Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Matsikenyeri isnt half as bad as Sibanda.
Prince EWS said:Yet he still manages to hold a place in the Zimbabwean ODI team....
Most of the bowlers actually have better records than his. I think the fact that he actually looks good when he is out there works a lot in his favour. Plays solid defensive shots, cracks a four or two and then gets out, but he LOOKS good, so he keeps getting a game. Im definately getting sick of seeing his recalls to the squad though... if only Vermeulen or Williams got that many chances...
social said:a. 21 - 22 is ridiculously young for a spinner to play test cricket yet he achieved admirable figures against the commonly acknowledged finest players of spin.
b. County cricket vs bowling spin on the Gabba. Might as well be 2 different sports.
c. Agreed but he also dismissed Tendy and Laxman, 2 of the world's best players
Prince EWS said:I think Lameck Onyango deserves a mention in this thread.
He plays for a lesser nation, but his ODI record is absolutely attrocious.
Batting
Matches: 5
Innings: 5
Not Outs: 2
Runs: 30
High Score: 23
Average: 10.00
Strike Rate: 96.77
Fours: 3
Sixes: 1
The scary thing about that batting record is that it could be much worse - he scored 23 of this 30 career runs in one innings. This isnt the worst of it though... he bats at 11, and has, on occassion, batted at 11 without bowling, making him a specialist #11 in the side.. His bowling figures really top off what a horrible player he is, though.
Bowling
Matches: 5
Overs: 13.5
Runs: 130
Wickets: 1
Best Bowling: 1/45
Average: 130.00
Strike Rate: 81.00
Economy Rate: 9.62
I thought David Obuya was a keeper? 20 catches and four stumpings in his 23 ODIs suggests so!foe said:specialist no. 11 thats a new one!!
speaking of kenya David Obuya Played more than 20 ODI's as a batsman even though he averages 10
He's played 6 games as a specialist, er, (checks cricinfo) fielder.Neil Pickup said:I thought David Obuya was a keeper? 20 catches and four stumpings in his 23 ODIs suggests so!
rubbish, a lead of 100 on a wicket that was turning square and only getting worse should have been enough to finish them off for less than 150. fact is that they had no problem bowling india out in the first innings and if hauritz hadnt bowled like a joke, they would had no problems bowling them out cheaply for a 2nd time. the batsmen should have been able to chase 100 yes, but it does not change the fact that the bowlers screwed up and gave india a chance ITFP.Top_Cat said:No Test team who fails to chase just over 100 in any Test can blame its bowlers for the loss. I don't care how bad the deck is, with the exception of one which has been rained on (obviously not a factor any more). Even on the WACA in 1997 against the WI on a deck which had cracks big enough to lose shoes in, Australia still managed almost 200. The blame for the loss in India rests squarely with the batsmen.
a bit of exaggeration maybe, but almost anybody who can turn his arm over on that wicket would have been able to get tendulkar and laxman out at some point in time. however whether its after they score a few runs or after they score plenty is a completely different story.Top_Cat said:Laughable.
I'm sorry, but Peter Such took 6-87 or so on debut against Australia, and ended his career with an average in the low 30's.ramkumar_gr said:Worst Test XI , selected in view that it has the potential to lose to any club side in the world
Worst Test XI:
SS Das(IND)
B Pockok(NZ)
G Hick(ENG)
M Ramprakash(ENG)
J Rudolph(SA)
S Watson(AUS)
P Patel(IND)
Ronnie Irani(ENG)
Rawl Lewis(WI)
Patterson Thompson(WI)
Peter Such(ENG)
That team would hammer most if not all clubs sides.ramkumar_gr said:Worst Test XI , selected in view that it has the potential to lose to any club side in the world
Worst Test XI:
SS Das(IND)
B Pockok(NZ)
G Hick(ENG)
M Ramprakash(ENG)
J Rudolph(SA)
S Watson(AUS)
P Patel(IND)
Ronnie Irani(ENG)
Rawl Lewis(WI)
Patterson Thompson(WI)
Peter Such(ENG)
Hick and Ramprakash are the only players in Test Cricket to have played as many number of matches they have played with this low an average.luckyeddie said:I'm sorry, but Peter Such took 6-87 or so on debut against Australia, and ended his career with an average in the low 30's.
Not world class, but not exactly awful. Also, to include Hick in the same side (to lose to any club side in the world, you say) is just silly. He would have spent 2 days just batting them out of the game.
They would struggle to take even a single wicket.Pedro Delgado said:That team would hammer most if not all clubs sides.
Oh, I don't doubt that both Hick and Rampers were perpetual under-achievers in test match cricket, but was that what we were looking for? Perhaps you're right. Yes, what the hell. Put them in.ramkumar_gr said:Hick and Ramprakash are the only players in Test Cricket to have played as many number of matches they have played with this low an average.
Hick is averaging 31 from 65 tests and Ramprakash 27 from 52 tests. No other player from any team comes to mind who have got such a pathetic record.
Peter Such, yes , what you say, i agree. I apologise.
He can be replaced by Ian Salisbury (bowling average of 77)
Pedro Delgado said:That team would hammer most if not all clubs sides.
You are right eddie. Brearly will make all batsman score their bests and make bowlers come up with their best bowling performances and lead them to victories against test nations let alone club sides.luckyeddie said:Oh, I don't doubt that both Hick and Rampers were perpetual under-achievers in test match cricket, but was that what we were looking for? Perhaps you're right. Yes, what the hell. Put them in.
Equally you could throw in Mike Brearley (although you would then no doubt then win the game through his brilliance as a captain).