SillyCowCorner1
Moooo
...They played less than 10 tests....
I'll start with Rubel Hossain.
I'll start with Rubel Hossain.
-
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.
A Test Team of Players Who Played More Than 10 Tests But It Could Have Been Better If
- Thread starter SillyCowCorner1
- Start date
Magrat Garlick
Rather Mad Witch
Fidel Edwards
Runako Morton
Mark Ramprakash
Shaun Marsh
Runako Morton
Mark Ramprakash
Shaun Marsh
kingkallis
International Coach
Graeme Hick
JP Duminy, to start with!
JP Duminy, to start with!
a massive zebra
International Captain
Mark Dekker (left-hand bat; 14 tests for Zimbabwe between 1993 and 1996, 333 runs @ 15.85)
William Shalders (right-hand bat; 12 tests for South Africa between 1899 and 1907, 355 runs @ 16.13)
Maitland Hathorn (right-hand bat; 12 tests for South Africa between 1902 and 1911, 325 runs @ 17.10)
Louis Stricker (right-hand bat; 13 tests for South Africa between 1910 and 1912, 344 runs @ 14.33)
Noel McGregor (right-hand bat & captain; 25 tests for New Zealand between 1955 and 1965, 892 runs @ 19.82 with one century)
C.S. Nayudu (right-hand bat & right arm leg break and googly bowler; 11 tests for India between 1934 and 1952, 147 runs @ 9.18 and 2 wickets @ 179.50)
Khaled Mahmud (right hand bat & right-arm medium bowler; 12 tests for Bangladesh between 2001 and 2003, 266 runs @ 12.09 and 13 wickets @ 64.00 with one 5 wicket haul)
Ken James (right-hand bat & wicket keeper; 11 tests for New Zealand between 1930 and 1933, 52 runs @ 4.72, 11 catches and 5 stumpings)
Ian Salisbury (right-arm leg break bowler; 15 tests for England between 1992 and 2000, 368 runs @ 16.72 and 20 wickets @ 76.95 with one 5 wicket haul)
David O'Sullivan (Slow left-arm orthodox bowler; 11 tests for New Zealand between 1973 and 1976, 158 runs @ 9.29 and 18 wickets @ 68.00 with one 5 wicket haul)
Rubel Hossain (right-arm fast bowler; 27 tests for Bangladesh between 2009 and 2020, 265 runs @ 9.46 and 36 wickets @ 76.77 with one 5 wicket haul)
By necessity rather than intention, this team is mostly made up of players from the early stages of their countries life as a Test nation. No batsmen with an average over 20 and no frontline bowlers with an average under 60 are included. Pretty impressive! A few other frontline batsmen have worse Test batting averages than Noel McGregor who did make a Test century, but they all have considerably better first class records than the Kiwi who achieved very mediocre results in both Tests and first class cricket. With a little more luck, I would imagine these players (including Neil Fairbrother, Arthur Jones and Saleem Elahi) may have had the ability to comfortably outperform McGregor. A few of the bowlers actually have decent first class records but I would imagine the standard of First Class cricket in those peripheral stages of their countries existence as a Test nation was well short of what it would later become.
William Shalders (right-hand bat; 12 tests for South Africa between 1899 and 1907, 355 runs @ 16.13)
Maitland Hathorn (right-hand bat; 12 tests for South Africa between 1902 and 1911, 325 runs @ 17.10)
Louis Stricker (right-hand bat; 13 tests for South Africa between 1910 and 1912, 344 runs @ 14.33)
Noel McGregor (right-hand bat & captain; 25 tests for New Zealand between 1955 and 1965, 892 runs @ 19.82 with one century)
C.S. Nayudu (right-hand bat & right arm leg break and googly bowler; 11 tests for India between 1934 and 1952, 147 runs @ 9.18 and 2 wickets @ 179.50)
Khaled Mahmud (right hand bat & right-arm medium bowler; 12 tests for Bangladesh between 2001 and 2003, 266 runs @ 12.09 and 13 wickets @ 64.00 with one 5 wicket haul)
Ken James (right-hand bat & wicket keeper; 11 tests for New Zealand between 1930 and 1933, 52 runs @ 4.72, 11 catches and 5 stumpings)
Ian Salisbury (right-arm leg break bowler; 15 tests for England between 1992 and 2000, 368 runs @ 16.72 and 20 wickets @ 76.95 with one 5 wicket haul)
David O'Sullivan (Slow left-arm orthodox bowler; 11 tests for New Zealand between 1973 and 1976, 158 runs @ 9.29 and 18 wickets @ 68.00 with one 5 wicket haul)
Rubel Hossain (right-arm fast bowler; 27 tests for Bangladesh between 2009 and 2020, 265 runs @ 9.46 and 36 wickets @ 76.77 with one 5 wicket haul)
By necessity rather than intention, this team is mostly made up of players from the early stages of their countries life as a Test nation. No batsmen with an average over 20 and no frontline bowlers with an average under 60 are included. Pretty impressive! A few other frontline batsmen have worse Test batting averages than Noel McGregor who did make a Test century, but they all have considerably better first class records than the Kiwi who achieved very mediocre results in both Tests and first class cricket. With a little more luck, I would imagine these players (including Neil Fairbrother, Arthur Jones and Saleem Elahi) may have had the ability to comfortably outperform McGregor. A few of the bowlers actually have decent first class records but I would imagine the standard of First Class cricket in those peripheral stages of their countries existence as a Test nation was well short of what it would later become.
Line and Length
Cricketer Of The Year
I'll define "better" here as being "more illustrious" as I realise those I'm about to mention aren't in the "under-performer" category. I'll start with some 'quicks' but will desist if it becomes apparent that this runs against the spirit of the thread.
A Test Player Who Played More Than 10 Tests But It Could Have Been Better If he hadn't suffered back injuries was Dennis Lillee.
A Test Player Who Played More Than 10 Tests But It Could Have Been Better If he hadn't upset officialdom was Fred Trueman.
A Test Player Who Played More Than 10 Tests But It Could Have Been Better If he hadn't been "chucked out" was Ian Meckiff.
A Test Player Who Played More Than 10 Tests But It Could Have Been Better If he hadn't suffered back injuries was Dennis Lillee.
A Test Player Who Played More Than 10 Tests But It Could Have Been Better If he hadn't upset officialdom was Fred Trueman.
A Test Player Who Played More Than 10 Tests But It Could Have Been Better If he hadn't been "chucked out" was Ian Meckiff.
Last edited:
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Murali
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Mark Waugh.
He averaged 47.8 after ten Tests and never averaged that much again (in fact the highest he got from the end of his 11th onwards was 44), and for the majority of the rest of his career there were at least a couple of players not selected who probably would've done as well as he did.
Between how aesthetically pleasing his batting was and his unreal domestic record, he could well enjoy a Barry Richards esque reputation if something had cut his Test career short after a handful of games.
He averaged 47.8 after ten Tests and never averaged that much again (in fact the highest he got from the end of his 11th onwards was 44), and for the majority of the rest of his career there were at least a couple of players not selected who probably would've done as well as he did.
Between how aesthetically pleasing his batting was and his unreal domestic record, he could well enjoy a Barry Richards esque reputation if something had cut his Test career short after a handful of games.
Last edited:
trundler
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Tich Freeman. His test numbers are fine but don't compare to his ridiculous FC stats.
Wilfred Rhodes was certainly a better bowler than his stats depict because his bowling peak overlapped with SF Barnes and this meant his best as a bowler was overlooked somewhat. Also bowled rarely when he stared to open. Great all rounder though he was, one must deduce his reputation comes from his FC stats also.
Wilfred Rhodes was certainly a better bowler than his stats depict because his bowling peak overlapped with SF Barnes and this meant his best as a bowler was overlooked somewhat. Also bowled rarely when he stared to open. Great all rounder though he was, one must deduce his reputation comes from his FC stats also.
trundler
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Richards only being as good as Mark Waugh is my favourite cricketing conspiracy theory.
Magrat Garlick
Rather Mad Witch
I think CW found out (probably in one of those massive zebra posts) that Rhodes had essentially two careers, first as a bowler and then as a batsman who bowled a bit
In his first 5 years (13 Tests), he had a batting average of 19 (no fifties), and 66 wickets at 17.
In the next 5 years (another 13 Tests), his bowling was less effective (28@34), especially in Australia (7@60), but his batting average was up to 28.
Then in the next 5 years (up to the war) and 21 Tests, he played as an opener who bowled a bit: batting average 38 and just 11 wickets @43.
In the next 5 years (another 13 Tests), his bowling was less effective (28@34), especially in Australia (7@60), but his batting average was up to 28.
Then in the next 5 years (up to the war) and 21 Tests, he played as an opener who bowled a bit: batting average 38 and just 11 wickets @43.
Starfighter
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
A few more that actually fit with the OP:
Chris Harris, his ODI achievements overshadow the fact his bowling was a complete nonentity in tests.
Daren Powell. I know the mid to late 00's weren't fruitful for WI, but surely a guy averaging 48 didn't deserve 37 tests. Couldn't bat either.
Chris Harris, his ODI achievements overshadow the fact his bowling was a complete nonentity in tests.
Daren Powell. I know the mid to late 00's weren't fruitful for WI, but surely a guy averaging 48 didn't deserve 37 tests. Couldn't bat either.
SillyCowCorner1
Moooo
I was thinking about Darren Powell as well.
The ultimate player is most obviously Mohammad Ashraful
The ultimate player is most obviously Mohammad Ashraful
Yeah you can divide this up into two lists, one for "just generally terrible, should never have got to 10 tests" and "had a great start, should have stopped at 10".
Thirimanne is a recent contender for the former category
Mark Greatbatch a less recent contender for the second. - averaged 65.5 in hs first 10 tests, 22,9 in his next 31
Thirimanne is a recent contender for the former category
Mark Greatbatch a less recent contender for the second. - averaged 65.5 in hs first 10 tests, 22,9 in his next 31
the big bambino
Cricketer Of The Year
Probably the most inept cricketer at test level. FC record reads well though so its hard to believe he didn't have the class to be better. Something powerfully negative must have got into his head whenever he played tests.
trundler
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Lawrie Miller. Not sure how much faith should be put in Indian domestic cricket at the time.
the big bambino
Cricketer Of The Year
True enough. It was patchy. The pentangular tournaments were pretty good quality and CS generally did well in those. I’ve just read his cricinfo bio and it says his action produced a ragged length. I suppose you could see how that fault could be exploited leading to a loss in confidence that would have been reinforced by captains keen to take him off and selectors to jettison him.
Hicheal Michael
U19 Captain
I think Tim Bresnan peaked statistically after his 10th test.
He scored his double ton against SA in his 12th Test by my count. But yeah it'd be much better if he'd not played one after that. Holy **** his record from thereon in is dire.
If Skippy Sinclair was coachable, he might have played 100 Tests and scored 10,000 runs.