screwed over cricketers

  • We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.

The Gronk

Bencher
Just wondering who the most screwed over cricketers have been - those who were great players but couldn't get in the team because of bad timing with a great being in front of them, or because they didn't fit in with the 'in' crowd. 

I would suggest:

1 Brad Hodge (dropped after making a double ton, and how he isn't in the side for one form of the game is beyond me)
.
.
.
.
.
2 Stuart MacGill (would have got 500 wickets if warne wasn't around, 300 if he liked beer instead of shiraz.  200 not a bad effort though.) 

3 Darren Lehmann (had the Waughs in front of him in the middle order)

4 Phil Jaques (came along right when Hayden and Langer were firing)

5 Damien Martyn (got dropped for 6 years for one bad shot)
 
Martin Love > Hodge. Hodge unlucky, but he's a Victard, so I don't give a sh*t.

MacGill #1 for sure.

Bevan somewhere.
 
Plenty of guys from the 90's. Lehmann and MacGill the most unfortunate I think.

Hodge should be in the current T20 side.

Chris Rogers apparently didn't fit in when he got a chance.

Simon Katich got screwed over a couple times, once to fit Andrew Symonds in to the side.

Matthew Elliott was gone after the collision with Mark Waugh.

Jamie Siddons and Jamie Cox another couple.

Jo Angel had a good record but only played a handful of matches.

Kasprowics and Bichel probably unlucky not to play more.
 
Mata will be here soon pushing Stuart Law's barrow.

Lehmann probably a bit unlucky, Hodge as well. Bevan had his chances but didn't make the most of them. MacGill wasn't a patch on Warne.

Some good names there and probably little doubt that Australia could have fielded a 2nd XI that would have been pretty competitive in it's heyday. However you be hard up arguing a case that the incumbents didn't deserve their spots over the contenders in most cases. The only player lucky to hold down a regular test spot who didn't deserve it was Symonds IMO.
 
Martyn should be in the lucky catagory, played a good 18 months but outside that did poorly.

Hodge has an average of 30 without his 200 so its understandable that he didnt get much more of a go.

Magill is top of my list.

Agree that Bichel and Kasper could have played more during a different era.
 
Chip & Chase link said:
Mata will be here soon pushing Stuart Law's barrow.
  Naturally.  Law played one test and hit an uneaten half century for no average.  Consigned to ignominy behind a bookies' mate that continually threw away his wicket but had a talented brother. 

Hayden getting passed over for several years for a player that averaged 40 in a Test series, all because he didn't fire in a one day game in 1993.  If he gets the same level of patience shown Slater he would be the highest scorer of all time around about now. 

Jamie Simmonds is right up there.  How did Blewett play ahead of him?

Graeme Hicks may have had an interesting career had Zimbabwe achieved Test status earlier.  When he finally made the Poms side the expectations were beyond huge and Warne and mates had him for dinner.  He'd have had an easier ride from them in a red cap as they would not have been as up for a game against Zimbabwe.  I watched Hicks carve up the Australian U21s attack when he was 17. 
 
who is Jamie Simmonds? if you are talkign about Siddons (which I assume you are) he was 12th man in a test and then got sick with something debilitating, CFS or Glandular fever springs to mind but I am not sure. After that he seemd to be passed over a bit and never got a look in.

And I'd have thought you would know it was Graeme Hick, not Hicks

And he was a flat track bully, but good to watch when on.
 
Mcgill deserved more of a chance, but he was no where near the quality of Warney, it will be a long time until we see anyone as good as warney was, even if they don't get his record, he was something special leg spin wise.
 
Lee is ****. he doesn't even deliver when conditions are perfect. Most over rated fast bowler since McDermott

Has had 6 good months in a 10 year career.
 
Matabele link said:
[quote author=Chip & Chase link=topic=182396.msg251126#msg251126 date=1265519557]
Mata will be here soon pushing Stuart Law's barrow.
  Naturally.  Law played one test and hit an uneaten half century for no average.  Consigned to ignominy behind a bookies' mate that continually threw away his wicket but had a talented brother. 

Hayden getting passed over for several years for a player that averaged 40 in a Test series, all because he didn't fire in a one day game in 1993.  If he gets the same level of patience shown Slater he would be the highest scorer of all time around about now. 

Jamie Simmonds is right up there.  How did Blewett play ahead of him?

Graeme Hicks may have had an interesting career had Zimbabwe achieved Test status earlier.  When he finally made the Poms side the expectations were beyond huge and Warne and mates had him for dinner.  He'd have had an easier ride from them in a red cap as they would not have been as up for a game against Zimbabwe.  I watched Hicks carve up the Australian U21s attack when he was 17. 


[/quote]

Haha, Graeme Hicks, Jamie Simmonds, Stuart Law > Mark Waugh. Too funny.
 
Lee was quick and like league there is no substitute for speed.

Him and warny have been the most entertaining bowlers over the last 10 years by a mile
 
Entertaining doesnt necessarily mean good.

Style over substance for Binga. at least Warne had the ability to back it up.
 
Nah Law was hard done by, you are right there.

And McGill was an outstanding bowler and a reasonable human being, only problem was in front of him was the best slow bowler of all time, who was far from a passable human being.

But if your character was taken into account Mandella would have played more tests than Cronje ):
 

Staff online

Team P W L PD Pts
6 5 1 59 12
6 5 1 20 12
6 4 2 53 10
6 4 2 30 10
7 4 2 25 9
7 4 3 40 8
7 4 3 24 8
7 4 3 -8 8
7 4 3 -18 8
7 3 3 20 7
7 3 4 31 6
7 3 4 17 6
6 2 4 -31 6
7 3 4 -41 6
7 2 5 -29 4
6 1 5 -102 4
6 0 6 -90 2
Back
Top Bottom