Test Mediocre cricketers to play 100 tests

Remove this Banner Ad

Also, one of Kallis' teammates has to be in the discussion as well, even though ultimately he's not really seen as an all-rounder by many. But Shaun Pollock has a batting average of 32.32, which isn't that far off Carl Hooper's or Ben Stokes's. And obviously is a far better bowler than either of them.
 
It's between him and Mark Waugh, who despite his better average didn't have to captain the (not very good) side or open the batting.
Waugh's best was a lot better but he had some very poor spells that were papered over by the team always winning.
If you're going to take into account Atherton's captaincy, you also need to take into account Waugh's more-than-handy bowling and his exceptional fielding (eg more than double the catches of Atherton). Yes, he underachieved overall, but I wouldn't at all say he was a mediocre cricketer.

Atherton’s was still 40 at 84 tests. He didn’t cover himself in glory immediately after that: he went 16 innings where he passed 50 once, 5 ducks and 2 scores of 1 in that sequence.

He did actually make a few hundreds after that, but following an absurdly painful one - 125 off 430 which oddly enough was a major contributing factor to them actually coming from behind and winning in Karachi - he went his last 20 test innings with 3 half centuries and none of them were any higher than 57.
But show me a batter that doesn't lose their average over their last few years. Although, he was seriously struggling as you've quite clearly pointed out!
 
As Founder and President of the Australian chapter of the Jacques Kallis fan club, I am FUMING at that comment 😤
My cousin knocked about in some of the same circles as Kallis when she was at school and says it was a good thing he could play cricket because he's thick as two short planks.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

McCullum might also be a candidate. Very similar numbers to Bairstow - 12 hundreds and averaged under 40 and was replaced behind the stumps. Actually has 50 less dismissals than the Human Couch.
 
A bit like Travis Head now, who has the potential to turn his bowling into a legitimate weapon, and become more than a part-timer if he learns more of the theory of off-spin and works to put it into practice.

I think of what I've read about Keith Miller. Very different era, obviously, but even for the time he had a reputation for being somewhat lackadaisical in his preparation and succeeded on pure talent. If he'd really dived into the theory of pace bowling and put more effort in, he could have been even greater.
Say what now? :D
 
Zero world cup final wins. Got out cheaply in two semis...:cool:

Not sure that really comes into great consideration when talking about players with 100 test matches especially when no one has ever really painted him as an extraordinary one day player anyway. Being a rather (read: incredibly) integral part of statistically the third greatest test dynasty in the sport’s history is probably enough of a qualification as a test player
 
Interesting list. Ishant Sharma is definitely a candidate. 105 tests averaging 32.40. I remember every time I saw him bowling he seemed to always have figures of not many wickets for a lot of runs. Never seemed to do anything. I remember he was cannon fodder during Clarke's 300 at Sydney.

Ganguly averaged 42, famously written off by Geoffrey Boycott on air. Social status selection.

I'm surprised Vettori only averaged 34 with the ball.

Vettori was much better than that towards the end of his career. People remember him at his peak and forget he wasn’t all that great in his younger years. Absolute respect for the amount of improvement.

Also New Zealand is not the best place to bowl spin which makes a massive difference to numbers. Averaging sub-35 playing at half your games in non spin friendly conditions isn’t too bad.

Australia is far better for spinners that get bounce yet only Warne, MacGill and Lyon have done a good job semi-consistently in like 30-odd years. Meanwhile Indian spinners that play park cricketers in Australia routinely average 25 at home.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Not sure that really comes into great consideration when talking about players with 100 test matches especially when no one has ever really painted him as an extraordinary one day player anyway. Being a rather (read: incredibly) integral part of statistically the third greatest test dynasty in the sport’s history is probably enough of a qualification as a test player
I was joking cob :)
 
I was joking cob :)

Fair play

I actually do think the criticism he often cops for his test cricket - which I will always defend (that he was slow etc - he played that way because it was in his teams best interest generally as they usually had no shortage of decent stroke players around him) should actually be directed to him as an ODI cricketer.

He missed a chance to make his mark as a limited overs player because he really could have been so much more.

He probably suffered from starting his career in an era when a strike rate in the 70s was considered reasonable enough but he was good enough to strike at 90 if he really wanted to expand his game.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top