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

[jimmy101]

Alick Bannerman holds the record for the lowest Test strike rate among batsmen with over 1,000 runs. His 22.3 is comfortably ahead of Trevor Bailey and Bob Taylor in second and third place, who scored at 26.5 and 27.1 respectively.

And to think, his brother Charlie holds all kinds of awesome records. Fist ball faced in Tests, first Test match 50, 100 & 150 ever, highest percentage of runs scored out of the team total in a Test innings, most runs by an Australian batsman in their debut Test.

Poor Alick.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Nah, Harmison was a very very good bowler for a brief period around 2003/4.......it was a totaly deserved ranking at the time.

I'm not sure if Mitch Johnson did make it to No 1 during that period he was great, but I assume he did? I'm sure there are plenty of players like these that climbed to the top of the rankings during brief periods of greatness, but when you look at their entire career you'd never speak of them in great terms. I'd doubt very much if Harmy is the worst of them.

Not saying he's a bad bowler. By design 'the worse to achieve something significant' have to be pretty decent. Maybe some historical rankings from before the official rankings went up might throw up worse bowlers.

 

[The Sean]

Nah, Harmison was a very very good bowler for a brief period around 2003/4.......it was a totaly deserved ranking at the time.

I'm not sure if Mitch Johnson did make it to No 1 during that period he was great, but I assume he did? I'm sure there are plenty of players like these that climbed to the top of the rankings during brief periods of greatness, but when you look at their entire career you'd never speak of them in great terms. I'd doubt very much if Harmy is the worst of them.

Mitch never made it to number 1 – number 2 was the highest he ever got.

Not saying he's a bad bowler. By design 'the worse to achieve something significant' have to be pretty decent. Maybe some historical rankings from before the official rankings went up might throw up worse bowlers.

The ranking system has been retrospectively applied to all Tests, so we do have a historic view. In the years immediately after WWII both Jack Cowie and Ernie Toshack made it to number one with very low ratings (500-600 mark), though with mitigating circumstances of short careers and years lost to the war. Both men probably belong in the previous discussion about best bowlers with fewer than 50 Test wickets as well.

Looking at bowlers with more complete careers, the 1970s threw up several bowlers who topped the rankings somewhat incongruously. Max Walker, Geoff Arnold and Ashley Mallett – each of whom hit number one – were all outstanding servants for their countries but it’s hard to think of them as ever having been the “best in the world.”

 

[Adders]

Saeed Ajmal. Pretty sure he was ranked no.1 at some stage and he couldn't even bowl. He just waddled in and threw it down the other end with an elbow bend of like 45 degrees

According to your protractor on the TV screen..........

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Harmison might have deserved his Number 1 ranking at the time he achieved it. But he could still be the worst bowler to have been Number 1 because someone has to be.

 

[Starfighter]

According to your protractor on the TV screen..........

Ahem... 40 degrees on average according to his official test if memory serves me right.

 

[wpdavid]

Looking at bowlers with more complete careers, the 1970s threw up several bowlers who topped the rankings somewhat incongruously. Max Walker, Geoff Arnold and Ashley Mallett – each of whom hit number one – were all outstanding servants for their countries but it’s hard to think of them as ever having been the “best in the world.”

I suppose Walker and Arnold may have briefly been the best out there when Lillee was injured, Imran was still very young, Tommo hadn't arrived, nor had Roberts, Holding and the rest of that generation of WI quicks, and Snow was out of favour with England's selectors. So we're talking 1973-74 here? Mallett's a strange one, tbh.

I suppose that Harmison's time at number 1 also happened post Ambrose, Walsh, Wasim and Waqar and before Steyn. Maybe McGrath was injured for a while?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Are the rankings that place Arnold and Mallett at Number 1 retrospectively calculated on the current system or based on something that was in place at the time? I don't see how that's possible unless it was during a period when there wasn't a lot of Test Cricket being played.

 

[The Sean]

I suppose Walker and Arnold may have briefly been the best out there when Lillee was injured, Imran was still very young, Tommo hadn't arrived, nor had Roberts, Holding and the rest of that generation of WI quicks, and Snow was out of favour with England's selectors. So we're talking 1973-74 here? Mallett's a strange one, tbh.

I suppose that Harmison's time at number 1 also happened post Ambrose, Walsh, Wasim and Waqar and before Steyn. Maybe McGrath was injured for a while?

Yeah Arnold hit number one in 1973 (and looking at the rankings at the time he seemed to do it among some quite strong competition), Walker hit top spot in 1974 when Lillee was out injured and he was leading the attack, and Mallett hit number one at the start of 1975 while Lillee and Thommo - among others - were still working their way up.

Interestingly (in the context of this discussion anyway) when Mallett hit number 1, numbers 2 and 3 were occupied by...Geoff Arnold and Max Walker!

Are the rankings that place Arnold and Mallett at Number 1 retrospectively calculated on the current system or based on something that was in place at the time? I don't see how that's possible unless it was during a period when there wasn't a lot of Test Cricket being played.

Retrospectively calculated on the current system as far as I am aware.

 

[Days of Grace]

Alick Bannerman holds the record for the lowest Test strike rate among batsmen with over 1,000 runs. His 22.3 is comfortably ahead of Trevor Bailey and Bob Taylor in second and third place, who scored at 26.5 and 27.1 respectively.

Records are not complete for strike-rates before 1980 so not sure about that. Charles Davis' scorecards give a very good indication though.

 

[mr_mister]

Darren Sammy the worst to hold the double of a 7fer and a century to his name?

Hell maybe the worst to have both a 5fer and a century to his name


he's no rounder with some pretty decent peaks but they were very, very spaced out

 

[mr_mister]

also, probably the worst AR to average over 20 with the bat and under 36 with the ball in tests

 

[morgieb]

I suppose Walker and Arnold may have briefly been the best out there when Lillee was injured, Imran was still very young, Tommo hadn't arrived, nor had Roberts, Holding and the rest of that generation of WI quicks, and Snow was out of favour with England's selectors. So we're talking 1973-74 here? Mallett's a strange one, tbh.

I suppose that Harmison's time at number 1 also happened post Ambrose, Walsh, Wasim and Waqar and before Steyn. Maybe McGrath was injured for a while?

Yeah IIRC he missed 10 months due to an ankle injury and also a few Tests in the West Indies because of his wife's illness. Barely played for 18 months which helped Harmy get to #1. Though I'm surprised he overtook Murali.

 

[Howe_zat]

Darren Sammy the worst to hold the double of a 7fer and a century to his name?

Hell maybe the worst to have both a 5fer and a century to his name


he's no rounder with some pretty decent peaks but they were very, very spaced out

Intikhab Alam enjoys a similar record to Sammy, albeit with a much more accomplished first class career.

 

[Kirkut]

Tendulkar has no 300, but Gayle already has 2 300s to his name. But then Gayle's not the worst either, different approach to the game compared to Tendulkar.

 

[Kirkut]

Couple which stand out to me are the likes of Warne, Tendulkar and Ponting not being on the Lord's Honour Board, but batting plonkers like Agarkar or Broad are there with hundreds.

There'll be a lot of those sort of things at individual ground I suppose, but that's one which stands out to me.

I fail to understand Lord's honour board obsession. It's the oldest ground, that's good but nothing more than that.

 

[S.Kennedy]

Harmy's main problem was he didn't travel well, averaging 28.47 home and 36.61 away, although he did have one good series in the West Indies. He had fitness and injury problems like Flintoff. England got a good three years out of the two of them (2003 - 05) and that was that really.

Last I checked, Harmison was managing Ashington Football Club!

 

[mr_mister]

Harold Larwood the best bowler to average over 28?

It's bloody crazy his average his higher than Gus Fraser's, no offence to Gus. Larwood has this amazing reputation and it just not sync up with the test stats



McDonald surely the best with an average over 33

 

[Howe_zat]

Harold Larwood the best bowler to average over 28?

It's bloody crazy his average his higher than Gus Fraser's, no offence to Gus. Larwood has this amazing reputation and it just not sync up with the test stats

McDonald surely the best with an average over 33

Well yeah, these are both players who you rate based on first class career rather than Tests. Nether were great Test bowlers.

The best bowlers in tests despite high averages are probably spinners who took shedloads of wickets but often had to pay for them. Herath and Kumble good shouts for a 28+ average, Vettori and Sobers for 33+.

 

[mr_mister]

well I mean i'm no expert but it feels like nearly every semi famous pre war test bowler had amazing FC stats. Larwood still seemed like he's held in a higher regard than the norm, and it's certainly for his test exploits as much as anything. Being part of bodyline I guess helps cement a reputation