World's worst Test XI (minimum 25 tests)

[Outswinger@Pace]

Zaremba's thread on the worst XI was interesting. I posted in that thread but it got me thinking how many of the players mentioned in there got a decent run of test to prove their worth (or lack thereof)!

Conventional wisdom would dictate that sub-standard players do not get to play enough tests. However, there have been glorious exceptions to the rule and this thread of mine is dedicated to those consistently proven non-performers.

So, name your worst world XI with the criteria that each player should have played a minimum of 25 tests. I've not considered Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka of the 80s because coming into international cricket is never easy

Here's my XI:

1) John Dyson (Aus) M - 30, Avg - 26.64

2) Devon Smith (WI) M - 33, Avg - 24.71

3) Ken Rutherford (NZ) M - 56, Avg - 27.08

4) J.M.Brearley * (Eng) M - 39, Avg - 22.88

5) Vic Pollard (NZ) M - 32, Bat Avg - 24.34, Wkts - 40, Bowl Avg - 46.32

6) Rusi Surti (Ind) M – 26, Bat Avg – 28.7, Wkts – 42, Bowl Avg – 46.7

7) Kamran Akmal + (Pak) M – 53 (), Bat Avg – 30.79, Ct/St – 184/22

8) Ajit Agarkar (Ind) M – 26, Bat Avg – 16.8, Wkts – 58, Bowl Avg – 47.3

9) Pramodya Wickaramasinghe (SL) M – 40, Wkts – 85, Bowl Avg – 41.87

10) Mohammad Sami (Pak) M – 35, Wkts – 84, Bowl Avg – 52.27

11) Pat Pocock (Eng) M –25, Wkts – 67, Bowl Avg – 44.41

12th man: Arjuna Ranatunga (SL)

• Surti, Pollard and Agarkar are the all-rounders. The Kiwi provides a nice second spin bowling option too.
  
  
• It was a pity that I couldn’t get the number of drops for Akmal as that would have been a more revealing stat.
  Interestingly, he's the Bradman in this team. But, I am sure he'll drop worth twice as many as he scores so that settles it!
  
  
• There was a tight choice between Jeff Crowe and Rutherford. I decided to go with the latter because Jeff has played some important knocks against good bowlers (including a hundred at Kingston against the pace demons)!

 

[vcs]

Paul Harris has got to have a shout.. 37 Tests of averaging 37.87 at a SR of 85.5 with the added bonus of looking ugly while doing it.

 

[Howe_zat]

The stats are unfair on Brearley, he was there as specialist captain, and was a success.

Ranatunga doesn't deserve to be here either, another underrated captain. He was instrumental in turning Sri Lanka into a top cricketing nation.

Also: Faisal Iqbal played 26 Tests. Somehow.

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

The stats are unfair on Brearley, he was there as specialist captain, and was a success.

Ranatunga doesn't deserve to be here either, another underrated captain. He was instrumental in turning Sri Lanka into a top cricketing nation.

Brearley's case, I agree, is a bit harsh. He was a very fine captian and they got him in for that.

But come on! Against Lillee-Thomson-Pascoe or Roberts-Holding-Garner-Croft can you seriously afford to carry a batting liability in the top-order? I had to have him there.

And Ranatunga is the 12th man ONLY on account of his fielding (dis)abilities. For sure, he was a good captain and a fine batsman. Not a greyhound in the field though!


Vcs and Howe Zat, would you guys like to ink in a team? I'm interested to see how many more such teams can be made. Very interesting about Faisal Iqbal!

 

[Howe_zat]

Ah, I see what you mean about Ranatunga. Not sure he's the worst fielder ever but he's a fair nomination. I'd say the worst piece of outfielding I've ever seen is by Abdul Razzaq, who "chased" a ball so impressively badly so as to concede an all run five - in a T20 match.

I haven't watched much cricket outside of the last 7 years or so, so I won't name a full XI, but I'm certain Brearley doesn't deserve the "Liability" tag. His captaincy was an asset to the team, his re-appointment as captain was the turning point of the 1981 Ashes. It's no coincidence that in terms of series won, he's England's most succesful Ashes captain since WG Grace.

 

[keeper]

How about Brearley gets in the team as a batsman and not captain?

This will also prevent him taking all the credit if they accidentally win a match

 

[fredfertang]

Harsh to include Vic Pollard - played a couple of fine knocks in England in 1973 and also did well in 1965 - I think Ray Bright would be a better call

 

[AHintofReverse]

my nominations

ENG: Ian Salisbury! Averages an awesome 76!
PAK: Shahid Afridi!! Awfully irresponsible for a top-order bat!
IND: Vinod Kambli, even Yuvraj Singh! (although latter hit 2 good centuries, he can't play quality bowling )

 

[akilana]

Ashley Giles Match 54.. wickets 143.. SR 85.. Bowling Average 40

 

[Cevno]

Daren Powell from the west indies ?

Paul Wiseman From Newzealand?

Both averaged in the high 40's with the ball SR's around 90 and managed to play 37 and 25 tests respectively.Powell specially was poor.

Also Shahadat Hossain from Bangladesh has played 26 matches .Mortaza too Comes close to him..
The likes of Dharmasena and Deepak Patel were poor in tests too with the ball.

Nicky Boje might be a stretch too.
Also Pramoda Wickramasinghe in terms of bowlers.

 

[Cevno]

In terms of Batsman -


Phil Simmons,Craig Wishart, MOhammad Ashraful,Javed Omar,Peter Willey,Faisal Iqbal are some names worth mentioning.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Daren Ganga must be worth a shout. 48 tests as a specialst batsman for an average a smidge below 26.

Truly weird his record is as rank as it it tho, because he was very easy on the eye.

 

[Cevno]

must be worth a shout. 48 tests as a specialst batsman for an average a smidge below 26.

Truly weird his record is as rank as it it tho, because he was very easy on the eye.

He has a pretty good FC record too in west indies. Has been bit of a weird case.

Similar to Mark Ramprakash

52 matches @ 27.32 as a specialist batsman.

 

[Burgey]

Ah, I see what you mean about Ranatunga. Not sure he's the worst fielder ever but he's a fair nomination. I'd say the worst piece of outfielding I've ever seen is by Abdul Razzaq, who "chased" a ball so impressively badly so as to concede an all run five - in a T20 match.

I haven't watched much cricket outside of the last 7 years or so, so I won't name a full XI, but I'm certain Brearley doesn't deserve the "Liability" tag. His captaincy was an asset to the team, his re-appointment as captain was the turning point of the 1981 Ashes. It's no coincidence that in terms of series won, he's England's most succesful Ashes captain since WG Grace.

It's a coincidence he was skipper during WSC. That lifts his winning percentage by miles. The stats aren't cruel to him, they are overly kind, when it comes to his captaincy record. The Australian team he skipered against during WSC was barely of first class standard.

A good skipper, but an affront to batsmanship at Test level surely, and worthy of inclusion here?

 

[Burgey]

It's a coincidence he was skipper during WSC. That lifts his winning percentage by miles. The stats aren't cruel to him, they are overly kind, when it comes to his captaincy record. The Australian team he skipered against during WSC was barely of first class standard.

A good skipper, but an affront to batsmanship at Test level surely, and worthy of inclusion here?

Daren Powell a shout here - 37 tests, bowling average 47.85, strike rate in the 80s.

It's weird though, when I watched him early on when he played against Australia, I really thoguht he was going to be good. He bowled decent pace and put in some good spells. Then he just went all Sami on us.

 

[fredfertang]

Brearley was undoubtedly a decent skipper, as all who played under him always say, and he certainly turned Middlesex into the dominant county side of the era. That said Burgey certainly has a point. The Australian sides he led England to victory over were not real Australian teams, with the exception of 1981, and while he presumably had something to do with Botham's renaissance in that series, after all Botham has always maintained as much himself, it was Botham and not Brearley who dominated that series. I doubt whether an England side captained by Brearley in 1980 and 1980/81 against West Indies would have done any better than the one captained by Botham did.

As for his batting I always had a deal of respect for him. He tried bloody hard, and was brave, but I've never seen an England batsmen who was so obviously just not quite good enough, so overall I think he's a fair shout here

 

[salman85]

Mark Ramprakash says a big,fat hello to this thread.

 

[wpdavid]

Brearley was undoubtedly a decent skipper, as all who played under him always say, and he certainly turned Middlesex into the dominant county side of the era. That said Burgey certainly has a point. The Australian sides he led England to victory over were not real Australian teams, with the exception of 1981, and while he presumably had something to do with Botham's renaissance in that series, after all Botham has always maintained as much himself, it was Botham and not Brearley who dominated that series. I doubt whether an England side captained by Brearley in 1980 and 1980/81 against West Indies would have done any better than the one captained by Botham did.

As for his batting I always had a deal of respect for him. He tried bloody hard, and was brave, but I've never seen an England batsmen who was so obviously just not quite good enough, so overall I think he's a fair shout here

Harsh on the 1977 Australian side, even if they were without the injured Lillee. That being said, Brearley inherited a decent side fom Greig for that series.

 

[wpdavid]

Other English candidates - Derek Pringle and, for my money, John Emburey. Perhaps the latter isn't the worst offie ever to play for us, but his appearances to achievement ratio was staggeringly poor.

Someone mentioned Salisbury earlier. A good choice, but did he actually play 25 tests?

 

[fredfertang]

Harsh on the 1977 Australian side, even if they were without the injured Lillee. That being said, Brearley inherited a decent side fom Greig for that series.

Fair point, though I think they were unsettled as a result of the storm that was about to break