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

[Lillian Thomson]

As I've said before, I also know when I'm lying and when I'm not, so I'm also better placed to comment on whether or not I'm lying. You can merely guess.

True again. But as you'd lie about it, your comments don't prove anything.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Should probably have said "excluding players who weren't given a fair crack of the whip and those whose chances were wrecked by injury" in the opening post TBH, would've avoided some of this.

Still doesn't explain why you've included Such in your list though

 

[zaremba]

Disagree considerably TBH, I certainly wouldn't claim he was a "good Test cricketer", but I do think he could've been with more star alignment. I'm surprised you don't think much of him having played against him because he was an excellent county cricketer for a long while (IIRR from 1993 to 2001 he averaged ~25 with the ball and ~31 with the bat). He may have been no better than a number-seven batsman but he, like Flintoff, was a bowling-all-rounder and as a bowler he had serious talent and was quite capable of playing Test cricket based on that alone IMO.

I don't remember him at all from his former stint in 1994-1995, but when he came back in 1999/2000-2002/03 he certainly had a lot to offer as a fourth bowler who batted extremely well by bowler's standards. Swung new ball and old plenty into the RHB (which made him far more dangerous against LHBs of course) and was seriously, and deceptively, quick.

He was indeed pretty handy in his second coming - after collapsing in a ditch and hitting his head IIRC - and what you say is true (although perhaps a little over-stating the case).

 

[Richard]

(FTR I'm not actually sure he hit his head, think he just blacked-out on the side of a street and got taken straight to hospital, but don't recall the exact particulars.)

Nonetheless, I always think it's important to emphasise that the improvement in his international performances and the fact that he simply looked like he belonged at the top level, which I can tell emphatically that he did not in 1994 and 1995 even though I don't remember it, begun pre-blackout. The blackout was in April 2000; he returned to the team in January 2000. The blackout merely temporarily put his progress on hold, not catalysed it.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Craig White was chosen initially purely on the basis of Ray Illingworth's Yorkshire bias. Darren Gough and Steve Rhodes were plucked out of nowhere for the same reason. Gough proved himself worthy but the other two didn't.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Craig White was chosen initially purely on the basis of Ray Illingworth's Yorkshire bias. Darren Gough and Steve Rhodes were plucked out of nowhere for the same reason. Gough proved himself worthy but the other two didn't.

To be fair to Rhodes, regardless of whether he should've been picked or not, he actually started his test career in fine form. Had an absolute Barry Crocker in Oz in 94/95 tho and was never recalled again.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

What is with your hatred towards Chris Lewis? Granted that he was by and large a wastrel when it came to talent, he certainly had bucket loads of potential with bat and ball and there were many times when he displayed such at the test match level. Certainly a better player than Phil Defreitas IMO.

 

[Langeveldt]

Poll fail

 

[vic_orthdox]

Always had a soft spot for DeFreitas, at least he had a dinkum crack all the time and you knew what you got from him.

 

[tooextracool]

Would think out of those options it was Darren Maddy without contest? Never had a hope in test match cricket, could barely tell what shot to play during the series in SA. Perhaps only James Kirtley for competition.

 

[tooextracool]

Meh, with Defreitas you knew what you were going to get but you always knew that it was fairly unspectacular. Defreitas was hardly the worst player going around but he was one of those players that you just looked at and said, "he plays for England", just because he never had a hope of being a test class player. Certainly a real trier though.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Haha, Richard in a debate about Craig White? I think that was the first thing I ever read on these forums, Richard arguing that White was capable of bowling wicket taking deliveries, unlike McGrath.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Haha, Richard in a debate about Craig White? I think that was the first thing I ever read on these forums, Richard arguing that White was capable of bowling wicket taking deliveries, unlike McGrath.

I'm going assume that refers to Anthony McGrath and not Glenn and then never read this thread again.

 

[Richard]

Craig White was chosen initially purely on the basis of Ray Illingworth's Yorkshire bias. Darren Gough and Steve Rhodes were plucked out of nowhere for the same reason. Gough proved himself worthy but the other two didn't.

Gough had plenty to recommend him and would at some point, if not neccessarily in 1994, have come in and probably excelled as he did. Rhodes, like another Yorkshireman Blakey, should never, ever have played ahead of Russell, even though he had a quite acceptable summer in 1994. I've no reason to argue that White's initial foray into international cricket in 1994 had plenty to do with Illingworth being CoS because it might well be true, but when he returned in 1999/2000 it was on his own merit and had Illingworth not picked him earlier when he should not have White would probably have played on merit earlier and maybe had a longer period of success.

 

[Richard]

What is with your hatred towards Chris Lewis? Granted that he was by and large a wastrel when it came to talent, he certainly had bucket loads of potential with bat and ball and there were many times when he displayed such at the test match level. Certainly a better player than Phil Defreitas IMO.

Hatred? I certainly don't hate him and I've sympathised with him over the fact that he was felt, wrongly, to be a slacker by the masses. I don't doubt he could possibly have done better at Test level than he did, because his domestic record is eons above his Test one. But DeFreitas was a far better bowler and had two extremely successful summers in Test cricket (and would probably have had many more if he was given more opportunities as he should have been), and was not that far behind as a batsman.

 

[Richard]

Haha, Richard in a debate about Craig White? I think that was the first thing I ever read on these forums, Richard arguing that White was capable of bowling wicket taking deliveries, unlike McGrath.

No you didn't, though not untypically you read what you'd like to have read rather than what I wrote. You even once read it as that I'd said White was better than (Glenn) McGrath, though fortunately you seem to have decided to change your tune there.

 

[Goughy]

Meh, with Defreitas you knew what you were going to get but you always knew that it was fairly unspectacular. Defreitas was hardly the worst player going around but he was one of those players that you just looked at and said, "he plays for England", just because he never had a hope of being a test class player. Certainly a real trier though.

Interesting. That is completely opposite to the reputation he had when playing. On a good day he was seen as someone who could bowl like Hadlee but the knock on him was he couldnt do it often.

Consistency was his issue but not capability. He was dangerous and almost unplayable when it suited him

 

[Top_Cat]

Interesting. That is completely opposite to the reputation he had when playing. On a good day he was seen as someone who could bowl like Hadlee but the knock on him was he couldnt do it often.

Consistency was his issue but not capability. He was dangerous and almost unplayable when it suited him

Yeah exactly, early days he had a top rep.

 

[King Pietersen]

Think Nick Knight's abit of a harsh inclusion. May have had a pretty terrible Test career, but the thread isn't exclusively Test cricket. He happens to have a very good ODi record for an opening batsman, averaging over 40 from 100 games with 5 hundreds. Was an excellent fielder as well. Technically all over the place in Test cricket, constantly falling away to the off-side, playing around his pad and being dodgy out-side the off-stump, but in ODI cricket he was definitely of International quality, and his record proves it.

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.

 

[morgieb]

Think Nick Knight's abit of a harsh inclusion. May have had a pretty terrible Test career, but the thread isn't exclusively Test cricket. He happens to have a very good ODi record for an opening batsman, averaging over 40 from 100 games with 5 hundreds. Was an excellent fielder as well. Technically all over the place in Test cricket, constantly falling away to the off-side, playing around his pad and being dodgy out-side the off-stump, but in ODI cricket he was definitely of International quality, and his record proves it.

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.

Pretty sure it is purely test cricket actually.