Test Mediocre cricketers to play 100 tests

[MC Bad Genius]

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.

 

[MC Bad Genius]

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!

 

[Gough]

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.

 

[t_94]

Shade under 6000 runs at 40 odd suggests that there was a bit of style over substance.

That’s a good test record.

 

[Wormkilla]

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.

 

[Wormkilla]

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.

Hey mate excuse me but I think you dropped a name back there

 

[Wormkilla]

I'm wholeheartedly on the Kallis train with you and think that even though people rate him fairly highly, he's still the most underrated cricketer.

Zero world cup final wins. Got out cheaply in two semis...

 

[Wormkilla]

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?

 

[Gough]

That’s a good test record.

Not great compared to the company he keeps on that list though.

 

[PhatBoy]

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.

As has been pointed out numerous times, as a batsman he averaged over 40 in 50 tests.

 

[PhatBoy]

Zero world cup final wins. Got out cheaply in two semis...

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

 

[Rabish Binney]

Hooper is probably the best all rounder since Sobers

Carl Hooper was certainly the best player fielding off his own bowling.......some of his caught and bowled over the years were stunning.

 

[Docker82]

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.

 

[caveman72]

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.

That applies to far to many sportsmen

 

[Wormkilla]

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

 

[PhatBoy]

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.