Worst Player to Play 100 Tests?

[Pratters]

#notishant

 

[Pratters]

Records | Test matches | Individual records (captains, players, umpires) | Most matches in career | ESPNcricinfo

 

[Pratters]

Surely Saleem Malick or Hooper is worse than Ishant?

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Surely Saleem Malick or Hooper is worse than Ishant?

Hooper- one of the few players in test cricket to make 5000 runs and take 100 wickets. Not bad.

 

[Pratters]

Didn't realise his potential as a batsman at all. 36 test average.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Ian Bell

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Didn't realise his potential as a batsman at all. 36 test average.

He was a rock. Excellent player of spin. One of the latest late cuts you'll ever see.
Also, he's taken over 100 catches.

 

[Pratters]

Batting was he looked solid but used to get out. Made the most beautiful 40s. Average of 36 doesn't lie. Yes, was a great slip fielder.

 

[trundler]

Hey, you straight up stole my thread idea!

 

[Pratters]

Hey, you straight up stole my thread idea!

How? I thought of creating this a few days back.

 

[trundler]

Surely Saleem Malick or Hooper is worse than Ishant?

No way. Saleem Malik was a solid batsman with an elegant style. Still a **** though.

Hooper may have been, as Slippy would say, a waste man but he wasn't dire. Ishant is in a league of his own here.

Alec Stewart pretty lucky to play 130 odd.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Hey, you straight up stole my thread idea!

How? I thought of creating this a few days back.

He was too slow (trundling) to make it before you Pratters

 

[trundler]

How? I thought of creating this a few days back.

Mate, that arose from our discussion on the topic in the tour thread.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Mate, that arose from our discussion on the topic in the tour thread.

You should have put a ring on it

 

[Pratters]

Mate, that arose from our discussion on the topic in the tour thread.

Recheck whose idea it was.

 

[trundler]

Recheck whose idea it was.

I deserve some credit for initiating it!

 

[Pratters]

No.

 

[Howe_zat]

I deserve some credit for initiating it!

you'll think this a lot when you're older.

 

[a massive zebra]

I don't understand why Carl Hooper is often considered in these discussions and Mike Atherton is not. Hooper batted with much greater flair, had a wider range of attacking shots, could be relied upon to bowl with control, and was an excellent catcher. As I explained last year, Atherton had some technical flaws that consistently made him easy prey for certain top quality fast bowlers such as Curtley Ambrose and Glenn McGrath. The only thing Atherton had over Hooper was that he appeared to always give 100% effort and did everything he could to get the most out of his ability. Hooper sometimes came across as too cool to care, and often either lost concentration or appeared to think he had done his job after making just 40 or 50. Hooper was easily the more gifted cricketer and had a wider variety of strings to his bow.

 

[a massive zebra]

Saleem Malik may have been the worst human to play 100 Tests, but he certainly wasn't the worst cricketer.