Worst Batsmen in Test cricket statistically

[ramkumar_gr]

I was looking for batsman who had played a considerable number of tests with a very
low average. The criteria i considered where
1. They should have played as pure batsmen only.
2. They should have played 50 tests or more
3. The batting average is less 30.


And i could spot Mark Ramprakash and Roshan Mahanama , both have played 52 tests with an average of 27 and 29 respectively.

Any thoughts??

 

[Blaze]

Interesting thread. Rampers came to mind when I read the criteria and sure enough you had him down there already. Can't think of anyone else off the top of my head.

 

[foe]

50 tests is quite a lot...no other names come to mind...

of course the Bangladeshis will be there once they get to 50 tests

 

[ramkumar_gr]

Rameez Raja of Pak missed it by a whisker with an average of 31 from 57 test matches

 

[ramkumar_gr]

Ken Rutherford of Newzealand stands tall (???) with an average of 27 from 56 test matches

 

[a massive zebra]

Syd Gregory made a Test double century but still only averaged about 24 in his long career.

 

[Natman20]

Ken Rutherford of Newzealand stands tall (???) with an average of 27 from 56 test matches

The thing is that is not that bad in New Zealand conditions.

 

[open365]

Ramps came to my mind as soon as i saw the thread title.

Frankly i find it an achievement that a player with as much FC class as ramps manages to bat so badly in tests.

 

[Pratters]

Zimbabweans had to fit the bill.

A.Campbell 1992-2002 60 109 4 2858 103 18 2 27.22 11.0 2 28 0 0 0 60 0

G.Flower 67 tests average 29.6

 

[Top_Cat]

Syd Gregory made a Test double century but still only averaged about 24 in his long career.

Example No. 378245285283823784526383568 why stats don't tell the whole story.

Syd Gregory averaged 24 in an era where, for the obvious reasons, his average would probably be worth at least 20 runs more in the modern era. Certainly, no-one else in his era played anywhere near 50 Tests so I think that says quite a bit.

 

[Chubb]

Zimbabweans had to fit the bill.

A.Campbell 1992-2002 60 109 4 2858 103 18 2 27.22 11.0 2 28 0 0 0 60 0

G.Flower 67 tests average 29.6

Campbell, yes. He was better than that suggests though (I suspect all players eligible in this category, Ramprakash, Rutherford et al were however- how would thy get to 50 tests otherwise)

Grant, no. He averaged 30+ his whole career before his last two tests, when he was horribly out of form, and most people reckoned he could have averaged 35+ were it not for injuries etc. dulling his effectiveness.

 

[Smudge]

Campbell, yes. He was better than that suggests though (I suspect all players eligible in this category, Ramprakash, Rutherford et al were however- how would thy get to 50 tests otherwise)

Grant, no. He averaged 30+ his whole career before his last two tests, when he was horribly out of form, and most people reckoned he could have averaged 35+ were it not for injuries etc. dulling his effectiveness.

In Rutherford's case, he also had to overcome the horrible start he had in the West Indies.

 

[a massive zebra]

Example No. 378245285283823784526383568 why stats don't tell the whole story.

Syd Gregory averaged 24 in an era where, for the obvious reasons, his average would probably be worth at least 20 runs more in the modern era.

Nonsense. If an average of 24 would be worth 44 in the modern era then the averages of his much more accomplished contemporaries Trumper and Hill (around 40) should be worth about 70 today, putting them way ahead of alltime greats like Hobbs, Richards and Tendulkar. General averages were indeed lower at the turn of the century but the fact remains that nearly all Gregory's contemporaries outscored him by quite some margin. Take a look at a typical Australian batting lineup of his time.

VT Trumper avg 39
RA Duff avg 35
C Hill avg 39
WW Armstrong avg 38
SE Gregory avg 24
*J Darling avg 28
MA Noble avg 30

Lower yes but probably only by around 25% in comparison with modern sides of a similar standard, so I doubt Gregory's 'modern' average would exceed 30. Those averages are actually similar to the current New Zealand team and far superior to Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, although I admit that the Australian team of 100 years ago were probably superior to the current Bangladesh and Zimbabwe XIs, even allowing for the advances made in the game over the last century.

Certainly, no-one else in his era played anywhere near 50 Tests so I think that says quite a bit.

Garbage again, plenty of players in his era played nearly 50 matches. Here is the list of most capped Test players before WWI.

1 AUS ES Gregory (AUS) 58
2 AUS C Hill (AUS) 49
3 AUS VT Trumper (AUS) 48
4 ENG W Rhodes (ENG) 47
5 AUS MA Noble (AUS) 42

 

[chaminda_00]

Here is two batting line ups i came up with:

50+ Matches:
1. RS Mahanama 29.27 (52 Tests)
2. GW Flower 29.54 (67)
3. ADR Campbell 27.21 (60)
4. MR Ramprakash 27.32 (52)
5. KR Rutherford 27.08 (56)
6. SE Gregory 24.53 (58)

25+ Matches:
1. Javed Omar 22.55 (31)
2. SN McGregor 19.82 (25)
3. DD Ebrahim 22.68 (29)
4. M Ashraful 23.5 (29)
5. CB Wishart 22.40 (27)
6. SE Gregory 24.53 (58)


Some of these players where half decent, but the thread asked for worst players in terms of stats.

 

[a massive zebra]

Without looking at the stats I think Ken Rutherford's first 25 matches were even less successful than those of the players you mentioned in the 25+ list.

Edit: Yes they were.

And you missed this guy.

 

[Top_Cat]

Nonsense. If an average of 24 would be worth 44 in the modern era then the averages of Trumper and Hill (around 40) should be worth about 70 today, putting then way ahead of alltime greats like Hobbs, Richards and Tendulkar. General averages were indeed lower at the turn of the century but the fact remains that nearly all Gregory's contemporaries outscored him by quite some margin. Take a look at a typical Australian batting lineup of his time.

VT Trumper avg 39
RA Duff avg 35
C Hill avg 39
WW Armstrong avg 38
SE Gregory avg 24
*J Darling avg 28
MA Noble avg 30

Lower yes but probably only by around 25% in comparison with modern sides of a similar standard, so I doubt Gregory's 'modern' average would exceed 30. Those averages are actually similar to the current New Zealand team and far superior to Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, although I admit that the Australian team of 100 years ago were probably superior to the current Bangladesh and Zimbabwe XIs, even allowing for the advances made in the game over the last century.

Those guys weren't really his contemporaries, though. Most of them played their first Tests about 10 years after he played his with two, 5 years afterwards. At the stage cricket was at, 5-10 years was a pretty long time for the game to change and that includes bat technology, frequency of tours, pitch conditions, etc. Funnily enough, Darling was the only player to make his debut anywhere near Gregory (4 years afterwards) and he averaged only 4 runs more.

Garbage again, plenty of players in his era played near 50 matches. Here is the list of most capped Test players before WWI.

Again, you're counting players from the start of the 1900's and late 1890's when there was far more cricket being played. Syd Gregory started playing 10 or more years before all of the players on that list. and other very good contemporaries. When those others hit their peaks and started scoring heavily, he was almost 40. Obviously with a greater level of cricket being played, standards rise, etc. I don't think that list can really be compared to Gregory's era because the environment was so different. Just have a look at his first Test;

http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1890S/1890/AUS_IN_ENG/AUS_ENG_T1_21-23JUL1890.html

How many of those players were still around even two years later? It was a different era; Gregory came in at the end of the Trumble/Blackham/Murdoch era and towards the beginning of the 1900's. Cricket had changed so much.

 

[chaminda_00]

Without looking at the stats I think Ken Rutherford's first 25 matches were even less successful than those of the players you mentioned in the 25+ list.

Edit: Yes they were.

And you missed this guy.

I guess Noel McGregor can get a game infront of Stuart Carlise...

 

[Pratters]

Grant, no. He averaged 30+ his whole career before his last two tests, when he was horribly out of form, and most people reckoned he could have averaged 35+ were it not for injuries etc. dulling his effectiveness.

I have not judged Flower's capability and he possible average. Just said which players fit the criteria statistically as the thread creater wanted to.

 

[Prince EWS]

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.

 

[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.

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