Worst Player to Play 50 Tests

[Chubb]

http://content-nz.cricinfo.com/statsguru/content/player/55301.html <---- Winner?

Problem with him was, he had bundles of talent (probably a lot more than Andy Flower), but lacked the temper for test cricket. He was quite unZimbabwean in that he didn't really enjoy grinding innings. I've heard he was also very self-effacing and modest. Because he was so talented, he never felt the need to develop mental techniques as the Flowers did and also couldn't deal with examinations of his batting technique. Obviously there weren't a whole lot of other options around so he barely ever got dropped. In some ways he is similar to Ramprakash except Campbell's problem was that he was too relaxed about it. I'm not accusing him of lack of effort, because he did a lot for Zimbabwe but he could have been a hell of a lot better.

 

[weldone]

From teams other than Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, performance-wise probably Mark Ramprakash is...

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with discussing who the worst of a good bunch is. If you look at it that way, everyone who plays test cricket is pretty bloody good at cricket, far better than most people on this site, so posting anything critical of their skills would be silly.

So yeah, I think these questions are interesting in a certain sense. Speaks to the relative strengths of different teams at different times, as well as, perhaps more interestingly, what sort of players get extended runs in test sides without actually performing. It's pretty obvious why someone like Ashraful hasn't been dropped, or Alastair Campbell also, which is a lack of a decent replacement given the lack of cricketing depth in their home nations. It's more interesting to me that Ramprakash or Carl Hooper got repeatedly recalled to their test sides despite never really performing consistently at test level.

In Hooper's case I think it had a lot to do with the style in which he played. He'd look a million bucks making a relatively small score a lot of the time and rarely looked hopelessly out of form. Ramrakash was just dominance at first class level I guess, even though he looked pretty out of his depth in test cricket for the most part. The worst to 50 tests would actually be someone from Zimbabwe though, most likely. Hooper the worst to 100 for mine.

 

[Barney Rubble]

Brumby beat me to it. As much as I loved the man's heart and approach to the game, Ashley Giles was not much of a player.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with discussing who the worst of a good bunch is. If you look at it that way, everyone who plays test cricket is pretty bloody good at cricket, far better than most people on this site, so posting anything critical of their skills would be silly.

So yeah, I think these questions are interesting in a certain sense. Speaks to the relative strengths of different teams at different times, as well as, perhaps more interestingly, what sort of players get extended runs in test sides without actually performing. It's pretty obvious why someone like Ashraful hasn't been dropped, or Alastair Campbell also, which is a lack of a decent replacement given the lack of cricketing depth in their home nations. It's more interesting to me that Ramprakash or Carl Hooper got repeatedly recalled to their test sides despite never really performing consistently at test level.

In Hooper's case I think it had a lot to do with the style in which he played. He'd look a million bucks making a relatively small score a lot of the time and rarely looked hopelessly out of form. Ramrakash was just dominance at first class level I guess, even though he looked pretty out of his depth in test cricket for the most part. The worst to 50 tests would actually be someone from Zimbabwe though, most likely. Hooper the worst to 100 for mine.

If I were a troll I'd suggest Atherton, purely to wind up Dicko.

 

[Precambrian]

If I were a troll I'd suggest Atherton, purely to wind up Dicko.

Atherton has a case right?

List of all batsmen who have played over 100 matches, and scored more than 2000 runs, in ascending order of batting avgs.

Atherton is right up there with Hooper.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Atherton has a case right?

List of all batsmen who have played over 100 matches, and scored more than 2000 runs, in ascending order of batting avgs.

Atherton is right up there with Hooper.

Oh yeah, Athers is up (down?) there, but our Dicko has something of a cricketing crush on him. Better opener than Hayden for him.

 

[Goughy]

Oh yeah, Athers is up (down?) there, but our Dicko has something of a cricketing crush on him. Better opener than Hayden for him.

This is why stats are deceptive. If you ignore all the games in which Atherton batted poorly or got out to good balls then his average rises to over 50

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

This is why stats are deceptive. If you ignore all the games in which Atherton batted poorly or got out to good balls then his average rises to over 50

Maybe we should do the same to Brett Lee's career.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

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..

You're quite right, I was **** stirring with Raymond-o.

As for Rutherford, he helped us beat the Ockers at Auckland in '86, chasing 160 to win after the early loss of Bruce Edgar; aided in beating the Indians in Christchurch in 1990 and had a pretty good record in the sub-continent compared to the rest of our batting line-up.

Like many Kiwi batsman, his international record suffers as he was thrown into the deep end far too soon due to the lack of alternative options. If you remove his first 10 tests, I'd expect his record vastly improves (though, of course he'd then be below the 50 test threshold)

 

[Richard]

This is why stats are deceptive. If you ignore all the games in which Atherton batted poorly or got out to good balls then his average rises to over 50

Well you could say that about anyone. It's a completely meaningless suggestion.

However, the suggestion that players can't perform when badly unfit isn't.

 

[Richard]

Brumby beat me to it. As much as I loved the man's heart and approach to the game, Ashley Giles was not much of a player.

He was on a turning pitch. Giles shouldn't have played half the Tests he did, and it's a shame he's judged by a whole load of games he should never, ever have been near playing.

 

[Richard]

Atherton has a case right?

List of all batsmen who have played over 100 matches, and scored more than 2000 runs, in ascending order of batting avgs.

Atherton is right up there with Hooper.

Atherton, however, played 10 Tests that he should not have played - his first 2 in 1989, 2 in Zimbabwe in 1996/97, and 4 in Australia in 1998/99. If any player had played these Tests in the condition he was in, they would have done poorly. To judge a player by a failure that would afflict anyone if they were to do it is nonsensical.

Try looking again at Atherton's record with these Tests removed.

 

[zaremba]

Like many Kiwi batsman, his international record suffers as he was thrown into the deep end far too soon due to the lack of alternative options. If you remove his first 10 tests, I'd expect his record vastly improves (though, of course he'd then be below the 50 test threshold)

Except that IIRC he was dumped at a stupidly young age (29?). So if his career had started later and finished later he could have played 50+ Tests with significantly better stats. I always thought he was a good player.

 

[Precambrian]

He was on a turning pitch. Giles shouldn't have played half the Tests he did, and it's a shame he's judged by a whole load of games he should never, ever have been near playing.

Lol, I thought this line of thought of yours was limited to one thread!

It's getting humourous!

Giles shouldn't have played half of the tests he played? WTF, any sane guy can comment like that in the hindsight!!

 

[Richard]

Lol, I thought this line of thought of yours was limited to one thread!

It's getting humourous!

Giles shouldn't have played half of the tests he played? WTF, any sane guy can comment like that in the hindsight!!

I commented like that at the time, however, in pretty well every case. I lost count of the number of times I thought "Giles will play in this Test and he shouldn't be".

Fingerspinners (Giles being one) should play only in a minority of Tests. No fingerspinner is capable of performing well if the pitch doesn't allow, and pitches that allow fingerspinners to perform well are in a minority in Test cricket these days.

 

[Precambrian]

You'd have said before Ashes 2005? Oh you did not do you? Because you perhaps looked at your Crystal Bowl and determined ah, Giles's gonna spin in this one?

 

[zaremba]

You'd have said before Ashes 2005? Oh you did not do you? Because you perhaps looked at your Crystal Bowl and determined ah, Giles's gonna spin in this one?

Giles' performance in the 2005 Ashes is almost always over-rated. He played in all 5 matches and took just 10 wickets at a horrible average of 57.80 (strike rate 96). Yuck.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Except that IIRC he was dumped at a stupidly young age (29?). So if his career had started later and finished later he could have played 50+ Tests with significantly better stats. I always thought he was a good player.

Indeed. Not treated kindly, was old Ruthers. But hey, let's all just look at a long list of stats and plump for the lowest batting average.

Does anyone have a list of the First Chance Averages for players partaking in more than 50 tests?

 

[PhoenixFire]

Giles' performance in the 2005 Ashes is almost always over-rated. He played in all 5 matches and took just 10 wickets at a horrible average of 57.80 (strike rate 96). Yuck.

Yeah agreed. He bowled Clarke with an absolute jaffer, but apart from that he was pretty crap with the ball.