Worst Test Cricketers of All Time

[NZTailender]

As much as I was a fan for a while, Jamie How should be in contention. 19 tests, 4 fifties and an average of 22.

That said, Blair Pocock has an equally average record.

New Zealand openers, eh.

 

[Maximas]

As much as I was a fan for a while, Jamie How should be in contention. 19 tests, 4 fifties and an average of 22.

Lahiru Thirimanne type record that

 

[Daemon]

Lahiru Thirimanne type record that

Can't pick him after the recent chase I'm afraid.

 

[Starfighter]

That said, Blair Pocock has an equally average record.

New Zealand openers, eh.

Speaking of Blairs, Hartland should get a look in too.

 

[Flem274*]

90s nz openers

james marshall the clear stand out batsman here just for how bad of a pick it was. 7 tests to average 19 and 148 fc matches to average a whopping 31. i remember it being in the 20s when he was selected to replace stephen fleming at #3

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Bancroft and Roy play the entire series currently then they will be in the mix.

 

[MrPrez]

This is the correct answer.

Mohammed Sami in the same discussion.

36 matches, 85 wickets, at 52.7. Batted like a champ to get 11.59 though.

Sami should get bonus points considering he managed to average under 30 with the ball in ODIs.

 

[Starfighter]

Rubel Hossain: 26 matches, 33 wickets at 80.33, batting average 9.96.

 

[quincywagstaff]

Daren Powell a standout modern selection. Can't believe he managed to play 37 Tests considering not only did he have an atrocious record but he never looked particularly promising either. At least Sami looked dangerous at times.

 

[MrPrez]

We should exclude Bangladesh and Zim players from the 00s imo. Otherwise it's just 10 of them.

 

[quincywagstaff]

Poor McGain. Gets picked for his only test while he was injured and never gets another shot (He retired soon after tbf). Was pretty good at the domestic level.

Re: McGain, as badly as his stats were he wasn't handled well by Ponting (a common weakness of his captaincy). Was given a couple of overs on Day 1 (Oz batted first and were out cheaply) and it was eons before he got another over when SA were 2/192 after 55 overs. If you're going to be treated like an afterthought against a well-set batting lineup on your debut it invariably shows in your results.

Having said that, McGain didn't help himself by missing the flight to SA which from what I've heard put him offside with the leadership in the team.

 

[a massive zebra]

Rubel Hossain: 26 matches, 33 wickets at 80.33, batting average 9.96.

Most of the other contenders were at least moderately successful in first class cricket and simply couldn't make the step up to Test cricket, but Rubel averages almost 60 even at first class level! He is proof that pace alone, unless combined with accuracy, bounce, movement or a bowling brain, is not enough to get Test players out.

 

[Flametree]

Was Marc71178 really allowed to get away with picking George Lohmann? Yes his batting average of 8.87 was nothing to write home about, but I'd have thought 112 wickets at 10 point something would take you out of contention for worst player ever...

 

[marc71178]

Under the draft rules (and we all know exactly how much the serious drafters love their rules) he qualified as a specialist batsman so I selected him as such.

 

[a massive zebra]

Under the draft rules (and we all know exactly how much the serious drafters love their rules) he qualified as a specialist batsman so I selected him as such.

Lohmann may technically have met the draft rules, but his selection was not really in keeping with the spirit of the draft. Here is a quote from the opening post:

Of course, it would be theoretically possible to select a horrific XI simply by selecting 11 bowlers who were rabbit batsmen, or by selecting 11 rubbish batsmen. But there would be little skill or enjoyment in this, and it is not really consistent with the spirit of this draft. I would prefer to give this draft some sort of credibility by implementing certain restrictions to ensure the team could actually have been selected, namely:

1. Each team must include:
- At least six batsmen who played at least 50% of their innings in the top 7 of the batting order. These six batsmen must bat in the top 7 of your batting order.
- At least one designated wicket keeper who made a Test stumping.
- At least four bowlers who bowled an average of at least 150 balls per Test.

2. Only players who have played a minimum 10 Tests are eligible.
3. Unlike with most drafts, Don Bradman definitely IS eligible!

I’m happy to make slight tweaks to the above criteria in line with a general consensus, but the fundamental principles must remain the same: The objective is to select the worst possible XI among those who were given a fair trial at Test cricket (no one Test wonders), and the XI must be one which could actually have been selected by selectors with the best interests of their team in mind (so it must include several top order batsman, a wicket keeper, and a few real bowlers).

George Lohmann would not have been selected as a specialist batsman by a sane selector with the best interests of his team in mind.

 

[morgieb]

I'm actually surprised Lohmann was picked so much as an all-rounder. Certainly I had him down as a 100% specialist bowler.

 

[Starfighter]

A first class batting average of 18.67 was definitely an allrounder in that era.

 

[Test_Fan_Only]

Mathieson was somewhat of a Mike Whitney type situation, few injuries to the touring squad leave them short a bowler, just pick the nearest eligible player available.

John Watkins a name that springs to mind. A leggie who hadn't even been a NSW regular, was picked against Pakistan pretty much directly from Newcastle club cricket. Bowled about half a dozen overs where he barely hit the cut surface, but he did make a 36 that turned out to be very important for the game. Was taken to the Caribbean where his form didn't improve, was not risked in any of the tests, before fading back in to the obscurity from which he came from

Shaun Young played 1 test because he happened to be handy for the final Ashes test in 1997 when Australia needed a bowler and a batting all rounder had to do.

 

[a massive zebra]

A first class batting average of 18.67 was definitely an allrounder in that era.

I'm pretty sure I read a contemporary article claiming if he had been no bowler, Lohmann would have made the Surrey side for his batting and fielding alone.

Plum Warner, writing in The Cricketer on 25 August 1925, said of Lohmann's fielding:

Many great slip fieldsmen have appeared since his day but never a greater, his activity being cat-like, and his hands extremely safe.

In Cricket, his autobiographical book of 1891, W.G. Grace described Lohmann's fielding as:

a marvel: he seems to be able to get to everything within six feet of him; and everything he can reach he can hold. Time after time I have seen him go head over heels in trying for an almost impossible catch; but rarely if ever did he loose hold of the ball.

Henry Wood, the Surrey wicket keeper of Lohmann's time was perhaps better qualified to comment on Lohmann's fielding than most. In W.A. Bettesworth's Chats on the Cricket Field, published in 1894, he said:

Men like Lohmann are like cats, and in addition to taking what comes straight to them manage somehow or other to bring off the most astounding catches. Lohmann had a way of throwing himself at the ball, and seemed to be able to stretch almost any distance. He would sometimes throw himself right off his feet and land on his knees, and make a catch which no other man would have thought of. I have sometimes wondered whether his illness is not partly caused by the great strain which he must often have put upon himself at slip.

Lohmann's reputation as a fielder was such that he was invited to contribute a feature to the 1893 edition of Wisden, titled A Few Words on Fielding.

 

[Test_Fan_Only]

Victor Richardson could be a contender given his test record was terrible only averaging 23.53 despite captaining the side.