CW Worst 10 Cricketers of All Time - Last Edition

[Burgey]

Forty odd posts and no Daren Powell.

 

[Pothas]

Considering an all English list but there are some I probably cannot ignore.

 

[Valer]

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

More votes required.

 

[weldone]

sent

 

[Howe_zat]

I think we should include a minimum number of nominations before a cricketer can be counted among the worst ever. Otherwise there might be a temptation not to take this seriously.

 

[Spikey]

there's so many bad cricketers we can't be expected to send in a list without doing a month of research

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

there's so many bad cricketers we can't be expected to send in a list without doing a month of research

Go with your gut - who needs research?

I've had 5 entries so far, and I'd consider all 5 have been serious with their nominations.

The only one to not be serious was a certain Jake Howe esq.

 

[fredfertang]

I did think HDS was taking the piss when he started this thread, and I suppose he still might be, but I think on reflection its a decent idea

That said I think research is the worst possible thing you can do otherwise you'll just end up with people like that McMaster bloke I mentioned - and wasn't there an Aussie picked for a touring party as a reserve wicketkeeper who had never kept wicket before, and that idiot Vizzy and a whole load of others

So come on you ****s, take it semi-seriously and lets get a better response to a worthy thread

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I was slightly taking the piss, but thought it might be a fun thing to do. I'll do profiles on each of the top ten etc.

 

[fredfertang]

I was slightly taking the piss, but thought it might be a fun thing to do. I'll do profiles on each of the top ten etc.

Think you should do the top 20 at least tbh - depends on how many of these lazy ****ers cba to participate I suppose

Will scream fix in the event the bloke I had at number one doesn't win the whole thing

 

[fredfertang]

I did think HDS was taking the piss when he started this thread, and I suppose he still might be, but I think on reflection its a decent idea

That said I think research is the worst possible thing you can do otherwise you'll just end up with people like that McMaster bloke I mentioned - and wasn't there an Aussie picked for a touring party as a reserve wicketkeeper who had never kept wicket before, and that idiot Vizzy and a whole load of others

So come on you ****s, take it semi-seriously and lets get a better response to a worthy thread

There was

Did it again a century later - though they got away with it with that well known opening bat Peter Taylor

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Think you should do the top 20 at least tbh - depends on how many of these lazy ****ers cba to participate I suppose

Exactly. The more votes, the more of a countdown I'll do.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Fred - was your order ranked from 1 - 10 or 10 - 1?

 

[fredfertang]

Fred - was your order ranked from 1 - 10 or 10 - 1?

Good point - I suppose it really should have been worst at the bottom, but I didn't think about that - the guy at the top of my list is my nomination as the worst Test cricketer I have seen

 

[uvelocity]

I don't pay enough attention to the bad ones, I have a hard enough time remembering the good ones.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Good point - I suppose it really should have been worst at the bottom, but I didn't think about that - the guy at the top of my list is my nomination as the worst Test cricketer I have seen

Thanks for that. Some good choices in there.

 

[weldone]

I had a criteria of 30 test wickets or 30 completed innings to come up with my list. Otherwise, it's insignificant sample size to judge people on test performances alone.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I think you should all turn over your lists to me so I can satisfy myself as to their validity.

 

[salman85]

Some minimum criteria should be announced.

I say make it 3000 test runs,or 150 test wickets.Atleast we'll be selecting the worst crop of players from a well known sample size and not some random douche.Someone who win this despite getting 150 wickets or scoring 3000 runs must be a true Ramprakash.