Comments on: Which Test cricketer was the biggest burden to their side?

By: wolf

wolf — Sun, 10 May 2020 06:34:20 +0000

Mitchell Johnson in the 2009 Ashes.

By: Collywobble

Collywobble — Sat, 02 May 2020 21:33:26 +0000

In reply to King Cricket.

It´s always a good time to rewatch the Chris Martin learn how to bat tutorial.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_NsFh-Z4aE

By: Aditya

Aditya — Fri, 01 May 2020 07:51:56 +0000

In reply to Marees. Only Akmal still fits the bill. Johnson was extremely effective in the 13/14 Ashes in Australia, Smith has a batting average into the 60s, and Sharma has been part of the most effective pace attack in the world over the past two years (242 wickets at 21 a piece with a strike rate of 42).

By: Marees

Marees — Thu, 30 Apr 2020 20:19:42 +0000

In reply to Bail-out. The top suggestion was Ishant Sharma Others considered were Mitchell Johnson & Steve Smith Kamran Akmal (a decent bat) but extremely poor keeper

By: Bail-out

Bail-out — Thu, 30 Apr 2020 12:29:12 +0000

An old thread that’s worth a re-read is https://www.kingcricket.co.uk/an-important-seat-has-become-vacant/2013/10/16/

We sometimes find need to call upon the person sitting in a seat which could be labelled: ‘Terrible cricketer who somehow keeps getting recalled to play for his country even though he is almost entirely without ability and there are plenty of better options available’.

Up until this week, that seat was occupied by Ajit Agarkar. But alas, no longer, for he has retired from cricket many years too late.

Which occasional international cricketer could possibly replace him?

The comments section is excellent but I’m biased as I wrote a good proportion of it building my case that Stuart Matsikinyeri deserved the title.

By: King Cricket

King Cricket — Thu, 30 Apr 2020 11:01:52 +0000

In reply to Ritesh Banglani. Thanks for sharing that. The CS Nayudu stuff was worth it in itself, but we're always up for slamming Ajit Agarkar's Test record too.

By: Ritesh Banglani

Ritesh Banglani — Thu, 30 Apr 2020 10:26:38 +0000

After reading this article, I just had to do a similar analysis of Indian test cricketers. Surprisingly, Indian selectors have largely been rational about how long a career they gave to non-performers.

The worst I could find was CS Nayudu, a specialist bowler with an average of 179.50. His career spanned 11 test matches, which seems roughly 10 too many, given he took a grand total of 2 wickets in his test career. The length of his career may have had something to do with him being the brother of CK Nayudu, India’s first test captain and perhaps its first cricket celebrity.

The only other bowler who comes close is Ajit Agarkar (bowling average 47.32 in 26 tests), but he made a 100 at Lords and also won India a test match in Australia, so all is forgiven.

Among the specialist batsmen, WV Raman perhaps stands out with an average of 24.88, but he only got 11 tests spread over a decade so he was indeed a backup batsman for all but his first couple of matches.

Thanks for pushing me down this rabbit hole though. It has been a thoroughly enjoyable exercise.

By: sam

sam — Thu, 30 Apr 2020 08:46:11 +0000

In reply to Ged Ladd. Hardcore.

By: Ged Ladd

Ged Ladd — Wed, 29 Apr 2020 20:43:12 +0000

Ah, Rubel again, he of the “Happy/Rubel story”…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubel_Hossain

… the antepenultimate paragraph of his “international career” as documented on Wikipedia above. A gift that keeps on giving, that story. And his averages.

By: King Cricket

King Cricket — Wed, 29 Apr 2020 11:39:42 +0000

In reply to A P Webster.

Yes, more than a run an innings – 123 runs in 104 innings.

Suppose if you’re Chris Martin one thick edge effectively sustains you for the next four knocks.