Worst bowler ever to play Test cricket?

Always thought this is an interesting one as the lists of poorest averages are dominated by players who played a couple of Tests, and batsmen who turned their arm over once in a while. In fact, the worst bowlers are probably those who were never actually trusted to deliver a ball, so we probably never got to see the bowling equivalent of Chris Martin's batting in action!

Anyway, here's a few names in the frame:
Worst average to bowl 2000 balls (Cricinfo "qualified" list) - "Ashocker" de Silva (8 wickets @ 129) - I'll leave you to decide if he was a better bowler or umpire!
Worst average to take 20 wickets: Ian Salisbury (20 @ 76.95)
Worst average to take 50 wickets: Mohammad Sami (84 @ 52.27)
Worst average to take 100 wickets: Carl Hooper (114 @ 49.42) - bit harsh as he was clearly a batting all-rounder.
Worst average to take 100 wickets (specialist bowler): Ashley Giles (143 @ 40.60)

However I think this man takes some beating. The fantastically named Roger Gerard Christopher Ediriweera Wijesuriya. 4 Tests for Sri Lanka in the early days as a specialist bowler, and took just one wicket in 586 deliveries at an average of 294. The highest bowling average in Test cricket history with no restrictions! According to cricinfo, if he bowled solidly for 5 days of a Test from both ends and the opposition didn't declare, they would end the match on 1355 for 4! Take a bow, Roger...

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/player/50855.html

Darren Pattinson? Picked on the basis of a couple of performances in early season conditions, at a time when we still thought that anything or anyone connected to Australia had to be some sort of cricketing messiah. Turned up, introduced himself awkwardly to his team-mates, and proceeded to prove he was completely out of his depth, with Michael Vaughan saying after the match that he hadn't wanted Pattinson in his side. (Vaughan fell on his sword a couple of weeks later)

Khaled Mahmud and Rawl Lewis were up there at one stage

Henry wrote:Darren Pattinson? Picked on the basis of a couple of performances in early season conditions, at a time when we still thought that anything or anyone connected to Australia had to be some sort of cricketing messiah. Turned up, introduced himself awkwardly to his team-mates, and proceeded to prove he was completely out of his depth, with Michael Vaughan saying after the match that he hadn't wanted Pattinson in his side. (Vaughan fell on his sword a couple of weeks later)

The Aussie Roofer was probably the worst single selection we've made, in terms of randomness, background and lack of foresight and consistency. Still took a couple of wickets at under 50 though! Sure we've picked a fair few bowlers of less talent than D-Patz, particularly in the 80s and 90s days of scraping the bottom of the county barrel on a regular basis.

Another nominee is Chris Schofield. In the words of Nasser Hussain, who was his Captain for his two test matches- "He couldn't bowl a hoop down a hill, and wasn't a particularly pleasant lad either."

Ouch.

Hard to assess the wicketless ones really - of course, an average of infinity can't be beaten but a lot of bowlers share it!

I'd really like to see us turn out an at least competent leg-spinner at Test level. Trouble is, every time a prospect appears he's hyped beyond belief and turns out even crappier than the last one.

Honorable mention for Bryce McGain.

One innings for 149 with An economy rate of 8.27

Nath wrote:Khaled Mahmud and Rawl Lewis were up there at one stage

Any "Lewis FFS" deserves a mention! Well, Chris had some talent but massively wasted it. And not sure Mick ever played a Test.

beamer wrote:Hard to assess the wicketless ones really - of course, an average of infinity can't be beaten but a lot of bowlers share it!

I'd really like to see us turn out an at least competent leg-spinner at Test level. Trouble is, every time a prospect appears he's hyped beyond belief and turns out even crappier than the last one.

Well they seem to have written off Adil Rashid already. England are terrified at the thought of a wrist spinner who might leak a few boundaries in the pursuit of wickets.

Oh, ad remember Scott Borthwick? He seems to have dropped off the face of the Earth as well. Samit Patel keeps it tight, so they go with him instead. And James f*cking Tredwell.

Mo Sami?

IDK Salisbury?

National Originality Day, Monkehh? They are both in the noms at the top of the thread.

Yeah, meant they weren't being maligned enough.

Well throw some shit then (*). It wasn't clear enough.


(*) at them preferably, not at me. I haven't bowled any Test-match wides.



It seems the s*** word has been released from tabboo status. No more "!" for the vowel.

That's old news. Dello got off his 'One Foot In The Grave' perch and decided that our fellow forummers wouldn't wither at the sight of an 'i'.

Well Sami had the tools, so that makes him doubly culpable for his shitness... he'd constantly waste the new ball and probably found a no-ball six to be a moral victory as it was bowled at 96.1 miles an hour. Possibly the bowling equivalent of Ian Bell.

Salisbury could clean up in CC, but when he got on the big stage he was all long-hops and full-tosses. Possibly the bowling equivalent of Ian Bell.

For players with more than one Test - Matthews, Chris - shit, absolute.

SGDT

i am sure we have a few candidates - vinay kumar, mithun, dodda ganesh, david johnson, noel david, etc etc etc

Possibly Harvinder Singh and TInu Yuhanan.

Brass Monkey wrote:That's old news. Dello got off his 'One Foot In The Grave' perch and decided that our fellow forummers wouldn't wither at the sight of an 'i'.

I never censored shit in the first place. It was Fromage who, upon taking charge, got weirdly puritanical over such benignities - including (I shit you not) "fart".

When has fart ever been censored anywhere?

Zut alors, indeed.

And the answer, as always with these things, is Ronnie Irani.

Because surely he wasn't selected for his batting. Same goes for Ben Hollioake. I know it's low to speak ill of the dead, but he was pants with the ball.

Henry wrote:Darren Pattinson? Picked on the basis of a couple of performances in early season conditions, at a time when we still thought that anything or anyone connected to Australia had to be some sort of cricketing messiah. Turned up, introduced himself awkwardly to his team-mates, and proceeded to prove he was completely out of his depth, with Michael Vaughan saying after the match that he hadn't wanted Pattinson in his side. (Vaughan fell on his sword a couple of weeks later)

Scapegoat.

He bowled all right. I don't think he was particularly "out of his depth". Just a desprate selection and an obvious target to blame for all England's shortcomings.

Seen plenty of worse bowling debuts. Mike Smith springs to mind. Matthew Hoggard didn't take a single wicket in his debut Test. I guess he was "out of his depth" too...?

Dello wrote:And the answer, as always with these things, is Ronnie Irani.

Because surely he wasn't selected for his batting. Same goes for Ben Hollioake. I know it's low to speak ill of the dead, but he was pants with the ball.

Oh yeah, the England "New Botham who can't bat or bowl" all-rounder, who existed from the late 80s until Freddie decided to break out of that particular club in about '02.

Can include Adam Hollioake as well as his late brother, also David Capel, Derek Pringle, sure there were a few more whose names escape me?

Dello wrote:

Henry wrote:Darren Pattinson? Picked on the basis of a couple of performances in early season conditions, at a time when we still thought that anything or anyone connected to Australia had to be some sort of cricketing messiah. Turned up, introduced himself awkwardly to his team-mates, and proceeded to prove he was completely out of his depth, with Michael Vaughan saying after the match that he hadn't wanted Pattinson in his side. (Vaughan fell on his sword a couple of weeks later)

Scapegoat.

He bowled all right. I don't think he was particularly "out of his depth". Just a desprate selection and an obvious target to blame for all England's shortcomings.

Seen plenty of worse bowling debuts. Mike Smith springs to mind. Matthew Hoggard didn't take a single wicket in his debut Test. I guess he was "out of his depth" too...?

Mike Smith? He had Matthew Elliott dropped in his second or third over. A sitter that Thorpey spilt at slip. Elliott went on to make 199. Could have been so different.....

But yes, he was pretty sh*thouse overall. A David Graveney 'sticking up for Gloucs' pick.

Hoggy was young when he made his debut, not a random wildcard pick from Australia who had had half a decent county season... I suppose Sidearse was similar, a wicketless debut but in his case he waited 6 years for another go, could have been on the TAYPOC list as well had the selectors not given him a belated second chance!