1. They should have played as pure batsmen only.
3. The batting average is less 30.
And i could spot Mark Ramprakash and Roshan Mahanama , both have played 52 tests with an average of 27 and 29 respectively.
Interesting thread. Rampers came to mind when I read the criteria and sure enough you had him down there already. Can't think of anyone else off the top of my head.
Syd Gregory made a Test double century but still only averaged about 24 in his long career.
The thing is that is not that bad in New Zealand conditions.
Ramps came to my mind as soon as i saw the thread title.
Frankly i find it an achievement that a player with as much FC class as ramps manages to bat so badly in tests.
Zimbabweans had to fit the bill.
Example No. 378245285283823784526383568 why stats don't tell the whole story.
Syd Gregory averaged 24 in an era where, for the obvious reasons, his average would probably be worth at least 20 runs more in the modern era. Certainly, no-one else in his era played anywhere near 50 Tests so I think that says quite a bit.
Grant, no. He averaged 30+ his whole career before his last two tests, when he was horribly out of form, and most people reckoned he could have averaged 35+ were it not for injuries etc. dulling his effectiveness.
In Rutherford's case, he also had to overcome the horrible start he had in the West Indies.
Syd Gregory averaged 24 in an era where, for the obvious reasons, his average would probably be worth at least 20 runs more in the modern era.
Nonsense. If an average of 24 would be worth 44 in the modern era then the averages of his much more accomplished contemporaries Trumper and Hill (around 40) should be worth about 70 today, putting them way ahead of alltime greats like Hobbs, Richards and Tendulkar. General averages were indeed lower at the turn of the century but the fact remains that nearly all Gregory's contemporaries outscored him by quite some margin. Take a look at a typical Australian batting lineup of his time.
Lower yes but probably only by around 25% in comparison with modern sides of a similar standard, so I doubt Gregory's 'modern' average would exceed 30. Those averages are actually similar to the current New Zealand team and far superior to Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, although I admit that the Australian team of 100 years ago were probably superior to the current Bangladesh and Zimbabwe XIs, even allowing for the advances made in the game over the last century.
Certainly, no-one else in his era played anywhere near 50 Tests so I think that says quite a bit.
Garbage again, plenty of players in his era played nearly 50 matches. Here is the list of most capped Test players before WWI.
Last edited by a massive zebra; 11-11-2005 at 06:50 AM.
Some of these players where half decent, but the thread asked for worst players in terms of stats.
Last edited by chaminda_00; 10-11-2005 at 07:02 PM.
Without looking at the stats I think Ken Rutherford's first 25 matches were even less successful than those of the players you mentioned in the 25+ list.
And you missed this guy.
Last edited by a massive zebra; 10-11-2005 at 06:17 PM.