Who is the BIGGEST dud to play cricket for Australia?

[ubeauty]

Shaun Tait.

Yep ... 64 wickets in one Sheffield Shield season. A dud if I ever heard one

shield aint test......................check out his mininal test record........very ordinary

[bayman]

has anyone said greg campbell yet ?

[Adelaide Hawk]

A new contender has entered the ring .. Bryce McGain. If he has been getting wickets at Sheffield Shield level, the batsmen should be ashamed of themselves.

[ubeauty]

A new contender has entered the ring .. Bryce McGain. If he has been getting wickets at Sheffield Shield level, the batsmen should be ashamed of themselves.

and the blokes almost old enough to be my dad!!!!!........................

[bobster]

i think tait is a genuine oneday 20/20 cricketer... probs not a test player but i think he could work at it and make it again, definatley no DUD!

i reckon there would be a few from new south wales that get pick just because they play for the blues!

klinger shuold have playd or been named for the squad, but they always find some sack from nsw to play instead!

[Rik E Boy]

i think tait is a genuine oneday 20/20 cricketer... probs not a test player but i think he could work at it and make it again, definatley no DUD!

i reckon there would be a few from new south wales that get pick just because they play for the blues!

klinger shuold have playd or been named for the squad, but they always find some sack from nsw to play instead!

That's becuase we are the best. 45 Shields can't go wrong. A healthy district scene doesn't hurt either.

regards,

REB

[Media Park]

has anyone said greg campbell yet ?

i did bayman

[panther]

Some of the players listed in this thread only played a test match or 2
To be called duds is a bit unfair
Just about every one of these guys played test cricket because they had good to very good Sheild form.

Heres one for you all
A guy that played a test match and took 1 for a million on debut
Had the selectors discarded him and he slided into obsurity his career may have ended
The same bowler played a few tests before taking bags of wickets

Shane Keith Warne

ps I wish I was as good as any cricketer mentioned in this thread as duds

[Lightning McQueen]

Some of the players listed in this thread only played a test match or 2
To be called duds is a bit unfair
Just about every one of these guys played test cricket because they had good to very good Sheild form.

Heres one for you all
A guy that played a test match and took 1 for a million on debut
Had the selectors discarded him and he slided into obsurity his career may have ended
The same bowler played a few tests before taking bags of wickets

Shane Keith Warne

ps I wish I was as good as any cricketer mentioned in this thread as duds

Well maybe the selectors seen them as duds in the top level aswell to not be given another cap, they may have seen something special in Warney to persevere with him, I think it worked.

[bloods08]

Moses Henriques.

[Media Park]

Even though I've already said Greg Campbell, I do haev one out of left field...

I think, for an opening batsman, the following could be said;

average over 55: all time great
between 45 and 55: very good
between 40 and 45: fair enough
between 35 to 40: not good enough
below 35: dud.

One cricketer played exactly 50 tests for australia, scoring 2854 runs, at an average of 33, which makes him a dud.
Who am I talking about...?

[centrewing]

Even though I've already said Greg Campbell, I do haev one out of left field...

I think, for an opening batsman, the following could be said;

average over 55: all time great
between 45 and 55: very good
between 40 and 45: fair enough
between 35 to 40: not good enough
below 35: dud.

One cricketer played exactly 50 tests for australia, scoring 2854 runs, at an average of 33, which makes him a dud.
Who am I talking about...?

geoff marsh

[Media Park]

yup, and a dud i will always be convinced he was...

[ubeauty]

yup, and a dud i will always be convinced he was...

yeah he was average at best

[rod_rooster]

Even though I've already said Greg Campbell, I do haev one out of left field...

I think, for an opening batsman, the following could be said;

average over 55: all time great
between 45 and 55: very good
between 40 and 45: fair enough
between 35 to 40: not good enough
below 35: dud.

One cricketer played exactly 50 tests for australia, scoring 2854 runs, at an average of 33, which makes him a dud.
Who am I talking about...?

I think you need to take into account eras when using just averages to decide upon players. The modern day batsmen have a few more advantages than previous eras. You also need to take into account the quality of bowling attacks going around. Whilst Marsh's average off 33 is poor it was in a time when there was no-one better and he had to face some ferocious West Indies attacks. I would suggest that an average through the 70's and 80's is probably worth around 5 more if comparing to the modern era.

Smaller grounds (generally), better bats and protective equipment, changed rules for bowlers and more friendly batting wickets (generally) all contribute to making life much easier for batsmen now than they were 20-30 years ago. All in all it is difficult to rate players of any era based on purely their average. It doesn't tell the whole story.

[westcoastpanther]

I think you need to take into account eras when using just averages to decide upon players. The modern day batsmen have a few more advantages than previous eras. You also need to take into account the quality of bowling attacks going around. Whilst Marsh's average off 33 is poor it was in a time when there was no-one better and he had to face some ferocious West Indies attacks. I would suggest that an average through the 70's and 80's is probably worth around 5 more if comparing to the modern era.

Smaller grounds (generally), better bats and protective equipment, changed rules for bowlers and more friendly batting wickets (generally) all contribute to making life much easier for batsmen now than they were 20-30 years ago. All in all it is difficult to rate players of any era based on purely their average. It doesn't tell the whole story.

So how bloody good was the Don then.....

No other sportsperson in any sport has dominated their game like he did cricket.

[rod_rooster]

I think you need to take into account eras when using just averages to decide upon players. The modern day batsmen have a few more advantages than previous eras. You also need to take into account the quality of bowling attacks going around. Whilst Marsh's average off 33 is poor it was in a time when there was no-one better and he had to face some ferocious West Indies attacks. I would suggest that an average through the 70's and 80's is probably worth around 5 more if comparing to the modern era.

Smaller grounds (generally), better bats and protective equipment, changed rules for bowlers and more friendly batting wickets (generally) all contribute to making life much easier for batsmen now than they were 20-30 years ago. All in all it is difficult to rate players of any era based on purely their average. It doesn't tell the whole story.

So how bloody good was the Don then.....

No other sportsperson in any sport has dominated their game like he did cricket.

That's a good point. Bradman is so far ahead of anyone it is ridiculous. He not only outdid by a huge margin anyone in his own era but also those of any other era. His record will never be matched.

[ubeauty]

I think you need to take into account eras when using just averages to decide upon players. The modern day batsmen have a few more advantages than previous eras. You also need to take into account the quality of bowling attacks going around. Whilst Marsh's average off 33 is poor it was in a time when there was no-one better and he had to face some ferocious West Indies attacks. I would suggest that an average through the 70's and 80's is probably worth around 5 more if comparing to the modern era.

Smaller grounds (generally), better bats and protective equipment, changed rules for bowlers and more friendly batting wickets (generally) all contribute to making life much easier for batsmen now than they were 20-30 years ago. All in all it is difficult to rate players of any era based on purely their average. It doesn't tell the whole story.

So how bloody good was the Don then.....

No other sportsperson in any sport has dominated their game like he did cricket.

That's a good point. Bradman is so far ahead of anyone it is ridiculous. He not only outdid by a huge margin anyone in his own era but also those of any other era. His record will never be matched.

the greatest batsman to have ever lived, a record that will never to be matched......................imagine how big a star he would be today !!!!....

my grandfather saw him play in england in a test match and told me people where in total awe of him and his ability..........he said it was the most amazing experience of his life.................

[centrewing]

marsh also averaged 39 in ODIs

there is a guy who opens the batting for sri lanka hes scored over 13000 with 28 hundreds (2nd on the list behind tendulkar). hes been playing international cricket for 20 years and yet with an average of just 32 he fits the criteria of DUD.

Statistics dont tell the whole truth...

[Lightning McQueen]

No disrespect to "The Don" but he didn't have to face 7 foot West Indians throwing missile launchers down at him, I was never a big fan of Geoff Marsh but he did play in one of the toughest era's.