Worst cricketer to play 100 tests

[Frustrated]

Hahane has played 82 tests.  So, by the end of 2022, he will be the undisputed winner of this title.     Easily surpassing Ishant.

[Vijy]

8 hours ago, Frustrated said:

Hahane has played 82 tests.  So, by the end of 2022, he will be the undisputed winner of this title.     Easily surpassing Ishant.

They will both be pretty close: they had 3-4 yr periods where they were excellent, and were mediocre otherwise.

[neel roy]

On 1/9/2022 at 5:23 PM, Trichromatic said:

 

Which current crop?

 

Pujara has 5, Rahane has 4, KL Rahul has 4, Pant has 2 centuries in SENA and none of their careers is over.

 

Also none of them scored centuries against greats bowlers like Peter Martin, Allan Mullaly, Chris Lewis, Dominic Cork, Min Patel, Mark Elham, Simon Doull, Chris Cairns, Dion Nash, Hoggard, Caddick, Tudor, Giles, Bracken and Andy Bichel and Gillespie.

 

They got their centuries against average bowlers like Cummins, Hazlewood, Steyn, peak Anderson, peak Broad, Rabada, Ryan Harris, Starc etc.

 

Yes current crop only dream of those.

really. You still think their career not over. 

[mishra]

Ishant Sharma then daylight And then no one. Every player other then Sharmaji has made serious contribution to their team success.

 

Allthough, In his defence we can say that India is not pace frndly and he was allways thord bowler and occasionally fourth choice of skipper

Edited January 13, 2022 by mishra

[Majestic]

Bump!

 

Johnny Bairstow (85 tests) AVG 34

Kraigg Braithwaite (77 tests) AVG 34

Ajinkya Rahane (82 tests) AVG 38

 

Bairstow after that knock will get a long run now for sure.

 

[zen]

If a bad cricketer is playing 100 tests, it could mean a) other options are even worse, b) the team backs the player for his potential or certain qualities to play a role, and c) selectors are not proactive 

 

One cannot be terming someone as best or worst, purely based on #s (a lazy exercise that benefits no one) unless there is a substantial gap b/w the player & his peers. One needs to consider conditions too -> a domestic batsman in NZ avg 35 could be as good as a domestic batsman averaging 60 in India. An opener in Eng averaging 40 could be as one averaging 56 in Ind! 

 

 

[Jay]

12 hours ago, zen said:

If a bad cricketer is playing 100 tests, it could mean a) other options are even worse, b) the team backs the player for his potential or certain qualities to play a role, and c) selectors are not proactive 

 

One cannot be terming someone as best or worst, purely based on #s (a lazy exercise that benefits no one) unless there is a substantial gap b/w the player & his peers. One needs to consider conditions too -> a domestic batsman in NZ avg 35 could be as good as a domestic batsman averaging 60 in India. An opener in Eng averaging 40 could be as one averaging 56 in Ind! 

 

 

Also s Africa. 

Domestic averaging 38-40 in s.a is as good as 50 in India. 

However Elgar and many saffer openers have struggled in India too as an opener. 

[Vijy]

On 6/16/2022 at 11:10 AM, Jay said:

Also s Africa. 

Domestic averaging 38-40 in s.a is as good as 50 in India. 

However Elgar and many saffer openers have struggled in India too as an opener. 

elgar can't play spin for toffee. karunaratne is the closest to an all-conditions opener even though he has his share of issues.

[DeepSpace]

If a batsman has played 100 tests and his average is less than 40, then he is a baaaad maaaan!

 

If a bowler has played 100 tests and his average is above 30, then he is a baaaad maaaan!

 

If an allrounder has played 100 tests, and his bowling average is above 35 AND batting average is below 35, then he is a baaaaaaaaaad maaaaaaaaan!

 

That's my standard and I am sticking to it!  

[Vijy]

7 hours ago, DeepSpace said:

If a batsman has played 100 tests and his average is less than 40, then he is a baaaad maaaan!

 

If a bowler has played 100 tests and his average is above 30, then he is a baaaad maaaan!

 

If an allrounder has played 100 tests, and his bowling average is above 35 AND batting average is below 35, then he is a baaaaaaaaaad maaaaaaaaan!

 

That's my standard and I am sticking to it!  

40 avg was not easy to achieve in 80s/90s and then in 2020s. bowling friendly pitches + good bowlers. Below 40 is not good, but if it's 37-39, it is at least acceptable IMO