Who is the BIGGEST dud to play cricket for Australia?

[centrewing]

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.

true but how many other batsman averaged 99...im sure if he faced the windies in the 80s he still wouldve averaged a heap better than everyone else. he still managed an average of 56 in bodyline which is a pretty decent effort

[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.

true but how many other batsman averaged 99...im sure if he faced the windies in the 80s he still wouldve averaged a heap better than everyone else. he still managed an average of 56 in bodyline which is a pretty decent effort

He is undoubtedly in a league of his own, I'm not disputing that, there is no possible way of comparing how he'd go against the Windies of the 80's so everything is hypothetical. He can take his 99 average and keep it in the record books because it happened, irrespective of the oppositions capabilities through the eyes of others.

[BL&G_Ump]

[quote="Rik E Boy]
That's becuase we are the best. 45 Shields can't go wrong. A healthy district scene doesn't hurt either.

regards,

REB[/quote]

settle down, the SA district/grade cricket scene isn't bad, probably on par with anywhere else, aprt from Prospect of course...

regards,
Ump

[Media Park]

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...

that's his odi stats isn't it???
playing most of his career when a score closer to 200 was defendable, compared to the often required 300 that his career is finsihing at, is a definite factor, and he would have a strike rate that would s### over Marsh...
Added to that, STATISTICALLY speaking, look at his bowling figures...

Marsh's batting might've been more acceptable if he could have counteracted it with useful bowling.....

And I reckon Jayasuriya averages 39-40 in Tests...

[Media Park]

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.

true but how many other batsman averaged 99...im sure if he faced the windies in the 80s he still wouldve averaged a heap better than everyone else. he still managed an average of 56 in bodyline which is a pretty decent effort

Uncovered wickets of the 30's and 40's would have been more influential than an WIndian quick.... Maybe excluding Malcolm Marshall

[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.

true but how many other batsman averaged 99...im sure if he faced the windies in the 80s he still wouldve averaged a heap better than everyone else. he still managed an average of 56 in bodyline which is a pretty decent effort

Uncovered wickets of the 30's and 40's would have been more influential than an WIndian quick.... Maybe excluding Malcolm Marshall

Yeah, Ambrose, Garner, Holding, Patterson and Walsh were nothing. I'd rate 4 of them over Marshall straight away and I stick by my initial post, the 80's would've been the toughest era for an Aussie batsman.

[Rik E Boy]

Out of all of those bowlers Holding, Garner and Ambrose are the equal of Marshall and all are ahead of Walsh. Patterson is not fit to be included in the same class as these other bowlers. It is very tough to determine which of these West Indians were the best overall as they hunted in packs. Garner and Ambrose were similar as they used their freakish height to extract lift from the wicket. Holding got his pace as a result of a beautiful athletic approach and the smoothest bowling action I've ever seen. Marshall was a shorter man who charged into the wicket but had a bit more variation and was also a skidding type of bowler with a low centre of gravity.

Walsh was no dud of course and his gift to the Windies was his ability to bowl into the wind for extended periods. He proved towards the end of his career though that he could be just as deadly with the wind at his back. Patterson was a bowler who was a bit like Croft. Perhaps a bit more keen to knock your block off than actually take your wicket.

There's no doubt that the West Indian attack was the deadliest of all time but they were only bowling pretend bodyline. Bradman faced the real thing against Larwood, Voce, Bowes who were also backed up by Gubby Allen who did not bowl bodyline.

regards,

REB

[Rik E Boy]

settle down, the SA district/grade cricket scene isn't bad, probably on par with anywhere else, aprt from Prospect of course...

regards,
Ump

That is why the Jellybacks are always so competitive in the Shield. That's right, it's all Prospect's fault LOL.

regards,

REB

[panther]

If Bradman faced those combination 4 West Indian quicks in the 80s his average against them would only be about half [ave 49 not 99 ]

[the joker]

If Bradman faced those combination 4 West Indian quicks in the 80s his average against them would only be about half [ave 49 not 99 ]

you cant know that, people in the 80s didnt face Harold Larwood. and the older people around say he is still the best bowler they have seen

[rod_rooster]

Out of all of those bowlers Holding, Garner and Ambrose are the equal of Marshall and all are ahead of Walsh. Patterson is not fit to be included in the same class as these other bowlers. It is very tough to determine which of these West Indians were the best overall as they hunted in packs. Garner and Ambrose were similar as they used their freakish height to extract lift from the wicket. Holding got his pace as a result of a beautiful athletic approach and the smoothest bowling action I've ever seen. Marshall was a shorter man who charged into the wicket but had a bit more variation and was also a skidding type of bowler with a low centre of gravity.

Walsh was no dud of course and his gift to the Windies was his ability to bowl into the wind for extended periods. He proved towards the end of his career though that he could be just as deadly with the wind at his back. Patterson was a bowler who was a bit like Croft. Perhaps a bit more keen to knock your block off than actually take your wicket.

There's no doubt that the West Indian attack was the deadliest of all time but they were only bowling pretend bodyline. Bradman faced the real thing against Larwood, Voce, Bowes who were also backed up by Gubby Allen who did not bowl bodyline.

regards,

REB

One of the best posts i have seen on this site

[panther]

If Bradman faced those combination 4 West Indian quicks in the 80s his average against them would only be about half [ave 49 not 99 ]

you cant know that, people in the 80s didnt face Harold Larwood. and the older people around say he is still the best bowler they have seen

I gotcha !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Don was a pensioner in the eighties if he faced those 4 Windies quickies

[the joker]

If Bradman faced those combination 4 West Indian quicks in the 80s his average against them would only be about half [ave 49 not 99 ]

you cant know that, people in the 80s didnt face Harold Larwood. and the older people around say he is still the best bowler they have seen

I gotcha !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Don was a pensioner in the eighties if he faced those 4 Windies quickies

[Pidge]

Phil Hughes

[NFC]

Your posting has been pathetic lately.

[Pidge]

Your posting has been pathetic lately.

Who?

[wycbloods]

Phil Hughes

That is not funny in the slightest and shows your complete lack of understanding of the game of cricket.

[LaughingKookaburra]

tell you what Don Bradman batted on shite decks that were not covered and still faced blokes who could bowl quick. Not to mention he only saw them each time he played them and could not really study them as there was no television. Don't kid yourself panther, he was unreal and saying he would have an average of 49 rather than 99 is an un-educated cricket comment imo. what if he had todays training or equipment??

[ubeauty]

greatest batsman ever Bradman.....

greatest West Indian Attack....

Joel Garner
Andy Roberts
Michael Holding
Colin Croft

statistically these bowlers each averaged over 4 wks per test at around 20 - 25 p /w....not bad hey???

marshall has one of the best averages in the modern game well in the low 20's and batted high 20's.................

but the greatest allrounder in the modern game Imran Khan batting average around 37, bowling approx 4.5wks per test @ 24 approx...........quite incredible.............and equal or better than any other allrounder the game has ever seen.....................

[wycbloods]

greatest batsman ever Bradman.....

greatest West Indian Attack....

Joel Garner
Andy Roberts
Michael Holding
Colin Croft

statistically these bowlers each averaged over 4 wks per test at around 20 - 25 p /w....not bad hey???

marshall has one of the best averages in the modern game well in the low 20's and batted high 20's.................

but the greatest allrounder in the modern game Imran Khan batting average around 37, bowling approx 4.5wks per test @ 24 approx...........quite incredible.............and equal or better than any other allrounder the game has ever seen.....................

Although i didn't see much of Imran Khan and those stats are fantastic does Jacques Kallis' stats rate him as the greatest modern day allrounder the game has seen?

9988 runs @ 54.57
252 wickets @ 31.12
139 catches

That is a pretty hard record to beat and rates him as the no 1 allrounder of the modern era IMO.