Worst Batsmen in Test cricket statistically

[chaminda_00]

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.

The point is Ramks is that there are worse players statistically then Campbell, Flower and Mahanama who got a decent run in test cricket. 50 test isn't a good cut off as it only limits the field to a small number of players.

 

[Prince EWS]

Stop talking about Atapattu! The Atapattu section of this arguement was finished with quite some posts ago.

Atapattu is not a candidate for this thread at all, if had been discarded after 20 test matches.

That sentence doesnt make any sence. It looks as if you borrowed the end of one sentence and pasted it on the end of another to confuse us all. Atapattu is not a candidate for this thread, and he wouldnt have been a candidate for this thread if he had been discarded after twenty matches, but he SHOULD be. Thats my arguement.

Atapattu has played 50 tests. Atappatu is not averaging under 30.

Indeed.

And he is out of the discussion.

Then stop diverting the discussion to him! We argued about Atapattu before, but he is no longer relevant to the arguement.

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.

Whats your point here? Atapattu does not "vindicate the constraints of the qualifications" at all. He wouldnt be a candidate no matter which scale you used, as his average is not under 30. Thats why he is irrelevant to the conversation.

 

[foe]

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.

IMO, 20 tests is a sufficient criterion....Atapattu is just one freak exception

 

[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.

Then why did you ask me the highlighted question??

 

[Prince EWS]

Then why did you ask me the highlighted question??

If there were none, I could have nulified one of your points.

That wasnt the case, so I couldnt nulify that particular point, but I rebutted by saying that didnt matter anyway, as Atapattu wouldnt be a candidate under either the 20 or 50 test system, making it completely irrelevant.

Its obvious you are just nitpicking here because you have nothing constructive to say on the actual arguement. I concede that Atapattu is an acceptable answer to that question, so can you move on and try to reply to all the non-Atapattu related points that me, and several others, have made?

 

[ramkumar_gr]

IMO, 20 tests is a sufficient criterion....Atapattu is just one freak exception

All i try to say is , players who had played 50 matches and still average less, had a chance to redeem themselves and enjoyed the privilege of playing despite their failures, than those who played just 20 matches or less. i have even said that the player who has played most number of test matches with the least average would be the worst batsman statistically and that is where Grant Flower qualifies.

 

[ramkumar_gr]

All i try to say is , players who had played 50 matches and still average less, had a chance to redeem themselves and enjoyed the privilege of playing despite their failures, than those who played just 20 matches or less. i have even said that the player who has played most number of test matches with the least average(let alone 50 tests) would be the worst batsman statistically and that is where Grant Flower qualifies.

The above is the answer for you also Prince.

 

[Prince EWS]

i have even said that the player who has played most number of test matches with the least average would be the worst batsman statistically and that is where Grant Flower qualifies.

The answer to that would be Steve Waugh. Out of all the players with the most test matches (168), he has the "least" average.

You have to choose you words carefully, or incidents like this will continue to happen.

 

[ramkumar_gr]

The answer to that would be Steve Waugh. Out of all the players with the most test matches (168), he has the "least" average.

You have to choose you words carefully, or incidents like this will continue to happen.

"least" and it implies all the conditions at the start of the thread i.e. average less than 30. You can call this "rephrasing" if you dont see the implicit conditions.
anyway, That is a good catch.

 

[ramkumar_gr]

it is as simple as like "Grant Flower has played 67 matches and averages less than 30.
So he can be declared the worst batsman in tests statistically till someone comes up with better?? statistics"

 

[Prince EWS]

it is as simple as like "Grant Flower has played 67 matches and averages less than 30.
So he can be declared the worst batsman in tests statistically till someone comes up with better?? statistics"

But I would argue that Javed Omar, averaging 22.55 in 31 matches, has a far inferior record to Flower.

 

[ramkumar_gr]

But I would argue that Javed Omar, averaging 22.55 in 31 matches, has a far inferior record to Flower.

You can do that because Omar does not bowl and Flower has 25 test wickets.

But the purpose of this thread is more of a kind of accomplished and i would tell i have nothing against Grant flower as I enjoyed watching his mammoth hundred against WI in a ODI in Australia.

It is just that he is the one who averages less than 30 for someone who has played 67 test matches.

 

[Prince EWS]

It is just that he is the one who averages less than 30 for someone who has played 67 test matches.

And Javed Omar is the one who averages less than 23 and has played 31 test matches.

The very fact that Grant Flower is the leading contender for your "prize" should show you that your criteria is wrong.

Javed Omar is, obviously, statistically a worse batsman than Grant Flower. No ifs or buts about it.

 

[ramkumar_gr]

And Javed Omar is the one who averages less than 23 and has played 31 test matches.

The very fact that Grant Flower is the leading contender for your "prize" should show you that your criteria is wrong.

Javed Omar is, obviously, statistically a worse batsman than Grant Flower. No ifs or buts about it.

What do you mean by that. why is that wrong.Grant Flower is technically miles ahead of Omar. But i want to remind you this thred is driven by statistics and nothing else and Grant Flower is the one who leads all the way by pure mathematics.
Let Javed Omar play 36 tests more and try to average less than 29 and we can crown Omar relieving Grant Flower of this privilege.

 

[ramkumar_gr]

And Javed Omar is the one who averages less than 23 and has played 31 test matches.

The very fact that Grant Flower is the leading contender for your "prize" should show you that your criteria is wrong.

Javed Omar is, obviously, statistically a worse batsman than Grant Flower. No ifs or buts about it.

and the other thing is Javed Omar is the best bet available in Bangladesh as an opener and that is why he has managed to play 31 tests. The same thing happened to Grant Flower as he was the best of the lot in Zim and that is how he played 67 tests. It noway means they are good enough to play that many number of matches.

 

[Prince EWS]

He isnt technically miles ahead of Javed!

He has played more matches for a better average. How the f*ck does that make him statistically or technically better? Your criteria is wrong, and its glaringly obvious.

He DOESNT lead by pure mathematics - Javed does. He averages nearly 8 runs less per innings. The fact that Flower has played double the test matches really shouldnt matter, and this PROVES that your criteria is wrong.

I could start another thread, and change the criteria to 100 tests. This would make Carl Hooper statistically the worst batsman. Now we all know this isnt true, but we get this result because the criteria is wrong. Your criteria is ALSO wrong, because Grant Flower is getting selected, when he clearly isnt statistically the worst batsman!

 

[chaminda_00]

Anyone that played 20odd test with a average of 20-30 just shows they were the best available for that country at that particular time. Another reason why the limit should be 20 Test not 50 Tests.

 

[ramkumar_gr]

He isnt technically miles ahead of Javed!

He has played more matches for a better average. How the f*ck does that make him statistically or technically better? Your criteria is wrong, and its glaringly obvious.

He DOESNT lead by pure mathematics - Javed does. He averages nearly 8 runs less per innings. The fact that Flower has played double the test matches really shouldnt matter, and this PROVES that your criteria is wrong.

I could start another thread, and change the criteria to 100 tests. This would make Carl Hooper statistically the worst batsman. Now we all know this isnt true, but we get this result because the criteria is wrong. Your criteria is ALSO wrong, because Grant Flower is getting selected, when he clearly isnt statistically the worst batsman!

Where did i say Omar is technically better than Grant Flower. Please develop patience to go through the posts.

You have the liberty to start a thread of 100 tests or whatever you want and i am also at the liberty of starting threads i want which i feel would be of interest to others as this thread has proved to be.

I am not at your courtesy and I dont want your approval on what i want to do in this forum.
You simply cant drive what others have to do in this forum.

I have the decency not to go overboard on this.

 

[Prince EWS]

Where did i say Omar is technically better than Grant Flower. Please develop patience to go through the posts.

You didnt - you said Flower was technically better than Omar (as a selection, not as a batsman.), and thats why I was referring to.

Grant Flower is technically miles ahead of Omar.

See...

You have the liberty to start a thread of 100 tests or whatever you want and i am also at the liberty of starting threads i want which i feel would be of interest to others as this thread has proved to be.

Indeed, and I have the liberty to tell you that your criteria is wrong and will produce rediculous answers.

I am not at your courtesy and I dont want your approval on what i want to do in this forum.
You simply cant drive what others have to do in this forum.

I never argued that.

I have the decency not to go overboard on this.

Because you know you cant win...

 

[ramkumar_gr]

You didnt - you said Flower was technically better than Omar (as a selection, not as a batsman.), and thats why I was referring to.



See...



Indeed, and I have the liberty to tell you that your criteria is wrong and will produce rediculous answers.



I never argued that.



Because you know you cant win...

As there are so many people who are convinced that this is just another interesting thread, and if you are confronting for the sake of it, i am finishing it here and if only i accept defeat, you can be peaceful then i am also doing that. OK.