Worst Test XI from your country

[robelinda]

I'd pick Simon Brown over Mike Smith. if Thorpe had of taken that catch in that Leeds test Mike Smith's figures may have been different. I'd also find room for Adam Hollioake.

 

[Migara]

Here's worst SL XI

1. Mithra Wettamuni
2. SAR Samaraseakara
3. Sanjeewa Ranatunga
4. Indika de Saram*
5. Chamara Kapugedara
6. Pubudu Dasanayake
7. Ashley de Silva+
8. Graham Labrooy
9. Pramodaya Wickremasinghe
10. Charitha Buddhika
11. Ranjith Madurasinghe

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

This thread and the posts so far have got me thinking a bit. There are a lot of players mentioned here (admittedly by myself too) who have failed over a career of less than 4 or 5 test matches. Some of them have good/very good first class records as well.

Perhaps selectorial inconsistencies, lack of form and luck were factors in the failings of these players. Maybe they would have fared differently in different circumstances!

Of course, players short of test-class shouldn't/wouldn't get a decent run in most cases, but that hasn't always been true in the past. There have been players that were given all the opportunity to prove themselves at the Test arena and still ended up falling woefully short.

I am thinking of starting a separate thread dedicated to players who played more than a certain number of tests (say 25 or 30) and managed to perform nonesensically throughout that period.

In short, I'm looking for players who were consistent with their inconsistencies!

Any thoughts on this? Would such a thread be interesting?

 

[Howe_zat]

Just go with it here, seems to be on topic.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Are you joking?

Bradman also scored 19 runs from his first 2 innings. You cannot possibly judge Rogers solely on that...

TBF I was suggesting an alternate opener for rvd's "debuted since 90" worst XI.

Rogers's test record considerably worse than Hughes's.

Sticking to those who debuted since 1990.

1. Wayne Philips (Vic)
2. Phil Hughes
3. Martin Love
4. Stuart Law
5. Shaun Young
6. Graeme Manou
7. Phil Emery
8. Paul McIntyre
9. Brad Williams
10. Scott Muller
11. Simon Cook

From The Full Toss blog:

1. Tim Curtis
2. Martin Moxon
3. Ed Smith
4. Darren Maddy
5. Usman Afzaal
6. Aftab Habib
7. Geraint Jones
8. Min Patel
9. Alan Igglesden
10. Mike Smith
11. Darren Pattinson

Twelfth Man: Martin McCague

Not bad. A bit tough on GoJo, perhaps, but his keeping was pretty atrocious in England colours.

Very, very harsh on Geraint. By the end of his stint he was actually very solid with the gloves. It was just unfortunate his batting retreated as his keeping advanced. Admittedly the article forsees the objection, but Hegg is the man, surely?

Min & Waltzing Mart-ilda slightly hard done by too; Ian Salisbury or Chris Schofield far worse offenders in the slow blowing stakes. & McCague had potential; he took a 4-for on debut and got good bounce and carry. Unfortunately, belying his Aussie upbringing and his all-round massive unit-ness, he was one of those bowlers who seemed to need a sympathetic arm around his shoulder and, with Illingworth as the supremo, was never likely to get it. An Anglo-Aussie Chris Tremlett, IMHO. With better handling he could've done ok.

 

[zaremba]

From The Full Toss blog:

1. Tim Curtis
2. Martin Moxon
3. Ed Smith
4. Darren Maddy
5. Usman Afzaal
6. Aftab Habib
7. Geraint Jones
8. Min Patel
9. Alan Igglesden
10. Mike Smith
11. Darren Pattinson

Twelfth Man: Martin McCague

Not bad. A bit tough on GoJo, perhaps, but his keeping was pretty atrocious in England colours.

That middle order is difficult to argue with, but the top 3 were all quite decent players. Although I may have picked Tim Curtis in my OP, I certainly toyed with the idea.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

In short, I'm looking for players who were consistent with their inconsistencies!

Can't think of many. Derek Pringle, Mark Ramprakash and Graeme Hick maybe. The last two were certainly top cricketers though; even if they failed for England.

 

[Goughy]

Mark Ilott was a bloody good bowler. Wasn't good enough for England, but there's got to have been worse England selections - Paul Taylor - another inadequate left-armer of the same era, maybe?

Yeah, that was my first thought also. Ilott was a good bowler who may have deserved far more opportunities.

 

[Goughy]

From The Full Toss blog:

1. Tim Curtis
2. Martin Moxon
3. Ed Smith
4. Darren Maddy
5. Usman Afzaal
6. Aftab Habib
7. Geraint Jones
8. Min Patel
9. Alan Igglesden
10. Mike Smith
11. Darren Pattinson

Twelfth Man: Martin McCague

Not bad. A bit tough on GoJo, perhaps, but his keeping was pretty atrocious in England colours.

Very, very tough on Moxon. A class above the others you mention and should have played far more for England but a young FEC was waiting in the wings.

 

[tooextracool]

Amjad Khan would be the first name on my list, irrespective of whether it is a composite XI or a England XI.

My thoughts on Geraint were that he must have been one of the most brain dead batsmen I have seen in a very long time. However, I dont think hes anywhere near the worst we've seen even this decade. As some have mentioned, Hegg was pretty atrocious, though Id also throw Tim Ambrose in there. Pitch the ball up to him, and the lad couldn't tell which end of the stick was which.

A couple of other names over the years are Darren Maddy, who has a dismal FC record for a specialist batsman and Anthony McGrath, though I suspect McGrath will pass unnoticed because he ended up with a career average higher than both Stewart and Athers.

 

[tooextracool]

From The Full Toss blog:

1. Tim Curtis
2. Martin Moxon
3. Ed Smith
4. Darren Maddy
5. Usman Afzaal
6. Aftab Habib
7. Geraint Jones
8. Min Patel
9. Alan Igglesden
10. Mike Smith
11. Darren Pattinson

Twelfth Man: Martin McCague

Not bad. A bit tough on GoJo, perhaps, but his keeping was pretty atrocious in England colours.

Im not entirely sure that I watched the same game as everyone else in the summer of 2008. I can understand the controversy behind the Pattinson selection, but Im not really sure how a guy who took more wickets than both Flintoff and Broad in his only game is supposed to be in an All Time worst XI. Really hope that people will give the Pattinson issue a rest, not least because it was a selection issue, but also because the guy genuinely happened to have bowled some of the better spells of the game (from our side anyways).

 

[wpdavid]

Very, very tough on Moxon. A class above the others you mention and should have played far more for England but a young FEC was waiting in the wings.

Agreed with the first bit - but I think England had given up on him before Atherton came along. Just, anyway. He was certainly very badly treated though. iirc he missed out on a test hundred by one run in NZ after the umpire had given leg byes when he'd fairly middled it down to fine leg. Having played some decent knocks for England circa 1987/88, he was ludicrously dropped after failing a couple of times against WI in 1988 and then brought back for a game or two in the carnage that was the 1989 Ashes. Did he go to SA on the Gatting tour? If not, it seems astonishing that Larkins was picked ahead of him the following winter. Under a more intelligent regime, he'd have been a fixture from around 1987 and the odd couple of failures wouldn't have mattered.

Definitely doesn't deserve to be close to our worst XI.

 

[wpdavid]

Hamilton and Clarke are not-before-the-watershed selections. Again, I had forgotten all about them, and was all the happier for that. Hamilton in particular would stumble straight into the lower-middle order of this team.

Choosing the keeper was quite tricky because I never thought Rhodes was all that bad - nor Hegg. Maybe I should pick poor little Chris Read, great keeper and useful limited overs batsman though he may be, purely on the strength of his ducking that Chris Cairns slower ball.

Richard Blakey says 'hi'.

 

[fredfertang]

As a youngster Richard Blakey lived just down the road from my cousins in Brighouse and was a mate of the oldest - seemed a thoroughly decent bloke when I met him - was quite shocked when he put his name to a book titled "Taking it from behind"

 

[Langeveldt]

Harsh on Monty.

Ian Salisbury?

Darren Pattinson, if not the worst player, has to be the worst selection I've ever seen for England.

Never understood the Darren Pattinson hate.. He was arguably the best England bowler throughout the entirity of his test career.

If its because he is an Aussie, I don't understand that either based on the makeup of the current squad..

 

[Langeveldt]

I'll have a go at re-admission SA, not a lengthy period of time to choose from, and three mediocre spinners.. All the fast bowling would have to be done by de Bruyn and Pretorius .. Harsh having to include Dippenaar as he's for a long time been my favourite batsman, but the numbers don't back him up..

1. Liebenberg
2. Bacher
3. Dippenaar
4. Strydom
5. de Bruyn
6. Peterson
7. Tsolekile
8.Ontong
9. Eksteen
10. Pretorius
11. Adams

 

[Burgey]

Yeah, that was my first thought also. Ilott was a good bowler who may have deserved far more opportunities.

I remember gleefully the utter disdain with which Boon and M Waugh treated him in the 1993 Ashes series.

 

[weldone]

Among those I've seen live:

Devang Gandhi
Akash Chopra
Hemang Badani
Pravin Amre*
Hrishikesh Kanitkar
Sanjay Bangar
Deep Dasgupta+
Ashish Kapoor
David Johnson
Abey Kuruvilla
Doda Ganesh

Expert Senior Players hired as Coaches: Sadagopan Ramesh (batting), Ajit Agarkar (bowling), Ashish Nehra (fielding).

 

[zaremba]

Never understood the Darren Pattinson hate.. He was arguably the best England bowler throughout the entirity of his test career.

If its because he is an Aussie, I don't understand that either based on the makeup of the current squad..

I agree. I suppose there was a sense that his selection was not backed up by a whole lot of planning or evidence. I remember Richard being particularly scornful of his selection - make of that what you will.

 

[Uppercut]

Im not entirely sure that I watched the same game as everyone else in the summer of 2008. I can understand the controversy behind the Pattinson selection, but Im not really sure how a guy who took more wickets than both Flintoff and Broad in his only game is supposed to be in an All Time worst XI. Really hope that people will give the Pattinson issue a rest, not least because it was a selection issue, but also because the guy genuinely happened to have bowled some of the better spells of the game (from our side anyways).

One of his wickets was a joke lbw decision from a leg-side full toss tbf.