-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Worst Player to Play 50 Tests
- Thread starter morgieb
- Start date
Days of Grace
International Captain
Isn't 50 tests too high a number?
You don't normally get to play 50 tests unless you're half alright.
I think 30 tests would be a better number.
You don't normally get to play 50 tests unless you're half alright.
I think 30 tests would be a better number.
Precambrian
Banned
Mohammad Sami hands down!
Had the bowling average of a good batsman, and the batting aveage of a good bowler!
Had the bowling average of a good batsman, and the batting aveage of a good bowler!
Precambrian
Banned
33 tests, 81 wickets@ 51.37.
Days of Grace
International Captain
Greg Matthews and Daren Powell averaged 48 and 47 with the ball respectively.
Precambrian
Banned
Khaled Mashud who avged 19 in 44 tests?
Javed Omar, the Bangladeshi opener averages 22 from 40 tests!!!
Javed Omar, the Bangladeshi opener averages 22 from 40 tests!!!
bagapath
International Captain
sanga1337
U19 Captain
Mashud was a keeper though, so it isn't a terrible record.
If its 50 tests not including bangladesh Ramps would be up there.
If its 30 tests I would say John Dyson who only averaged 26 in 30 tests.
pup11
International Coach
I think you can't play 50 test for a test standard side if you are dire, so anybody who plays that many games has to be doing something right to hold onto his place in the side for that long.
Then maybe Mohd. Sami or maybe Agarkar (though i doubt he has played 50 tests) are the only names that come to my mind as the most dire players to play substantial number of test matches for their respective countries.
Then maybe Mohd. Sami or maybe Agarkar (though i doubt he has played 50 tests) are the only names that come to my mind as the most dire players to play substantial number of test matches for their respective countries.
dontcloseyoureyes
BARNES OUT
I don't know about this, but I think we can all agree that morgieb is the worst poster to make 814 posts.
BoyBrumby
Englishman
Ashley Giles's record worse in both batting & bowling and he played 54 tests.
But, of those who've managed 50 tests for a proper test nation, Ken Rutherford would probably get my vote. His average of 27.08 for a specialist batsman outshines (if that's the right word) even Ramprakash.
Although Daren Ganga has played 48 (!!) tests and maintains an average of 25.71, so, selectors permitting, we could have a new market leader.
HeathDavisSpeed
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Pah! What tosh. Rutherford played against some of the best bowling line ups of all time and helped form a New Zealand team that actually won test matches against the best teams of the era. Plus, he had guts - tons of 'em.
Ramps, for example, rarely showed any guts. I don't think Ramps is the worst either though.
Ganga's a good call though. He's utter ****. I see he really stood up for Trinidad & Tobago against the Poms today.
BoyBrumby
Englishman
Working within the 50 test parameter whoever gets the nod isn't going to be utterly dire or they'd have long since returned to the shires. Or the provinces or whatever you have down there.
Rutherford may well have been gutsy but don't know of anyone who, statistically at least, was worse.
Craig
World Traveller
AWTA.
HeathDavisSpeed
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
The fact he averaged about 0.2 less than Ramps, despite playing in a tougher era shows the limitations of statistics.
I've found a list of players who've played more than 50 tests:
http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru...=matches;page=4;template=results;type=batting
And there's obviously a lot of keepers in there whose batting statistics wouldn't stack up in the modern era - Wasim Bari, Bert Oldfield, Bob Taylor, Godfrey Evans. Plenty. Hard to say any of these are the 'worst.
So ignoring keepers, maybe one of these 3:
http://content-nz.cricinfo.com/statsguru/content/player/5438.html
http://content-nz.cricinfo.com/statsguru/content/player/15385.html (prize tit to boot)
http://content-nz.cricinfo.com/statsguru/content/player/55301.html <---- Winner?
Goughy
Hall of Fame Member
Not quite sure how Illingworth ranks in the 3 worst. He was a steady bowler and a steady batsmen (leaving aside the excellent captaincy). EDIT- Actually its a pretty ridiculous claim to put Illingowrth anywhere close to the 3 worst.
Im no Illingworth fan but there are others who were ordinary at only 1 skill that played 50 Tests rather than being ok at 2. The guy averaged 22 with the bat with Test hundreds and 31 with the ball including fifers. There are many worse than him. Guys like Giles and Emburey have worse batting AND bowling averages as well as impacting the game far less and leaving far less of a legacy.
As for Rutherford playing against better attacks than Ramps, well I disagree. Rutherford played a high proportion against a weak Sri Lanka, pretty ordinary England attacks and an Aussie team that wasnt as good as they would become.
How did he do against good WI attacks? I think we know the answer there
Ramps played a massive amount against very strong WI attacks and strong Aus attacks.
Last edited:
zaremba
Cricketer Of The Year
Not surprised to hear Ramps being mentioned in this context. However there's just no way that he's the worst. He underperformed at Test level (except v Australia) but his exceptional talent is not in doubt. If he's a worse player than, say, Alistair Campbell then I'm Wally Hammond.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
AW both TA and this:
Ramprakash was (maybe is) a damn good player. Nothing less. His record in his first 20-odd Tests (average of 16) is woeful, but it was down to one single flaw - temperament - as opposed to simply having 4 or 5 things that meant he wasn't good enough.
Worst player to 30 Tests might be a vaguely interesting question but again you've got to be very careful with the stats. For a start, players who played "Tests" during WSC shouldn't have these matches considered.
Worst player to play 50 or 100 Tests is by default a **** question. You don't play that many without being a damn good player.
Ramprakash was (maybe is) a damn good player. Nothing less. His record in his first 20-odd Tests (average of 16) is woeful, but it was down to one single flaw - temperament - as opposed to simply having 4 or 5 things that meant he wasn't good enough.
Worst player to 30 Tests might be a vaguely interesting question but again you've got to be very careful with the stats. For a start, players who played "Tests" during WSC shouldn't have these matches considered.