Worst Batsmen in Test cricket statistically

[Pratters]

While Grant fits the criteria, I really dont think he deserves a mention.

Why? What is being asked is worst statistically.

 

[Prince EWS]

what if someone plays 100 tests and averages 25. You still wont call him a horrible player, just because he has played 100 tests????

There would obviously be a reason for them playing 100 tests. Poor pitch conditions in their era, glimpses of brilliance, prolific first class record etc. People dont play 100 tests for no reason, and whatever reason the player had for playing 100 tests would spring to everyone's mind when they were mentioned. Players can be given extended runs of 20 or so tests and do poorly though, so I think it would be a better requirement. Also, if this 100-test player really was that horrible, they'd still be eligible...

 

[ramkumar_gr]

While Grant fits the criteria, I really dont think he deserves a mention. Campbell was a lot better than his stats suggested as well.

Really, anyone who has played 50 tests isnt a horrible player. Cut that down to 25 and you'll get a better representation.

Grant definitely "fits" the criteria.

 

[Prince EWS]

Why? What is being asked is worst statistically.

Indeed, but I dont think he is one of the worst statistically.

He fits the criteria set out in the first post, but he doesnt fit the topic title.

 

[Prince EWS]

Grant definitely "fits" the criteria.

I never said he didnt.

In fact, I made a special point of saying he did - twice.

 

[ramkumar_gr]

I never said he didnt.

In fact, I made a special point of saying he did - twice.

How do you want the title to be "Under achievers". see, if someone has played 50 tests and if he has an average less than 30, then there really should be very obvious shortcomings. This not only applies to Grant but to everone who fits the criteria, just because 50 tests is just too "many matches".

 

[Prince EWS]

How do you want the title to be "Under achievers". see, if someone has played 50 tests and if he has an average less than 30, then there really should be very obvious shortcomings. This not only applies to Grant but to everone who fits the criteria, just because 50 tests is just too "many matches".

The title isnt under-achievers though, its "worst batsman in test cricket statistically." In my opinion, all those that have played 20+ matches should be considered, and if that were the case, Grant wouldnt get anywhere near an XI.

 

[ramkumar_gr]

The title isnt under-achievers though, its "worst batsman in test cricket statistically." In my opinion, all those that have played 20+ matches should be considered, and if that were the case, Grant wouldnt get anywhere near an XI.

Why 50, i will say the worst batsman would be someone who had played the maximum no. of tests with the least average, just because of the fact he had a lot more opportunities to prove his talent , than someone who had played 20-25 tests. If you still argue, "the very reason why the players who had played 50 tests were made to play 50 tests just1 because they had potential", then i would say they failed very miserably to live up to the potential or it was a mockery of selection or just that there were limited options for selection.

 

[Prince EWS]

Twenty tests is more than enough to prove whether you are up to standard or not IMO. Are there any examples of someone averaging less than 30 over 20 tests but more than 40 over 50 tests? I sincerely doubt it, so I dont know why the requirement is so high.

Those who have played 20 tests for an average of 21 are worse batsmen statistically than those who average 29.7 over 50, so, in accordance with the title, they should be accepted.

 

[ramkumar_gr]

Twenty tests is more than enough to prove whether you are up to standard or not IMO. Are there any examples of someone averaging less than 30 over 20 tests but more than 40 over 50 tests? I sincerely doubt it, so I dont know why the requirement is so high.

Those who have played 20 tests for an average of 21 are worse batsmen statistically than those who average 29.7 over 50, so, in accordance with the title, they should be accepted.

Marvan Atappattu should be one of the classic examples.

 

[Prince EWS]

Marvan Atappattu should be one of the classic examples.

Possibly, but if he had been discarded after twenty tests, would he have had a claim to be one of the worst batsmen statistically? I say yes.

 

[ramkumar_gr]

Possibly, but if he had been discarded after twenty tests, would he have had a claim to be one of the worst batsmen statistically? I say yes.

That would have been very unfair on Atapattu.

That is why i had 50 tests as the criteria and not 20 tests. Hope now you are convinced.

 

[chaminda_00]

Nah i think 20 matches is better then 50 matches. The guys that played 50 Test weren't really bad batsmen, there was just no one better then them in their positions at the time of their career. Guys like Mahanama, Flower and Campbell all did the job that was required of them.

 

[Prince EWS]

That would have been very unfair on Atapattu.

It wouldnt have been unfair on Atapattu at all. If he had played 20 matches with an average of about 20, how would calling him one of the wost batsmen statistically be unfair?

 

[Prince EWS]

Nah i think 20 matches is better then 50 matches. The guys that played 50 Test weren't really bad batsmen, there was just no one better then them in their positions at the time of their career. Guys like Mahanama, Flower and Champbell all did the job that was required of them.

I completely agree. Well said.

 

[ramkumar_gr]

It wouldnt have been unfair on Atapattu at all. If he had played 20 matches with an average of about 20, how would calling him one of the wost batsmen statistically be unfair?

If Atapattu had been axed after 20 matches, he would have been in this discussion at all.

It is you who made me to bring Atapattu into the discussion. You asked me any batsman is there who average less in their initial tests and averaged 40 after 50 tests.

 

[ramkumar_gr]

I completely agree. Well said.

What do you agree? See you are misleading the very intention of this thread.

This thread when i created, only the statistics was of interest.

If you people want, we can have another thread " Not so worse batsman but who had a not so good average". OK.

 

[Prince EWS]

If Atapattu had been axed after 20 matches, he would have been in this discussion at all.

It is you who made me to bring Atapattu into the discussion. You asked me any batsman is there who average less in their initial tests and averaged 40 after 50 tests.

Thats not relevant to the arguement at all, though.

I conceded that Atapattu fitted the question I raised, but I then said that it would have been fair if, had he been discarded after 20 tests, he had been mentioned as a candidate for the "worst batsman in test cricket statistically". Dont just revert back to a side-arguement because you are losing the main one.

 

[Prince EWS]

What do you agree? See you are misleading the very intention of this thread.

This thread when i created, only the statistics was of interest.

If you people want, we can have another thread " Not so worse batsman but who had a not so good average". OK.

I know statistics are the only relevant pieces of information in this thread, but the fact remains, if someone has played 20 tests, their statistics should be able to be reviewed. If you changed the limit to 100 tests, you would get an ever more rediculous list of players.

All Im saying is that 20 tests should be the limit, not 50 - for the very reason that decent batsmen are being brought up. If we lower the limit to 20 tests, we will get a truely accurate spread of the "worst batsman in test cricket statistically." Im not saying players like Grant Flower should be discluded because their averages are misleading, Im suggesting they be discluded because there are batsmen with worse averages than him that have played an exceptable number of matches for review.

 

[ramkumar_gr]

Thats not relevant to the arguement at all, though.

I conceded that Atapattu fitted the question I raised, but I then said that it would have been fair if, had he been discarded after 20 tests, he had been mentioned as a candidate for the "worst batsman in test cricket statistically". Dont just revert back to a side-arguement because you are losing the main one.

I dont really understand what point you are trying to drive home. Atapattu is not a candidate for this thread at all, if had been discarded after 20 test matches. OK.
Just because i had the criteria as 50 tests. I will make it more clear.

Atapattu has played 50 tests. Atappatu is not averaging under 30. And he is out of the discussion. Atapattu averaged very less in his initial tests and after 50 tests he had a respectable average and that precisely vindicates the constraints or the qualifications, i have specified, of players who could feature in this thread.