11 best bowlers v 11 best batsmen.

[Dayvo]

Above and beyond.

Slow day over there?

Kind of. Late night party at a distant hotel and just got home. The Test at Lord's isn't exactly keeping my interest - on cricbuzz, so I thought I'd fantasise with your post! Ooh err.

 

[Aravis]

I suggest a variation to the theme - 11 worst batsmen v 11 worst bowlers.

The undisputed two worst batsmen in Test match history are Bhagwat Chandrasekhar and Chris Martin, both of whom took comfortably more wickets than they scored runs. If that's the criterion for selection you won't get a team, but if you relax it a bit, so that comparative competents like Alan Mulally become available, you'll have quite a line-up.

For the opposition, you could look for the guys with the worst ever strike rate, in other words the most valiantly unsuccessful wicket-takers in history. I think you have to insist they took at least one wicket, or perhaps require them to have bowled more than a minimum number of balls, so that we know they really tried. I've no idea who's on this list.

 

[Salty seadog]

I suggest a variation to the theme - 11 worst batsmen v 11 worst bowlers.

The undisputed two worst batsmen in Test match history are Bhagwat Chandrasekhar and Chris Martin, both of whom took comfortably more wickets than they scored runs. If that's the criterion for selection you won't get a team, but if you relax it a bit, so that comparative competents like Alan Mulally become available, you'll have quite a line-up.

For the opposition, you could look for the guys with the worst ever strike rate, in other words the most valiantly unsuccessful wicket-takers in history. I think you have to insist they took at least one wicket, or perhaps require them to have bowled more than a minimum number of balls, so that we know they really tried. I've no idea who's on this list.

Oi!, Start your own thread....