood most likely.
As I've already said, he had far more success at First-Class county level than Plunkett or Mahmood have ever had and probably ever will have. This isn't about who was worst performed at Test level but who was the worst cricketer. None of the above remotely deserved Test selection; Salisbury actually did, even if he was never going to be successful having got there. The same might be said of, for instance, Devon Malcolm or Richard Illingworth.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Hamilton was clearly the worst performed at test level, but his county record was very good, and he played pretty good for Scotland in 1999 WC.
Hamilton had 2 years of being an excellent county cricketer (1998 and 1999) and aside from those two did nothing. Those couple of seasons were not even full programmes of appearances, and he is a classic case of an apparently exciting talent being rushed in before anyone has taken care to see whether there is longevity there, which with Hamilton there simply wasn't. Just a couple of years after he appeared in Tests he'd completely lost the ability to bowl, something that does not happen very often.
 

morgieb

Request Your Custom Title Now!
As I've already said, he had far more success at First-Class county level than Plunkett or Mahmood have ever had and probably ever will have. This isn't about who was worst performed at Test level but who was the worst cricketer. None of the above remotely deserved Test selection; Salisbury actually did, even if he was never going to be successful having got there. The same might be said of, for instance, Devon Malcolm or Richard Illingworth.
And yet....some of the above still had good county careers. And no, not just those who were dire by the time the 1990's come around.
 

HeathDavisSpeed

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Alan Wells is desperately upset to be left out of the poll.

The worst cricketer... Possibly Dawson. Saj Mahmood would be right up there, but I guess he's being given another opportunity to make it. Dawson will never get another go.

And having Neil Foster on that list is an abomination. He had some excellent days for England - albeit in the 80s. I'm guessing this is one of those names you've put in there only due to semantics.
 
Last edited:

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
Richard, if that is your logic regarding Salisbury then how is Paul Jarvis on the list?

Makes no sense. Did you ever see him bowl?
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Geraint Jones wasn't even the worst 'keeper to play for England from 1990, let alone the worst player.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
Hamilton had 2 years of being an excellent county cricketer (1998 and 1999) and aside from those two did nothing. Those couple of seasons were not even full programmes of appearances, and he is a classic case of an apparently exciting talent being rushed in before anyone has taken care to see whether there is longevity there, which with Hamilton there simply wasn't. Just a couple of years after he appeared in Tests he'd completely lost the ability to bowl, something that does not happen very often.
Thats more of a resume than some and losing the ability to bowl years later is not relevant to his selection at the time.

Sure it is rare but people do lose the ability to bowl. Just look at poor Keith Medlycott
 

Top