The worst player to have achieved a given thing and the best player not to

[mr_mister]

Sohag Gazi has a good claim to being the most ordinary player to make a ton and take a five-for in the same match.

Best allrounder missing from the list is probably Kapil Dev.

Gazi is the only player to have made a ton and taken a hat trick in the same test, so he is by default the worst player to have achieved that.

tied with Hadlee right? Or we do consider Hadlee a bowling all-rounder


tbh i consider all 4 of the 80s all-rounders bowling all-rounders. they're all right up there in the all time wicket taking lists but nowhere near the top of the batting lists

 

[Starfighter]

I had a look at some of the names I wasn't familiar with to back up that claim and Charles Kellaway (who I clicked on as a possible norounder candidate) has an extremely good record.

Which leads me to me stating that Kellaway is the finest player who lacks a cricinfo profile.

Yeah, in the historic footage thread I was wondering if anyone had film of him, as I haven't seen any. He seems to have generally been in Jack Gregory's shadow post-war (he first played before) and has been completely forgotten with time. Both played their last match at Brisbane in 1928.
Wisden gives his name as Charles E Kelleway yet no one even seems to know what the E stands for.

 

[weldone]

worst player to have a test batting average over 99 with 30+ innings: Donald Bradman
best player not to have a test batting average over 99 with 30+ innings: Sachin Tendulkar

 

[Bijed]

Alok Kapali must be a dead cert for worst bowler to take a test hat-trick - I don't like to judge by stats alone, of course, but a test bowling average of 118 does somewhat speak for itself.

 

[ankitj]

Herb Sutcliffe never made a double century, oddly.

Yeah. Gillespie and Sutcliffe seal this one.

 

[ankitj]

How about 10-fers.

I know Joel Garner and Ray Lindwall never got one. Allan Border did take a 10-fer once but there may well be worse contenders.

 

[The Sean]

I had a look at some of the names I wasn't familiar with to back up that claim and Charles Kellaway (who I clicked on as a possible norounder candidate) has an extremely good record.

Which leads me to me stating that Kellaway is the finest player who lacks a cricinfo profile.

Yeah, in the historic footage thread I was wondering if anyone had film of him, as I haven't seen any. He seems to have generally been in Jack Gregory's shadow post-war (he first played before) and has been completely forgotten with time. Both played their last match at Brisbane in 1928.
Wisden gives his name as Charles E Kelleway yet no one even seems to know what the E stands for.

Yeah, Charlie Kelleway was a very fine cricketer, though from what is written about his rather dour approach he fell more under "valuable" than "exhilarating." It's also worth noting that, statistically, he was at his best immediately before and after the First World War, indicating that his career record may well be even better had he not lost what were likely his peak years to the war.

A lot of sources list his full name simply as Charles Kelleway, so I'm wondering if the "Charles E" is a bastardisation of Charlie? Just a thought.

 

[mr_mister]

best Batsman to never hit a test 150?


Keith Miller and Hansie Cronje jump to mind

 

[jimmy101]

Back to those players who never hit a double ton, Clem Hill (191) would be worth a mention (if he hasn't been already).

Same with big 'ol WG (170).

 

[mr_mister]

Best batsman to not score a ton?

I think Bevan was probably the best overall, but Bruce Laird probably had the best Test 'career' out of specialist batsmen to not score a ton.

would say Chetan Chauhan is even more of an anomaly than Laird. 40 tests, 16 fifties, no tons

 

[S.Kennedy]

I'm sometimes amazed at the propensity of specialist batsmen - I could barely call most of them 'part-timers' - to take, sometimes big, wickets: M. Yousuf (c a b Ian Bell); I. Sharma (Alastair Cook - who bowled three overs in his entire career!); Vaughan (Tendulkar), etc.

 

[jimmy101]

Problem with Chauhan was he scored his runs much too slowly & unluckily got dismissed every time he approached the milestone. Apparently it took him 30 minutes at the crease to score his first runs in Tests. He once scored 157 against Victoria in a tour match. It took him 516 minutes and included just two fours.

Definitely good at digging in was Chetan.

 

[mr_mister]

I'm sometimes amazed at the propensity of specialist batsmen - I could barely call most of them 'part-timers' - to take, sometimes big, wickets: M. Yousuf (c a b Ian Bell); I. Sharma (Alastair Cook - who bowled three overs in his entire career!); Vaughan (Tendulkar), etc.

yeah, this thread lead me to watching the Waugh brothers bowling on youtube

makes you think, how low were some of these SR of the 'partnership breaker' type bowlers who seemed to get wickets every time they bowled, but hardly bowled

 

[Howe_zat]

The worst batsman to score a Test century is probably Jerome Taylor who up to that moment had a first class high score of 31, and overall averages 11 from 152 first class innings. In the 24 test matches after he scored his ton, he averaged 9.

 

[fredfertang]

The worst batsman to score a Test century is probably Jerome Taylor who up to that moment had a first class high score of 31, and overall averages 11 from 152 first class innings. In the 24 test matches after he scored his ton, he averaged 9.

I thought it was very gracious of Tino Best to respect his record and get out for 95 back in 2012

 

[Lillian Thomson]

would say Chetan Chauhan is even more of an anomaly than Laird. 40 tests, 16 fifties, no tons

The only amazing thing about Chauhan is that he ever reached double figures.

 

[marc71178]

yeah, this thread lead me to watching the Waugh brothers bowling on youtube

makes you think, how low were some of these SR of the 'partnership breaker' type bowlers who seemed to get wickets every time they bowled, but hardly bowled

I think with that sort of bowler, the perception was that they always seemed to take a wicket but in reality they bowled lots of times fruitlessly but they're just not memorable.

An example of this is someone like Paul Collingwood - you'd think of him as a useful bowler but 17 wickets at nearly 60 suggests otherwise.

 

[S.Kennedy]

While Colly's 159 first-class wickets at 39.27 would say something different again.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah you just remember when they were successful as it is so much more unlikely.

 

[a massive zebra]

How about a batting average of 50?

I would nominate WG, Ranjitsinhji, Trumper, Harvey, Boycott, Kanhai, Crowe, Inzamam, Jayawardene, Clarke and Amla as among the best not to do it.

Ernest Tyldesley, Jack Ryder, Charles Davis, Vinod Kambli and Matthew Hayden must be among the worst to do it.