The Worst Ever Test Team !!!

[BoyBrumby]

Lots and lots and lots of decent players failed to take their first opportunity, performing dismally for half a dozen Tests or so and then never playing again. I think there should be a minimum qualification of 15 or 20 Tests, because failure over an extended period of time implies that the player is actually crap.

Or the selectors needed ar$e/elbow differentiation training!

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I am afraid , sir, your candidate has very strong competition from yet another wonderful performer from the subcontinent. After seeing his credentials I hope you will withdraw your nomination

LEG SPINNER : CS NAYUDU

Brother of the legendry Col CK Nayudu, CS actually played 11 test matches over 18 years !!!

In these matches, he averaged 9.2 with the bat, but as a bowler, which was his sole reason for selection, he was absolutely magnificient. He captured his 2 wickets for 359 runs at a strike rate of 261 balls each !!

Clearly he was a gem from the land of spinners and well deserved his protracted carer during which he played 4 tests more than his brother.

Bah.That's nothing.

Rawl Nicholas Lewis

97.3 Overs
318 runs
1 wicket
Average: 318.00
Econ.: 3.26
SR: 585.00

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Interesting to note that Mark Boucher was Lewis' lone Test wicket. The low point in Mark's career.

 

[a massive zebra]

Bah.That's nothing.

Rawl Nicholas Lewis

97.3 Overs
318 runs
1 wicket
Average: 318.00
Econ.: 3.26
SR: 585.00

Stats can be deceiving - I saw him bowl a number of times and though far from threatening he looked a damn sight more competent than Ian Salisbury!!

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Stats can be deceiving - I saw him bowl a number of times and though far from threatening he looked a damn sight more competent than Ian Salisbury!!

Are you sure it's the same Rawl Lewis?! He's never looked anything near penetrative!

 

[a massive zebra]

Yes I know he wasn't penetrative, hardly spinning it at all, but he could keep a length and didn't bowl a four ball every over a la Salisbury.

 

[Beleg]

Rawl Lewis was plenty effective at a Sharjah mudhole during the late 90's IIRC. Annoyed a lot of Pakistani players bowling round the wicket, pitching on the rough outside the leg stump.

 

[marc71178]

Interesting to note that Mark Boucher was Lewis' lone Test wicket. The low point in Mark's career.

I think this current match may exceed that!

 

[Langeveldt]

I'd like to nominate Gerhardus (Gerrie) Liebenberg.. Wonderful batsman to watch domestically, but named the walking wicket after his brief test career came clattering to a close.. He ended up averaging 13 over 8 innings..

http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/PLAYERS/RSA/L/LIEBENBERG_GFJ_03002241/

 

[SJS]

I would like to nominate 2 players..and they are quite 'out there' choices, but hear me out:

1. GD McGrath

Some reviewers noticed he hasnt taken a wicket since 2000 through his skill, and just purely down to the luck of the batsman playing a poor shot.

Well on the assumption that we can allow Glenny boy the privilige of having taking one skillful wicket this century (just to make the averages work better), McGrath therefore averages 4506 with the ball in tests at a SR of over 11500.

Surely no bowler has ever been this bad


2. VVS Laxman

when only taking into consideration the innings he has failed to score more than 2 runs in, he only has a highest score of 2 and averages only 0.25.

A waste of space in my book.


others I woudl like to consider...Murali (if he played the game like it should be played, he surely wouldnt have taken a single wicket in all his 91 tests)
Warne (taken his wickets due to his proven heroin addiction...ball of the century caused by rock of crack cocaine that had fallen out of pocket and onto the pitch, the ball obviously hit that)
Mark Waugh (told guy the weather forcast, this increased his batting average by 40)

.......BRILLIANT !!!.......


One could add to that list but it would add ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the message that you convey

 

[SJS]

Bah.That's nothing.

Rawl Nicholas Lewis

97.3 Overs
318 runs
1 wicket
Average: 318.00
Econ.: 3.26
SR: 585.00

Yes he does stand out and I saw his figures too but he didnt play five tests.

 

[wahindiawah]

3. All players should have played in the position selected for in at least five test matches.

Why five matches restriction i suspect you did that to bail out the legendary Rana Naveed

 

[SJS]

Why five matches restriction i suspect you did that to bail out the legendary Rana Naveed

Seriously. Players who have just started their careers shouldnt be elgible. They may do even worse in the future ??

 

[wahindiawah]

. They may do even worse in the future ??

L L

 

[chaminda_00]

Well i was going to do a comperhensive search to find the worst XI (statiscally) with the limitations that SJS put forward, but i found eleven really crap players from South Africa so i just made an XI from them.

1. S Curow (13 Batting Ave)
2. G Liebengerg (13 Batting Ave)
3. J Nel (14 Batting Ave)
4. W Ling (17 Batting Ave)
5. E Halliwell (13 Batting Ave)
6. P Mansell (18 Batting Ave, 67 Bowling Ave)
7. T Ward* (14 Batting Ave, Keeper)
8. G Hartigan (11 Bat, 141 Bowl)
9. C Eksteen (10 Bat, 62 Bowl)
10. V Smith (4 Bat, 64 Bowl)
11. E Davis (2 Bat, 69 Bowl)

All these guys played more then 5 Test and are crap, im not sure if any of them captained but the keeper played the most games so he would be captain, by default. The side isn't very balanced with the bowl if they played outside Asia, 2 Fast Bowlers (Hartigan and Davis) and 3 spin bowlers (Mansell, Eksteen, Smith), none of the batsmen bowled in test (i think).

What do u guys think, can u come up with a worse side.

 

[C_C]

i cant pick any particular ones...too many...
but suffice to say those 20-30 average batsmen in the pre-war era and those 35-40 average bowlers of the same period would be in my team.
Even players like Probir Sen or Rawl Lewis are a few grades ahead of those namby pamby amatuers from the unstandardised era.

 

[SJS]

Well i was going to do a comperhensive search to find the worst XI (statiscally) with the limitations that SJS put forward, but i found eleven really crap players from South Africa so i just made an XI from them.

1. S Curow (13 Batting Ave)
2. G Liebengerg (13 Batting Ave)
3. J Nel (14 Batting Ave)
4. W Ling (17 Batting Ave)
5. E Halliwell (13 Batting Ave)
6. P Mansell (18 Batting Ave, 67 Bowling Ave)
7. T Ward* (14 Batting Ave, Keeper)
8. G Hartigan (11 Bat, 141 Bowl)
9. C Eksteen (10 Bat, 62 Bowl)
10. V Smith (4 Bat, 64 Bowl)
11. E Davis (2 Bat, 69 Bowl)

All these guys played more then 5 Test and are crap, im not sure if any of them captained but the keeper played the most games so he would be captain, by default. The side isn't very balanced with the bowl if they played outside Asia, 2 Fast Bowlers (Hartigan and Davis) and 3 spin bowlers (Mansell, Eksteen, Smith), none of the batsmen bowled in test (i think).

What do u guys think, can u come up with a worse side.

Choose any Bangladesh side since they got test status and they will inflict a whitewash on themselves against all comers

Seriously thats a good effort.

Q1. Who is captain and what is hois captaincy record ?

Q2. Wasnt Ward a horribly decent wicketkeeper ?

 

[C_C]

Wicketkeeper : This dude called Tiger Smith...an 8 average in that era....should take batting lessons from Courtney Walsh

Bowlers(to be added on later): Doug Wright...39.11 average with the fuddy duddies....could take bowling lessons from Saurav Ganguly me thinks.
Tim Wall.......a 'superb' average of 36 and was a strike bowler amongst the fuddy duddies.

To open with him is the incomparable fuddy duddy Arthur Langdon....40 wickets @ 45....
for an era with amatuers.....well that is grade school level of performance....

To take over the third seamer's spot is the incomparable Jahangir Khan...4 wickets from 4 matches @ 64 average...think a 13 year old steve waugh was a more potent bowler than this dude.
For my allrounder-***-spinner post, is the incomparable John Hearne 26 batting ave. with the fuddy duddies and 49 bowling average...

So working bottom-up,
the list is:

*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
T.Smith(wkt)
J.Hearne
D.Wright
A.Langdon
J.Khan

 

[chaminda_00]

Choose any Bangladesh side since they got test status and they will inflict a whitewash on themselves against all comers

Seriously thats a good effort.

Q1. Who is captain and what is hois captaincy record ?

Q2. Wasnt Ward a horribly decent wicketkeeper ?

1. The captain is Ward cus he played the most games, none of them captained RSA in Test Cricket. How about i replace Mansell with that Banglashesh all rounder who captained them a whike back, if u want a guy that captained in test Cricket.

2. Ward was a decent keeper but struggled to hold the bat straight.

Looking at this side it makes me think that maybe bangladesh deserve to play test cricket as their side is not much worse then the RSA pre 1960. A lot of these guys were from the 1950s as well the 1900s.

I'll come back with a Bangladesh side later to prove my theory or see if im wrong.

 

[SJS]

1.
2. Ward was a decent keeper but struggled to hold the bat straight.
QUOTE]
Thats a problem.

The selected candidates have to be TERRIBLE in the area they are specialising in. I would prefer a keeper who cant even catch a cold in Alaska