I think Hooper has more test centuries against Akram and Waqar (arguably the best bowling duo of the 90s) than anyone else. He effortlessly demolished them, yet failed against hack bowlers.
Hooper's also much more stylish than Samuels. The guy has orgasm-inducing forward and lofty forward drives. Samuels, meanwhile, has developed awkward, ungainly footwork.
Other than that, there's not much seperating them. They're both dangerous as hell but totally unreliable. Samuels in particular is an expert at running out his teammates.
Yes, I agree there are many similarities between Samuels and Hooper. I remember that the Australians literally the great Shane Warne from Hooper because Hooper did really take a Warnes bowling, however against lesser bowlers sometimes Hooper was very unconvincing, and would just give away his wicket without much pressure. Samuels has the tendency to be going great guns then out of the blue he just simply makes an unforced error and loses his wicket. Both batsmen seem to have the laid-back mannerism. Probably that is what is contributing to both of being unable to fully focus on the task on many occasions.
I couldn't agree more with your point about both batsman having a laidback style to their play, and while I'm not saying neither of them aren't good players, I think their style of play makes them look better than what they actually are because of the way they play the shots.
It's unorthodox I think is the best term to use, and if anyone else tried to play the same way they'd look angle find it unnatural but these two make it look like the most natural thing in the world.
One of my favourite Carl Hooper moments: The time he ran Dean Jones out off a no ball. Cuddy cleaned him but Jones failed to hear the no ball call and slumped back off to the pavilion. A quick thinking Hooper pulled the middle stump out the ground and ran Jones out amidst much confusion.
Jones was also run out in bizarre circumstances during the ODI series.
