As all-rounder, Shakib is much better; but Hooper was a better batsman by some margin. His stats doesn’t justify his ability but that guy could bat - almost as good as anyone in his peak days. He was a defensive off-spinner who was under utilised in Test (used mostly as the 5th bowler to accompany four pacers), but a decent regular ODI bowler. Both are excellent out fielders but Hooper is probably among the best few slip fielders I have seen.
Both a bit temperamental, but Shakib is a bitter fighter - he will give it everything and fight till death, the guy hates losing. This is where Hooper lost his game - extremely talented but never looked to be serious for his game and somehow always found a way to disappoint his team. For a player of his calibre, his batting stats are exceptionally poor, and he played in an era without much of a free lunch - could have averaged close to 50 even in 90s, he was that good. But then, being a brilliant runner, guy managed to run out 10-12 times in Test cricket, sums up his focus on cricket. Being a black (no offence) in brown/Indian dominant Guyanese, he probably was never that serious for WIN (managed to miss two WCs at prime!!) but Carl Hooper of Kent was an world class player.
Shakib will dominate Hooper for his bowling and he led a week team almost in three folds for a decade while Hooper didn’t capitalised the opportunity he got to play in a lineup that had some of the ATGs of the game. Also, Shakib is extremely consistent, been among top 2-3 allrounders for 10-12 years now, while Hooper’s down side was equally extreme like his peak.
Shakib is already a border line ATG, and Hooper has the talent to be a genuine ATG, but he couldn’t, Shakib still can add 3K Test runs & 200 Test wickets.
