Apart from Ian Salisbury, who is the worst England player since 1990 of those........

[King Pietersen]

Ah right fair enough, not made remotely clear, but the Nick Knight inclusion's fair enough if it's Test cricket alone, he was pretty terrible.

 

[zaremba]

Ah right fair enough, not made remotely clear, but the Nick Knight inclusion's fair enough if it's Test cricket alone, he was pretty terrible.

No he was ok compared with some of the others IMHO

 

[Richard]

Well, he played the odd decent innings, but he was pretty awful for someone who earned his chance fully by being pretty damn prolific in First-Class cricket. Certainly I don't think him the worst though, not by a long chalque. I'm pretty sure he was never going to be a Test-class batsman because his technique was flawed, but he wasn't blessed with fortune, not least by having to bat down the order so regularly.

And either way, yes this is clearly just Test cricket. Pre-Pietersen Knight was England's best-ever ODI batsman but there is no game that is Test and ODI so you use one game or the other to assess a player, not both together.

 

[Richard]

The Tremlett one's strange as well. I always thought he looked quite an impressive prospect when he made his few Test appearances. 13 wickets at 29, in a series against a good Indian side isn't bad going at all. Certainly not a terrible enough bowler to justify being included in a list like this and probably would have played a couple more series if it wasn't for injuries.

Tremlett for me fits into the "decent cricketers who never got much of a crack at Test cricket but probably shouldn't have played at all" category - and I've included everyone I'd classify thus. I always thought Tremlett had considerable potential - still do in fact - but he's just never really looked like realising it, all career. I fear the chance may now be gone as he's into his late-20s these days, but I suppose there's still a modicum of hope. Reckon it's next season or never though.

 

[Richard]

not made remotely clear

On CW there's an unwritten rule that Test cricket is being referred to unless stated otherwise TBH. That's why it wasn't made clear.

 

[Pothas]

Tremlett for me fits into the "decent cricketers who never got much of a crack at Test cricket but probably shouldn't have played at all category - and I've included everyone I'd classify thus. I always thought Tremlett had considerable potential - still do in fact - but he's just never really looked like realising it, all career. I fear the chance may now be gone as he's into his late-20s these days, but I suppose there's still a modicum of hope. Reckon it's next season or never though.

That makes very little sense and i really cannot see why he should be in this list.

Agree with the rest of what you say though, injuries have played a big role but are not entirely to blame, always felt that with his height he should have bowled with a little more agression and conviction but again that is likely to come with a run of games and full fintess. There were times when I saw real potential, saw him run through Glamorgan at the Rose bowl once and it was pure class. Next year is a big year for him but so was last year and I have begun to give up hope.

 

[Richard]

That makes very little sense and i really cannot see why he should be in this list.

You couldn't describe Tremlett as a poor bowler but you certainly can't describe him as a particularly good one either - not like you could with for instance Mike Smith, Martin McCague etc. His Test selection was one that was not completely devoid of merit (as for instance Schofield, Dawson and Mahmood were), but it's been clear all career why he's never really come close to fulfilling his potential, and in more fortunate times he'd not have played at all (he only played when he did because Harmison was injured, let's remember; Jones and Hoggard too were already out at that point).

 

[morgieb]

I know I have a big advantage in hindsight, but I do find it rather hilarious that Tremlett got on this list

Also, apologies for flogging an old horse.

 

[smash84]

surprised to see somebody vote Nick Knight in that list

 

[Jacknife]

I know I have a big advantage in hindsight, but I do find it rather hilarious that Tremlett got on this list

Also, apologies for flogging an old horse.

Completely agree and a huge at this,

You couldn't describe Tremlett as a poor bowler but you certainly can't describe him as a particularly good one either

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

surprised to see somebody vote Nick Knight in that list

Knight was atrocious at the Test level. Averaged in the mid 20s, IIRC and never really found his feet.

I think the OP is only considering Test performances in this case.