• 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

Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Precambrian said:
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?
Click to expand...
I'd not have picked Giles for so much as 1 game in that series at the time.

Obviously had I done that the most sensational series in memory would've been different, so in hindsight I'd not do such a thing. I'd not want anything about that series changed, not 1 ball. So that's not a good example.
 
zaremba

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
Richard said:
I'd not have picked Giles for so much as 1 game in that series at the time.

Obviously had I done that the most sensational series in memory would've been different, so in hindsight I'd not do such a thing. I'd not want anything about that series changed, not 1 ball. So that's not a good example.
Click to expand...
AWTA. And, to be fair to Giles, his contribution went beyond the vile stats of a bowling average of almost 58 and a batting average of 19. He did take a couple of important wickets. Moreover the role of a bowler like him is largely to keep control which, for all his lack of wicket-taking threat, he did competently throughout his career. And he played a couple of very important little innings at Trent Bridge and the Oval.
 
ozone

ozone

First Class Debutant
Can't believe Ramps or Giles are even in contention TBH. Generally agree with the idea that if you play 50 tests you can't be that bad a player (at least if you're not from Zimbabwe or Bangladesh). Looking at players who have played at least 30 tests, Sami has to be the worst. A bowler from a full test playing nation who averages over 50 is pretty dire. A couple of West Indians also have pretty poor records, Darren Ganga (averaging 26 with the bat in 48 tests) and Darren Powell (averaging 26 with the ball in 30 tests) in particular.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Mohammad Sami is without question the worst player to play (however many Tests he's played) for a Test-class team.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
From what I understand, it has a lot to do with Imran Khan and Imran usually being a good judge of a seamer, and people refusing to believe that this once he could've been wrong.
 
NZTailender

NZTailender

I can't believe I ate the whole thing
ozone said:
Can't believe Ramps or Giles are even in contention TBH. Generally agree with the idea that if you play 50 tests you can't be that bad a player (at least if you're not from Zimbabwe or Bangladesh). Looking at players who have played at least 30 tests, Sami has to be the worst. A bowler from a full test playing nation who averages over 50 is pretty dire. A couple of West Indians also have pretty poor records, Darren Ganga (averaging 26 with the bat in 48 tests) and Darren Powell (averaging 26 with the ball in 30 tests) in particular.
Click to expand...
:huh:
 
gettingbetter

gettingbetter

State Vice-Captain
ozone said:
Can't believe Ramps or Giles are even in contention TBH. Generally agree with the idea that if you play 50 tests you can't be that bad a player (at least if you're not from Zimbabwe or Bangladesh). Looking at players who have played at least 30 tests, Sami has to be the worst. A bowler from a full test playing nation who averages over 50 is pretty dire. A couple of West Indians also have pretty poor records, Darren Ganga (averaging 26 with the bat in 48 tests) and Darren Powell (averaging 26 with the ball in 30 tests) in particular.
Click to expand...
NZTailender said:
:huh:
Click to expand...
Haha.

So what is your opinion if Ganga plays 2 more Tests then?
 
krkode

krkode

State Captain
andruid said:
I am starring to think he plays crap on purpose to confound us all.
Click to expand...
I am not sure that at this stage in Bangladesh cricket that one can hold their cricketers to the same standard that we use for the rest of the world.

Perhaps that is changing now, though - they put up a half-decent performance against NZ lately... only to be outmuscled by Vettori, I suppose.
 
Smudge

Smudge

Hall of Fame Member
HeathDavisSpeed said:
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.
Click to expand...

:detective
 
pup11

pup11

International Coach
dontcloseyoureyes said:
Was Martyn wasn't it?
Click to expand...
Yeah its was Martyn and he made that ball look a lot better than it really was, iirc the ball pitched outside leg and he tried to play that ball with his bat rather than padding it away and eve ended up playing all around it.

But having said that the kind of flak Giles receives is a bit uncalled for England have far worse players then him, Giles was a very ordinary spinner who was most of the times used negatively by England and he did that job well enough from time to time and add to that he was a pretty stubborn lower order bat too.
 
Goughy

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
pup11 said:
But having said that the kind of flak Giles receives is a bit uncalled for England have far worse players then him, Giles was a very ordinary spinner who was most of the times used negatively by England and he did that job well enough from time to time and add to that he was a pretty stubborn lower order bat too.
Click to expand...
TBH, I cant think of many that played more than a few Tests.
 
Last edited:
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Which, of course, is what Giles should have played.

As for his being used "negatively" for most of his Tests, well, yeah, he was - but it was all he was capable of doing. If you'd tried using him in an "attacking" vein (whatever that means - more close catchers or whatever) that wouldn't have worked either.

When the chance was there to attack (ie, when the pitch turned) Giles generally took advantage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top