Worst Specialist Batsmen currently?

[morgieb]

Pretty much just a rip-off of the Worst batsman currently, but as that question is obvious, I'm asking it about Specialist Batsmen.

 

[Athlai]

Okay... last 2 years Test cricket against top 8 teams

Qualifications: Not as wicketkeeper, top 6, and at least 6 innings, not from Bangladesh

MS Sinclair 71 @ 11.83
Mohammad Hafeez 134 @ 16.75
AJ Redmond 169 @ 16.90
D Ganga 222 @ 17.07
Inzamam-ul-Haq 123 @ 17.57
Faisal Iqbal 134 @ 19.14
MD Bell 117 @ 19.50
RS Morton 338 @ 19.88
DS Smith 225 @ 20.45
Imran Farhat 134 @ 22.33

Pakistan NZ and West Indies taking home the honors quite comfortably.

 

[Athlai]

Bottom 10 in ODI's same qualifications

XM Marshall 75 @ 12.14
LJ Wright 91 @ 15.16
Imran Nazir 153 @ 17
RS Morton 178 @ 17.80
DJ Bravo 333 @ 18.50
AJ Strauss 253 @ 19.46
KD Karthik 100 @ 20
Shahid Afridi 200 @ 20
MB Loye 142 @ 20.28
Inzamam-ul-Haq 110 @ 22

 

[Precambrian]

Fair list both.

 

[NZTailender]

Jehan Mubarak.

 

[pup11]

Jehan Mubarak.

AWTA, he is simply dire...

 

[pskov]

If you increase it to a minimum of 10 test innings

AJ Redmond (NZ) 16.90
D Ganga (WI) 17.07
RS Morton (WI) 19.88
DS Smith (WI) 22.14
Yasir Hameed (Pak) 23.50
HH Gibbs (SA) 24.38
MG Vandort (SL) 27.00
R Dravid (India) 28.12
KD Karthik (India) 30.20
JM How (NZ) 30.27

 

[chaminda_00]

If Muburak isn't No 1, the world has gone mad. Worst batsmen ever, McGarth was better.

 

[Xuhaib]

Okay... last 2 years Test cricket against top 8 teams

Qualifications: Not as wicketkeeper, top 6, and at least 6 innings, not from Bangladesh

MS Sinclair 71 @ 11.83
Mohammad Hafeez 134 @ 16.75
AJ Redmond 169 @ 16.90
D Ganga 222 @ 17.07
Inzamam-ul-Haq 123 @ 17.57
Faisal Iqbal 134 @ 19.14
MD Bell 117 @ 19.50
RS Morton 338 @ 19.88
DS Smith 225 @ 20.45
Imran Farhat 134 @ 22.33

Pakistan NZ and West Indies taking home the honors quite comfortably.

yup that guy inzi comfortably.

 

[Athlai]

yup that guy inzi comfortably.

He had a **** time before he left is all it suggests.

 

[Beleg]

^
The thread ask for the worst specialist batsman currently. Inzamam retired from international cricket a fair bit ago. Pskov's extended list is also useless since it merely lists the recent form of batsmen which is not an accurate reflection of their batting pedigree.

 

[Athlai]

Indicators nothing definite. The numbers say this is who is a bad player, you take all statistics with a grain of salt. Yet its quite clear that none of those batsman have done very much 'currently'.

 

[Jakester1288]

Okay... last 2 years Test cricket against top 8 teams

Qualifications: Not as wicketkeeper, top 6, and at least 6 innings, not from Bangladesh

MS Sinclair 71 @ 11.83
Mohammad Hafeez 134 @ 16.75
AJ Redmond 169 @ 16.90
D Ganga 222 @ 17.07
Inzamam-ul-Haq 123 @ 17.57
Faisal Iqbal 134 @ 19.14
MD Bell 117 @ 19.50
RS Morton 338 @ 19.88
DS Smith 225 @ 20.45
Imran Farhat 134 @ 22.33

Pakistan NZ and West Indies taking home the honors quite comfortably.

Rob would be spewing if he read this.

Although not current, ul-Haq had a bad time before retiring, making 123 test runs @ 17.57, and 110 ODI runs @ 22.

 

[Athlai]

Jeez I don't think Inzi is a bad batsman I just listed the top ten worst figures over the last two years.

 

[Beleg]

Indicators nothing definite. The numbers say this is who is a bad player, you take all statistics with a grain of salt. Yet its quite clear that none of those batsman have done very much 'currently'.

Again, the numbers merely illustrate form over a relatively brief period. Bearing in the mind the sample size (number of matches, specially as a propotion of their careers - that is if you actually consider average to be a fair indicator of ability in the first place), the analysis isn't statistically significant enough to contribute anything solid to the actual ability of the players in questions.

The original thread didn't focus on form but looked at the impressions formed over a significant period of time.

 

[Athlai]

Again, the numbers merely illustrate form over a relatively brief period. Bearing in the mind the sample size (number of matches, specially as a propotional of their careers - that is if you actually consider average to be a fair indicator of ability in the first place), the analysis isn't statistically significant enough to contribute anything solid to the actual ability of the players in questions.

The original thread didn't focus on form but looked at the impressions formed over a significant period of time.

"currently"?

 

[analyst]

Perhaps Collingwood is one of those candidates for ''currently''.

 

[Beleg]

"currently"?

Currently active in international cricket. I seem to be repeating this again and again but form is not an indicator of overall quality and that lies at the crux of the arguement.

 

[Athlai]

Currently active in international cricket. I seem to be repeating this again and again but form is not an indicator of overall quality and that lies at the crux of the arguement.

Quality does deteriorate though. In the case of this argument though, guys like Sinclair and Inzi don't deserve to be called the worst batsman because this is merely a period of bad form and not a reflection on their quality at the time more or less due to the small sample size.

Yet in that same list you find names like Morton.

Yep he's quite **** indeed.

 

[Beleg]

Quality does deteriorate though. In the case of this argument though, guys like Sinclair and Inzi don't deserve to be called the worst batsman because this is merely a period of bad form and not a reflection on their quality at the time more or less due to the small sample size.

Yet in that same list you find names like Morton.

Yep he's quite **** indeed.

Correlation does not imply causation. The fact that names like Morton and Mubarak appear in the form list is a reflection of their long term suckitude. However, the stats provided originally, by themselves, aren't enough to infer that. To do that, we need to look at the bigger picture which involves a slightly more rigourous analytical approach - including both visual and statistical tools. I appreciate that you were trying to spur discussion and throw up some names but in my humble opinion, this is the wrong way to go about doing that since it leads to the wrong end.