Worst Ever Players

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

as i said, i can only look at performances at test match level. from what i saw of ward he looked absolutely appaling and deserved to be on that list. if he does ever play for england and proves me wrong then i will change my opinion. as far as lara is concerned, if lara had only played one series against australia, and was made to look as bad as ward, i would put him on that list too.

Ward was not that bad. If he's one of the worst, there have been many many horrible players in this game of cricket.

 

[EnglishRose]

Scott Muller. At least all of the others you guys have mentioned didn't have a mouth which told everyone else how good they were without performances to back it up..............

Scott's problem was that he didn't toe the party line i.e suck up to Steve Waugh unlike Messrs Langer and Hayden.

 

[Langeveldt]

Really?

Just playing your game of stating the bleeding obvious....

 

[marc71178]

In English conditions I can't see any spinner being that much better than any other - certainly not to justify the drop in batting from Giles (worth 25-30) to Brown (3-4)

Personally I favour Collingwood for Giles and Read for Jones (at 8)

 

[a massive zebra]

In English conditions I can't see any spinner being that much better than any other - certainly not to justify the drop in batting from Giles (worth 25-30) to Brown (3-4)

Giles average is 17 not 25-30 and if he scores 17 and bowls 20 overs for 50 runs and takes no wickets (like usual) then that is effectively -33. If Brown gets 4 runs but takes 3-80 thats far more useful.

 

[marc71178]

But recent form would definitely put Giles in the 25-30 bracket (scoring runs in Test Cricket and when he plays for Warwickshire he gets them as well)

As for that comparision, that depends on the match scenario a great deal - either way I wouldn't expect our spinner to bowl enough to concede 80, let alone pick up 3.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Giles average is 17 not 25-30 and if he scores 17 and bowls 20 overs for 50 runs and takes no wickets (like usual) then that is effectively -33. If Brown gets 4 runs but takes 3-80 thats far more useful.

But recently Giles has been getting 20s and 30s. Also, there's no real evidence that Brown will do any better than Giles in England. As such, Marc has a valid point, especially in saying that Collingwood (or another bat) should replace Giles. Either that or another seamer IMO - left-arm perhaps?

 

[Neil Pickup]

But recently Giles has been getting 20s and 30s. Also, there's no real evidence that Brown will do any better than Giles in England. As such, Marc has a valid point, especially in saying that Collingwood (or another bat) should replace Giles. Either that or another seamer IMO - left-arm perhaps?

I've seen enough of five seamers to never want it again, besides, there are no left-armers even close to recognition (Sidebottom, Mullally, Sheriyar).

I expect Giles to be omitted when and only when Pietersen becomes available, replaces Hussain, and provides the home spin option.

 

[Pratters]

Noel David of India. The guy played a few one dayers in the Windies in 1997. He was unheard of even in the domestic scene. Sachin sent a fax to ask for Bahutule but instead he got this guy thrust into the team.

A couple of months later David was nto good enough to play for Hyderabad (similarly like Dasgupta was not fit to play for Bengal after ouring Australia!) and went to the US and setlled there.

I have never found any picture of Noel David ever and would give a toffee to any one who can find one

 

[chicane]

Noel David of India. The guy played a few one dayers in the Windies in 1997. He was unheard of even in the domestic scene. Sachin sent a fax to ask for Bahutule but instead he got this guy thrust into the team.

A couple of months later David was nto good enough to play for Hyderabad (similarly like Dasgupta was not fit to play for Bengal after ouring Australia!) and went to the US and setlled there.

I have never found any picture of Noel David ever and would give a toffee to any one who can find one

Yep. Seconded.

 

[Craig]

Conveniently ignoring his performances of the past 12 months (averaging 37.88 with the bat and 37 with the ball isn't that bad an effort when you look at the bowling role he has.)

Wow.

38 with the bat, that's good, but not great. His style of bowling is accurate and straight and back of the length out side off, a poor man's McGrath in that department, how he is not pentartive enough and is really likely to be effective in helpful conditions.

I dont think he is going to have Ricky Ponting shaking in his boots with his style of bowling.

If he is used as the 3rd bowler, I think he can aim for something better then 37.

 

[Craig]

In English conditions I can't see any spinner being that much better than any other - certainly not to justify the drop in batting from Giles (worth 25-30) to Brown (3-4)

Personally I favour Collingwood for Giles and Read for Jones (at 8)

I think you should give Jones his chance to shine at Test level. He didnt do too badly on Test debut.

 

[tooextracool]

38 with the bat, that's good, but not great. His style of bowling is accurate and straight and back of the length out side off, a poor man's McGrath in that department, how he is not pentartive enough and is really likely to be effective in helpful conditions.

you havent seen flintoff bowl have you? flintoff wouldnt get any real seam movement or swing even if you made him bowl on the cloudiest day at headingly, hs open chested action and bang it in style of bowling prevents him from doing so. so i dont see flintoff being more effective in any conditions(unless its an up and down pitch).....the best he can hope for is to be deadly accurate and wait for the batsmen to make the mistake.

 

[tooextracool]

In English conditions I can't see any spinner being that much better than any other - certainly not to justify the drop in batting from Giles (worth 25-30) to Brown (3-4)

Personally I favour Collingwood for Giles and Read for Jones (at 8)

i dont see any reason why jones should be dropped....he was far more impressive with the bat in his 1 test than read has been in any of his 11 tests and was just about as clean with the gloves as read has been.
im quite certain that read's batting is not upto test match standard, and we dont need 11 more tests to find out for sure.

 

[marc71178]

Wow.

38 with the bat, that's good, but not great.

For his role in the side it's very good.

Also, consider that he missed the Test's against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, so those runs have come against the better sides.

I dont think he is going to have Ricky Ponting shaking in his boots with his style of bowling.

Yes, but then again his role in the side isn't about that.

If he is used as the 3rd bowler, I think he can aim for something better then 37.

If he's used as the holding bowling (which is what he is at the moment) then the economy becomes as important, if not more important than average.


I know you dislike him, but you cannot argue that his batting average is going up and his bowling average coming down.

 

[marc71178]

i dont see any reason why jones should be dropped....

I agree you can't drop him, but the fact remains I wouldn't have picked him - for someone who supposedly can't bat, Read did a very good job in the ODI arena, so he must have talent.

he was far more impressive with the bat in his 1 test than read has been in any of his 11 tests and was just about as clean with the gloves as read has been.

Reads keeping over the run of 8 or so matches he had was brilliant in a range of conditions.

Jones hardly had to do anything in his one match (because the ball never got through to him!)

Yes, he was better with the bat, but when conditions get tricky you need your keeper to take any chances, no matter how small they are...

 

[Craig]

you havent seen flintoff bowl have you? flintoff wouldnt get any real seam movement or swing even if you made him bowl on the cloudiest day at headingly, hs open chested action and bang it in style of bowling prevents him from doing so. so i dont see flintoff being more effective in any conditions(unless its an up and down pitch).....the best he can hope for is to be deadly accurate and wait for the batsmen to make the mistake.

On the contrey, I HAVE seen him bowl. Dont make assumptations about me which you know f**k all.

 

[Craig]

For his role in the side it's very good.

Also, consider that he missed the Test's against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, so those runs have come against the better sides.

South Africa have been his toughest side he has played. He's had one good in Sri Lanka and the WI arent exactly world beaters.

And who is to say he would of averaged 3 and 7 against Zimbabwe & Bangladesh?

 

[tooextracool]

I agree you can't drop him, but the fact remains I wouldn't have picked him - for someone who supposedly can't bat, Read did a very good job in the ODI arena, so he must have talent.

but this is the test matches we are talking about....read is a good enough batsman to remain in the odi side but looking at his technique in that last ODI where he seemed absolutely clueless against bradshaw and was barely moving his feet, this for a man in form says all. he can hit the ball a long way but that will only help him in the ODIs because his technique is not upto test match standard.as gayle has successfully demonstrated....you dont need technique to be a good odi player but tests, well thats another story

Jones hardly had to do anything in his one match (because the ball never got through to him!)

Yes, he was better with the bat, but when conditions get tricky you need your keeper to take any chances, no matter how small they are...

i would rather have a decent keeper who can bat than an exceptional keeper who cant. its almost like the stewart vs russell debate, except that jones has only played one match and needs to prove himself over a sustained period.

 

[marc71178]

South Africa have been his toughest side he has played. He's had one good in Sri Lanka and the WI arent exactly world beaters.

He had a whole series in SL, all of those matches included in that average.