Cricinfo writer has produced a fairly accurate list of the underrated test cricketers, globally.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/27770297/dean-elgar-bj-watling-ten-seriously-underrated-test-cricketers

I find it hard to disagree with most spots. But I do have some comments.

They are - in no particular order:

SA - Dean Elgar and Maharaj

NZ - Watling and Wagner

WI - Holder and Roach

Pak - Azar Ali and Shafiq

SL - Karunartne and  D Perera (the spinner, not the batsman or seam allrounder)

The first thing you will notice is an absense of Rich 3 cricketers. That is to be expected, because Rich 3 cricketers are already hyped up endlessly by the global media that make news to be consumed by their fans. Even for cricketers like Hardik Pandya, who really has never contributed significantly to a win (or defiant draw) in any big match I can think of.

Maharaj is going nicely, but his recent test in India is going to take some serious correction to shake to further lay any claim. Elgar, though, has been great in recent bowler freindly times and has reenhanced his credibility this past test.

Watling, not really known outside NZ fans, as most would say Pant (who is a terrible keeper and now dropped), Bairstow (dropped) and De Kock are the test cricket stars. But in NZ we know. Watling averages 40 as a keeper, but this overlooks one thing that Kiwi's now, he fails and gets out quickly every time the innings slog is due to start. Every time. Slogging is not his game. And with CdG batting behind him, with the highest SR in test cricket history, this is not an issue. But what is his game, is batting time and runs. He crucially and regularly makes  80+ and 100's that don't just save the games from losses, but actually turn them into wins - by giving the bowlers the runs required. Wagner, well he gets forgotten by his own selectors a lot. Always the first to be dropped, despite having the superior numbers between him Boult and Southee, despite not being given the new ball. His own selectors need to take some blame here.

Roach's problem is that he has been like Jimmy Anderson a bit. He averages 22 at home, this is Hadlee and McGrath contender material, but 37 away thanks mainly to being punished in Australia - Smith can ruin averages quite swiftly. Holder - well he has been superman at home, average over 40 with the bat and 22 with the ball. This is leave Stokes and Shakib in your wake material, but again, he has not performed well away until more recent times in India and UAE. He is a young man, with plenty more opportunities to do so. The counter will be that Anderson does the same, to which the reply is, yes, but he plays for a Rich 3. He will get noticed and talked up regardless. There is no doubt that these two are immensely talented cricketers, who regularly get overlooked globally, but Holder recent tours aside, they have not shone when given the chance too. 

Azar Ali and Shafiq - well Shafiq just isn't good enough to be rated. And Azar Ali is no YK or Misbah. With all the talk of Pujara, Kohli, Williamson and Smith, its pretty hard to crack into a rated conversation with their middle order numbers. They're doing well enough to keep Harris Sohail out of their own team but not all that much more. Azar Ali deserves to be in the conversations with Faf, Nicholls and Rahane, and not much more.

Karunaratne made the ICC team last year fairly. In an era with a dearth of opening batsman, he continues to shine. He doesn't get his recognition for recent form, given he has taken so long to get good and still averages mid 30s. But Perera, I don't think necessarily deserves to be rated just yet. He is middling at best. I think Bangladesh's Hasan and Islam are possibly being ignored more.

So the currently ridiculously underrated, through no fault of their own or their selectors, is Elgar and Watling. I can injust imagine being at a quiz show, and watching foreginers remember Smith, Parore, McCullum, and not have any idea who Watling is, despite him having beaten all their wicket keeping, and batting with gloves, total records. I think Tim Murtagh barely gets any recognition - despite being a high quality cricketer for Ireland. But given 1 test match a year, that will not change any time soon. 

I would add one name to this list. Colin de Grandhomme. He has become one of the versatile and successful test cricketers, and noone has noticed him. His own medis and commentators, talk him down. They doubt his value. His usefulness. But this doesn't match the facts. Want quick quick runs for a declaration? CdG has a batting average of 39 striking AT OVER 90! The highest ever in the history of cricket. A filthy slogger? Need a match against England saved, he will block most of the day. Fails with the bat? Let him take a match winning 7 for. Need an opening bowler? He averages under 24 opening the bowling. But he rarely gets the new ball. He averages over 60 as 4th bowler, at just 2 runs an over. 39 with the bat, 30.57 with the ball, and can do every possible role anyone could ask a player to do. Hit out, block, stock bowl, new ball bowl. His numbers make Ben Stokes - well less htna ordinary. But noone has really heard of him. And at 33, he won't be around much longer.

tbf, thats not a bad attack compared to Richard, Dayle and Barry Hadlee....

After one trip to NZ a former Kiwi player anointed the Aus attack of McGrath, Gillespie and Kasper, as like having three Richard Hadlees!

Its such an instinctive shot. It is his release shot. His get off strike shot. KW has the same problem with his dab to third man - which is his release shot, esp in white ball, but sometimes in test too. He still plays it when there is a wide slip set and waiting. 

I mean its not like putting a hook away. Or a booming cover drive. This is the natural shot they look to play to every goodish length ball.

You must read all the posts Baggers, we did say there are those that fall into not given enough opportunities
Martin Kent 3 tests av 28 not great but only 3 tests to prove himself
Andy Bichel, proverbial 12th man, rarely given multiple matches straight played 19 tests over a 7 year period
Peter George 1 test...really judging on 1 test
Greg Ritchie 30 tests av 36 could have been better but I wouldn't classify as an Under-achiever
Shane Watson, Australia still yet to find a replacement of his calibre in the all-round aspect, how many other all-rounders have ever played for Australia with better stats av 36 with the bat and 33 with the ball, I can't think of many off the top of my head
Carl Rackemann 12 test 39 wickets @ 29 hardly underachieving (just think of recent bowling performances if you want to go down that road)
Kasper I've all ready posted as a major disappointment
Johnson 2 named ICC player of the year, the only bowler to ever do that in the world, yeah right.

I did point out Johnson for most of his career. He did have those two exceptional years. His others were mediocre. So he goes in my underachiever drawer.
I included Peter George on his FC record. 64- 207 @30.7 . 4 -5w, 1 -10w. Inconsistent. I also included Martin Kent on the same FC criteria. 
I am having a chuckle from your Watson comment. For someone that had as many chances as he had you'd  think he was averaging well above what he actually was. After his last decent season in 2010 his batting average dropped to a paltry @30 on average. His last decent year with the ball was in 2011. He shudda been booted after 2011. 
Greg Ritchie 30 tests av 36. Precisely why he is in my underachiever drawer.
Rackers career was stymied from the lack of play. Why so few Tests in so many years? On song yes I admit he was an achiever.

Smithy will simply change his shot plan until your leg gully gets tired and falls asleep. You reckon a bloke of Smith's ability is going to fall for this leg side trap a third time. If he does then he is not as smart as we all think.

Okay - gonna put it out there, was Mark a greater talent, or simply a better stroke-maker than Steve? Which he definitely was in term sof stroke making. Cos Punter to me oozed talent. Mark Waugh just had pretty shots, and Steve Waugh, well I'm not going to comment - but Steve was "smarter" than Mark is not playing dumb shots (eg, put away his hook)...

Mark took more risks than Steve, and as such, was a great ODI opener. But Steve was far more dour and more of a smart fighter, not playing low percentages like Mark... Punter could do both... You have to go back to the 1980's besides a few shots at the 99 wc to see the cavalier Steve Waugh...

Who do I want in my team? The one who gives me the results? Who is it of these three... I suspect it may well be Punter... I know who I think has the bigger cricket smarts as a batsman, its Punter any day of the week... Mark Waugh relied on his talent, Steve Waugh his smarts, Punter - he had both....

Now my complaint about media, Bishop for bowlers discusses plans. Punter for batsmen discusses plans. The rest discuss who they thought was a better play in their day, what is a better pizza or who is hot on tinder. YAWN. I would happily listen to Bishop and Punter in commentary all day long, and put a fork in the rest. Hands down my favourite active commentators talking about the action. But the ECB team do try withe the "third man" segment.... which I think everyone else should adopt... I gotta be honest, NZ domestic commentators Mills and Adams (now NSW bowling coach that Starc loves) are so much better than our intl commentators, cos they discuss plans. Mills' theory was - put a fielder in a batsman's strongzone and invite him to beat the fielder...and bowl to it... now there's a plan, good or bad depends, on results, but at least it's a theory.... I wish I knew the player insight when they were still players, so I could see immediately before they did it, what they were trying to execute. 

Btw, expect NZ to have leg slip/gullies for Smith all summer. We came up with that. Not England. Check the WC tape :P That's our plan for him. England copied it. But we will field and execute better (I HOPE!!!! - SMITH IS SO GOOOD)

Peter Geoge underachieved at FC level.. why I included him.
Mark Waugh yes lazy and lacking the mental stamina of Steve. That is what separates a good batsman from a great one. So yes I agree Mark did underachieve. Underachieving seems to run in the Marsh family. Agree with Wood. For mine Nevill was only a keeper never a test class batsman. Have to say the same about Paine.

Rackemann was no great. But he would have averaged 28 or less if he didn't have to play NZ in 89/90 :P

Rackemann was nothing special. But he could bowl a bit. NZ was really really strong that season (Hadlee's final but it was Wright with the bat), and that series in WI in 1984, ugh for any opposition that wasn't special really....

26.32 in Aus, made off the back of dominating Pak in the 1980's in Aus with 16.69, not a bad effort really... Miandad, Khan, Muddy, Salim and Ijaz I presume, Akram in the tail, Zaheer Abbas in the first series.
 
Rackemann is no all time great, but I liked him as a cricket fan. Don't know how he found the pace, I couldn't with his action.

Rackemann is an unknown, he got dropped and rebel toured, noone knows... Aldeman we know would have dominated outside of Aus in England in 1985. That's for sure.... And caused NZ some problems too...

Bruce Reid is the player lost to world and Aus cricket for this period. Now he was seriously something. That bouncing ball.... You had to trust the pitch so much more...

There you go with the part stats again.. Rackers..who for the record I liked for his competitiveness.. averaged an underachieving career @29. I regard any bowler that pushes @30.. as fair to good..nothing more. All those I named were after looking at their stats.. FC as well in case of those with few Tests.. You are the one clutching at straws pal.

I seem to remember Rackemann and Lawson as successful test bowlers without ever really looking at their figures.

At the end of Lawson's career he had a bad spell and was dropped. He took it very badly. He seemed like a negative bloke and a cynic in the commentary box. Nothing ever seemed to impress him.

Rackemann seemed like a nice guy.

Love your data on the aforementioned players, Mike.

Very interesting viewing their records.

As long as it doesn't include any allusion to one specific, current player you have well documented.

He's a nice guy, bowled as first change, never given any opportunity what 12 tests over 11 years, no wonder he went on the rebel tour to SA. His last 2 tests he didn't take a wicket so his first 10 tests 39 wickets @ 24 hardly under-achieving, and to think Lawson who averaged 31 at test level kept a 24 average bowler out of the side. I think Baggers is just grasping at straws.

I was about to post maybe Lawson who took 180 wickets from 78 innings @ 31, but then remembered you know who, who has bowled 90 innings for 184, 12 additional innings for you know who, for an additional 4 wickets, just don't want to start something there, what with me being bias and all.

Rackemannn could bowl well for a baldie quick. I used to mimic his action in the backyard.

You must read all the posts Baggers, we did say there are those that fall into not given enough opportunities
Martin Kent 3 tests av 28 not great but only 3 tests to prove himself
Andy Bichel, proverbial 12th man, rarely given multiple matches straight played 19 tests over a 7 year period
Peter George 1 test...really judging on 1 test
Greg Ritchie 30 tests av 36 could have been better but I wouldn't classify as an Under-achiever
Shane Watson, Australia still yet to find a replacement of his calibre in the all-round aspect, how many other all-rounders have ever played for Australia with better stats av 36 with the bat and 33 with the ball, I can't think of many off the top of my head
Carl Rackemann 12 test 39 wickets @ 29 hardly underachieving (just think of recent bowling performances if you want to go down that road)
Kasper I've all ready posted as a major disappointment
Johnson 2 named ICC player of the year, the only bowler to ever do that in the world, yeah right

Ones I've mentioned sure maybe NSW players, actually never really noticed that but lets see
Ed Cowan was selected from Tasmania, 19 tests av 32 batsman only, pretty low don't you think, 1 century in 32 innings, how did he get 19 tests?
Nathan Bracken did OK at ODI's never performed at test level 5 tests 12 wickets @ 42 therefore did under-perform at test level and got 5 tests
Philip Hughes averaged 46 @ FC level 26 tests av 32 How does a player av 32 get 26 tests? 3 centuries from 50 innings. (Burns got 16 test with 40 average and 4 centuries)
Henriques the great all-rounder 4 tests bat test ave 23 with bat, 82 with ball, always selected as an all-rounder afterall FC av of 32 with the bat isn't screaming out select me and there are many others with a lot better average.
Copeland I admitted he falls into not given enough opportunity but 3 tests 7 wickets @ 38
Michael Bevan ODI's av 54 amazing FC average 57 spectacular, Test average 18 tests plenty of opportunity av 29 definition of under-achieving at test level
Dirk Welham, the guy who stuffed up Qld, 6 tests av 23 .....really you don't think underachiever FC 42
The biggest of all John Dyson 30 tests av 26 only 2 centuries....really 30 tests? FC av 40.

We are talking about those that did get a few opportunities but never really did anything no bias intended, it's not my fault they're from NSW but they got more opportunities than many others and did underachieve. I did follow up with an additional 16 from earlier when I was a kid a few even earlier mentioning Kasper and the Marsh Bros, read all the posts Baggers, my bias is all in your mind and not true

Qld underachievers. Martin Kent, Andy Bichel, Greg Ritchie, Peter George, Shane Watson, Carl Rackemann, Kasper. Mitch Johnson (for most of his career).  Conversely these two..Martin Love and Stuart Law were desperately unlucky not to play more Test cricket. I was always of the opinion Ashley Nofke was a Test standard bowler too.

But here is a few I'd classify as test underachievers in recent times, Ed Cowan, Nathan Bracken, Philip Hughes, Moises Henriques, Copeland (probably falls into the not given enough opportunity), Michael Bevan, Dirk Whellam, but the biggest of all John Dyson.

All Blue players. So why does that not surprise me. Depends in what format you class them as underachievers.. Bevan and Bracken were excellent white ball players.  If Tests fair thing. I'll see if I can find some Qlanders equally underachieving. Betting there are plenty. Pleased you clarified about Copeland. 

Fleming I would agree with you but 55 scores over 50 from 189 innings, 3.5 innings for a score over 50 not great but would you classify as underachieving. What about Slater 131 innings only 35 scores over 50 3.7 innings for a score over 50... worse than Fleming. Similar records but Fleming was brilliant in the field.
Definite on Ken Rutherford, another one where excuses were constantly made for a player. I love excuses it is the perfect sign of having an under-performer, the constant need to having to defend a poor performance.

Brian Lara IMO played for Brian Lara. Of his highest scores something like 10 200+ how many resulted in a West Indian win? I only remember one when he took the long handle to McGrath and Warne in the West Indies, the others draws or losses  Totally different story with Chanderpaul came in at 5 or 6 a lot of the time having to bat with the tail giving something for the bowlers to bowl at and on quite a few occasions giving the West Indies a win from nothing. Chanderpaul is a totally under-rated player. Wasn't he something like 100 scores over 50 and Lara only about 60 in total. I know Chanderpaul played a lot more matches, but he never got the accolades he richly deserved.

Here's a few more from when I was a kid that got plenty of opportunity but little return playing tests for Australia.
Greg Dyer totally useless at FC level yet played 6 tests for Australia,
Mike Valetta,
Dave Whatmore,
Mike Whitney, excellent FC record but 12 test only 39 wickets @34
Dave Gilbert shocking FC bowling average yet played 9 tests for Australia and bowled @ 52 average
Ian Davis,
Peter Sleep,
Bob Holland, averaged 40 with the ball at test level
Allan Turner very poor FC record yet played 14 tests for Australia for minimal return,
Rick Darling,
Gary Cosier,
David Hookes outstanding FC yet never performed at test level only 1 century from 23 tests,
Ray Bright,
Steve Rixon,
Peter Toohey, never recovered from being hit in the face by Andy Roberts, probably a challenger for the most useless Ashes performer, just kidding Warner wins hands down.
Remember the first Steve Smith who went to South Africa rebel tour amazing 50 + average over there , an excellent ODI player but 3 official Australian tests averaged 8.

Flemming too in test cricket, with the worst conversation rate in test cricket history. He barely averaged 40. Much better batsman than that, but 9 centuries vs 46 50's is underachieving. But for the most part we have not been blessed with underachievers. Just people trying to compete against more talented  and trained foreign players. Ken Rutherford completely and undeniably definitely underachieved. There was always an expectation that he would click into gear consistently, but it just never ever happened. There were always excuses made for him, as the NZ media loved him. "Never got over debuting in the WI in 1984/85, or got a jafa". A test batting average of 27 is not the stuff of a kid who scored 300 runs in a day in England FC as a kid.

Chanderpaul is a great, but if he had removed that bone in his foot earlier, he could have been their champion more than Lara perhaps. We will never know. Mohammad Asif completely underachieved through destroying his own chances losing his career to spot fixing. He was on target to be am ATG great bowler. These two had impressive careers for what they did do, but we will never know the what-if's.

Totally agree otherwise you'd have to put Callum Ferguson, Joe Mennie, Ashton Agar, Hastings, Quiney, Peter George, Clint McKay the list goes on.

But thought about it definitely Marsh Brothers, but in the true definition of underachiever, I'll say Mark Waugh, because IMO more talented than his brother with the bat, but so lazy, IMO should have finished his career with stats matching if not better than Steve. Khawaja may also fall into that particular category. Speaking of the Marsh brothers how about their father Geoff, or Graham Wood. Peter Nevill is another that just came to mind. Most disappointing for me was Michael Kasprowicz. So much talent at state level and bowled to some of the best batsmen Australia has ever produced, yet could never reproduce at test level.

Yeah - you need to define the terms. Not given a chance despite talent, can result in underachieving, but its different from lots of talent, lots of chances, and still not  achieving. 

Depends on what you look at when looking at the term underachieved. Scott "can't bowl, can't field" Muller would probably fall into the category of not given a fair go. His 2 tests he took 7/258 @ 36.85 which looks to be poor but I can think of worse returns that have continued to be re-selected. In those two particular matches against Pakistan in 1999, Glenn McGrath only returned 7/300 @ 43 so you could say Muller gave a better return than McGrath so maybe he should have been given more opportunity. Muller's strike rates in those tests was 49 which is Scott Muller, he was brilliant with the new ball in hand at shield level but at test level was first change behind McGrath and Fleming and rightfully so, but it did negate his effectiveness. Glenn McGrath's SR in those 2 tests was a whopping 81. So I think he would definitely fall into the not given a fair go category more so than an underachiever category

Greg Rowell wasn' t too bad. When he came to Qld he just had too many to fight off to get a start, McDermott, Tazelaar, Rackemann, Kasper, Bichel, Muller etc so he left for Tasmania where I think he did well. Brendon Drew a name from the past, but I totally agree major underachiever, averaged 40 at FC level and played quite a few games.

But here is a few I'd classify as test underachievers in recent times, Ed Cowan, Nathan Bracken, Philip Hughes, Moises Henriques, Copeland (probably falls into the not given enough opportunity), Michael Bevan, Dirk Whellam, but the biggest of all John Dyson.

I dunno of any more DC.. you have covered most all of them. I can recall a couple of bowlers that never lived up to their early promise. Scott Muller was one. Is he the bowler that Warne said "can not bowl, bat or field" and was overheard by the on field microphone. A couple of quicks that showed promise but found the pathway clogged in my state and found they had to go interstate were Brendan Drew and Greg Rowell. Both under achieved.

That is a fair assortment DC and a fair assessment. Tho betting Paddles will have you for adding Archer to the list. Yes Puck has to overcome his deficiencies against the short ball.. mental or otherwise. It may spoil what promises to be a fine Test career.

Sangha is still 19 or may have just turned 20.. a mere baby. Sangha remains along with the little master Tendulkar the youngest batsmen to score a century against an English touring side.

I maintain the media put too much expectation on players before they even reach senior level. I have heard Sangha interviewed and he has a smart, level head.

 I know not who the Blues batting coach is but he needs to do more work on a solid red ball technique with these youngers guys.. like Edwards and Sangha who are trying to make their way in top class senior cricket.

Yeah, he really did. And then when Mitch Marsh came in, the fans were like, dang, we'd rather have Watto back. 

It took a while for the Aussie fans to accept, that the team which built impressively from 1986/87 under Border, to WC winners 1987, Ashes winners 1989, ODI champs in WI in early 90's without winning the test series, to drawing the WI test series in Aus in 1992/93, 1993 Warne's demo jobs in England systematically became the force the Steve Waugh then Pointing captained. And there was this expectation that everyone should be the best in the world if they played for Australia. When that golden generation retired, Aus fans took it hard. Cos they had been excellent for 20 years. Deano had been dropped in 1993. Hayden couldn't make the team for 6 years. Hussey had come in late and looked like a superstar. Why is there not a wicket keeper averaging 50 now? Why are there not 7 batsmen in the team averaging 47+. Why is there not a spinner averaging mid 20's. Why is the lead seamer not averaging 22? (Though Harris and Clark were pretty damn awesome when they played).

I think the fans took it tough. And really understand what WI fans went through after their golden generation of quicks all dried up. They still had Gayle, Lara, Chanderpaul, even Sarwan and Adams - but they had no quality seamers - after being blessed with 10+ of them for 25 years. Croft, Syl Clarke, Garner, Holding, Roberts, Bishop, Walsh, Ambrose, Patterson, Marshall, suddenly they had no bowlers. And their team was limp. Despite more than enough batting. So they chopped and they changed for an age. Now with Holder, Roach and Gabriel, they stuck by them, and are now getting better results. The irony is - they now have no batting. Timing is everything right?

I watched the rise of Australian cricket before my very eyes from the dark days of the 1980s. And it was a thing of beauty. Both for the batsmen and the bowlers. And good players missed out. Really good players. But everyone else has their own academies and training institutes now. The secret to your success wasn't kept secret. And everyone copied it. 

Good call. Exceptional batting talent. Used to love his stroke play. But he still achieved a lot. Arguably he delayed Hayden's start for nigh half a decade and stopped him from getting some ridiculous huge numbers.

Michael Slater. It’s a shame his battles with his mental health got in the way of his test career. 

Fair enough, some truth in that. He did do well, though somehow I never felt he really reached what he could have either with bat or ball in test cricket. Injuries slowed his bowling down to where he became a very useful fourth quick.
Very useful with someone like Johnson in your attack.
The way he was maligned over the drs was a bit unfair also. Heard Chris Rogers say he had a part in that. In one famous instance Watson was ready to depart and only challenged because Rogers urged him to lol. Yet Watson copped it from the fans.

The injuries stopped him bowling as much as the captains at times wanted. But I think there was too much expectation placed on him for his batting. You compare his record to Flintoff's, arguably Watson has the better record - just without those Botham, Flintoff, Stokes moments of legendary brilliance. But consistency. Watson was a bona fide good test player. And for mine, he is ATG ODI player - no doubt - - he'd be in the running to my make best World XI.

But Australian fans and selectors in tests expected Watson to average 55+ with the bat. And be Kallis. But Kallis was an exceptional batting talent. Playing an allrounder, you really have a good one if their batting average exceeds their bowling average which Watto did comfortably evenw ith his batting average of 35 (Which is what Stokes averages too). And he was more than good as a 5th bowler. Watson is at his best when he has a license to go hard at the ball and club it. He wasnt getting that license regularly for the Aus test team which was fighting for matches like not felt since the 1980's. His SR was far too low batting, as he had to be become like Steve Waugh instead of being himself with a license. We all know for a fact, that allowed to unleash, Watson has as much batting power as Ben Stokes. We see it in the IPL every season. Colin De Grandhomme has manged a 39 average, cos he gets that licence a lot (hence a ridiculous test strike rate in excess of Gilchrist, and even the original madman, Afridi). Had Watto walked out at 4/400, he would have tonked the ball to a declaration score, and made many easy runs. 

I think when the hangover started to kick in as Aus finally migrated from being one of the two best teams in history, to losing to SA regularly a home, and losing away in England regularly, then not even really competing vs SL and Pakistan away anymore, that players were made scapegoats. I think Watson is definitely one of these. I don't think he underachieved. I think he did well. 

Look how long post Warne and McGill, it took Aussie fans to accept Lyon. Lyon is never going to be considered a great Australian spinner. Warne, McGill, Tiger, Grimmet, Benaud are miles ahead, even the likes of Mallet have a vastly superior record. But for the most part he is finally accepted by the public now. But it took a long time.

Shane Watson?

Although, what we wouldn't have given for an opener with 35 batting average and 33 bowling average this last tour.

Very good odi player, but never reached his potential in test cricket where he probably wasn't a bone fide opener. Could have been anything though, showed great promise originally (too many injuries?)