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

[Richard]

....... whose selection made some amount of (however little) sense?

Different question to the one about who was worst out of Wayne Larkins, David Capel, Eddie Hemmings, Neil Williams, Derek Pringle, Ian Botham, Dermot Reeve, John Emburey, Neil Foster, Mike Watkinson, Ben Hollioake, Gavin Hamilton, Chris Schofield, Usman Afzaal, James Ormond, Richard Dawson, Anthony McGrath, Gareth Batty, Geraint Jones, Liam Plunkett, Ian Blackwell, Sajid Mahmood, Darren Pattinson and Amjad Khan. That one was based on who was just most bad full-stop and who least deserved their Test selection (none of them did nor came close to). This one is more who was worst once they got to Test level.

And Salisbury not included on the basis that if he was there'd be no point even asking.

Excluded are other players who can be classed as failures in Test cricket overall but who certainly had very short periods where they briefly looked the part: Devon Malcolm, Philip Tufnell, Mark Ramprakash, Graeme Hick, John Crawley and Stephen Harmison.

 

[aussie]

Haa Richard is full problems..

 

[Richard]

And after a long hard think I guess I'd vote for Chris Adams. More on the basis that it was so ridiculous that he played ahead of both Ramprakash (who should never have been dropped that winter) and Aftab Habib (who was a better long-form batsman in his sleep than Adams and who played a whole 3 innings, all as an injury replacement, the previous summer, to Adams' 8) than anything else, I can't help thinking. It'd be quite fair to go for any number of options.

 

[Richard]

Haa Richard is full problems..

Eh?

 

[aussie]

Eh?

Dont think you needed to start this thread uncle, seems a bit redundant...

 

[Richard]

Same could be said of countless threads. There's far less point in a "bearded XI" thread than this'un. I only started it in response to the distaste for the fact that I'd not included Ian Salisbury in the other, similar one.

 

[BoyBrumby]

What exactly is the judging criteria? Worst overall cricketer in all forms? As Richard has seemingly expunged any players he deems unworthy of selection most of the remainder should be solid county pros at least.

Blokes like Such, Mullally & Ealham rather libeled by their inclusion, IMHO. Such arguably the best offie (in terms of just bowling) we've had since Embers and the other two were decent ODI performers.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

What exactly is the judging criteria? Worst overall cricketer in all forms? As Richard has seemingly expunged any players he deems unworthy of selection most of the remainder should be solid county pros at least.

Blokes like Such, Mullally & Ealham rather libeled by their inclusion, IMHO. Such arguably the best offie (in terms of just bowling) we've had since Embers and the other two were decent ODI performers.

The most absurd inclusion is Chris Lewis.

 

[Richard]

What exactly is the judging criteria? Worst overall cricketer in all forms? As Richard has seemingly expunged any players he deems unworthy of selection most of the remainder should be solid county pros at least.

Blokes like Such, Mullally & Ealham rather libeled by their inclusion, IMHO. Such arguably the best offie (in terms of just bowling) we've had since Embers and the other two were decent ODI performers.

Mullally and Ealham were both outstanding ODI bowlers, but the unwritten rule of CW applies as always: Tests only unless otherwise stated.

 

[Richard]

The most absurd inclusion is Chris Lewis.

Why exactly? He did next to nothing in an extended Test career which was resurrected at least once without any good cause.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Why exactly? He did next to nothing in an extended Test career which was resurrected at least once without any good cause.

Let's get Craig White in there while we're at it. There are people like Hugh Morris and Steve James not even in the list who's selection was more merited than some who are and are streets ahead of Chris Lewis in the worst player stakes.

 

[four_or_six]

I think you need a smaller number of selections to get a good answer in a poll like that. There's plenty of decent enough players in there.

Plus could we have something a bit more positive next time... all the negativity about how **** x player is is getting me down. I shall have to go and look at my naked Watto pictures to cheer me up soon.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Plus could we have something a bit more positive next time... all the negativity about how **** x player is is getting me down. .

I think Richard is compiling the next poll at this very minute:
Who's the best of the worst players to play for England since 1990?

 

[BoyBrumby]

I think Richard is compiling the next poll at this very minute:
Who's the best of the worst players to play for England since 1990?

Tres IMHO.

I love the bloke to bits, but I'm sure Dicko would argue there's no way he should have been selected, no one could have foreseen how well he'd do and he was very lucky, etc.

For a simulacrum of a genuine Dickinson post readers at home may wish to insert some random adverbs and hyphons for themselves.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

No way Peter Such should be in the list. He was an excellent exponent of control for Essex, and given that he played most of his tests against a rampant Aussie team, I thought he played pretty well. He averaged in the low 30s (which, for a finger spinner is excellent) and took 6-fer something against the Aussies at Old Trafford as I recall.

There's no way he should be in there. And this is despite the fact I saw him trundle away unrewarded for over after over at this test:

2nd Test: England v Australia at Lord's, Jun 17-21, 1993 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

 

[Top_Cat]

No way Peter Such should be in the list. He was an excellent exponent of control for Essex, and given that he played most of his tests against a rampant Aussie team, I thought he played pretty well. He averaged in the low 30s (which, for a finger spinner is excellent) and took 6-fer something against the Aussies at Old Trafford as I recall.

There's no way he should be in there. And this is despite the fact I saw him trundle away unrewarded for over after over at this test:

2nd Test: England v Australia at Lord's, Jun 17-21, 1993 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

Took a 5-fer at Sydney too, didn't he? Or Adelaide maybe? Can't remember.

The worst you can say about Such is that he needed decent spinning conditions to be a threat. And according to some of the prevailing logic around here, that describes all off-spinners so he's exempt from criticism for it. Therefore, Such is slightly < Murali.

 

[Craig]

I guess what stands Murali out from the crowd is that he is more of a wrist spinner, whilst the others are more finger spinners. That is how it is always looked to me.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Took a 5-fer at Sydney too, didn't he? Or Adelaide maybe? Can't remember.

The worst you can say about Such is that he needed decent spinning conditions to be a threat. And according to some of the prevailing logic around here, that describes all off-spinners so he's exempt from criticism for it. Therefore, Such is slightly < Murali.

Sydney I think. The thing that Such had in his favour on non-spinning tracks was excellent control. He very rarely got hit at more than 2.5 rpo. I just cannot fathom his inclusion here, he should have played more tests; not less.

 

[Richard]

Let's get Craig White in there while we're at it. There are people like Hugh Morris and Steve James not even in the list who's selection was more merited than some who are and are streets ahead of Chris Lewis in the worst player stakes.

The likes of Hugh Morris, James, Newport, Martin Bicknell etc. simply did not get a fair crack of the whip. It's possible that with more opportunities they could have been Test-standard players. None of the above were ever remotely likely to. Chris Lewis barely had a single good Test match, however good he often was at domestic level, and he got more than a fair crack of the whip.

As for Craig White he was an absolutely brilliant player for a year then a decent-ish one for another couple after that. Far better than the likes of Harmison, Crawley etc. in their brief good stints.

 

[Richard]

No way Peter Such should be in the list. He was an excellent exponent of control for Essex, and given that he played most of his tests against a rampant Aussie team, I thought he played pretty well. He averaged in the low 30s (which, for a finger spinner is excellent) and took 6-fer something against the Aussies at Old Trafford as I recall.

There's no way he should be in there. And this is despite the fact I saw him trundle away unrewarded for over after over at this test:

2nd Test: England v Australia at Lord's, Jun 17-21, 1993 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

So don't vote for him. It's fair to say that maybe he could have played a few more Tests, but I don't think he was a better bowler than Robert Croft or Philip Tufnell, and he was certainly a much lesser batsman than Croft. About the best I think you can say is that he should've been ahead of Richard Illingworth and Min Patel in the queue, and that it's a disgrace Emburey was preferred to him in 1995.

Had Such played more Test cricket I don't see him ever being a successful bowler. Yes, his control was excellent which meant that even on a non-turning deck he was still not likely to concede all that many, and yes he was a threat on a turner. But in England turners at Test grounds are rare.

BTW The Ashes of 1993 was saw an irregularly high number of turners. Yes Such didn't disgrace himself in the opening four matches he played (IIRR averaged ~30), but the next summer saw a more accurate reflection of typical conditions in this country.

Such however for me comes under the "players who earned their go but couldn't crack it at Test level" category rather than the "good players who never got much of a crack at Test level one", though yes, someone who argued otherwise wouldn't be completely devoid of a case.