A definition of minnows

[Uppercut]

Jesus Christ, Bangladesh really are far, far beyond awful.

 

[Richard]

why aren't england on the list? there was a time when we were happy (ecstatic) to beat ANYONE.

Probably because that period only encompassed half a decade (1986-1989), and during the earlier part of that decade (1980-1985) England were actually pretty damn successful. This analysis is done on the basis of entire decades; if it were done on half-decades England certainly would be in there in the second half of the 1980s.

 

[Top_Cat]

 

[Richard]

Was that Laugh smiley aimed at my above post or the thread in general?

 

[Zinzan]

Was that Laugh smiley aimed at my above post or the thread in general?

Paranoia aye

 

[Migara]

Well, by definition ENG and AUS are not minnows, as they did not play against sides who were established by then, although I see the point that Richard makes.

 

[zaremba]

Paranoia aye

Leave me alone

 

[Richard]

Paranoia aye

Inquesitiveness more like.

 

[Sir Alex]

A nice analysis Migara. Thanks! Richard I think England was a mediocre side in the 90s also right? They went winter after winter without really doing anything overseas.

 

[Jarquis]

Leave me alone

 

[Furball]

A nice analysis Migara. Thanks! Richard I think England was a mediocre side in the 90s also right? They went winter after winter without really doing anything overseas.

If that's your criteria then that also makes India pretty mediocre as well.

 

[silentstriker]

Mediocre would not be the proper word to use to describe India overseas in the 90s.

 

[Richard]

Richard I think England was a mediocre side in the 90s also right? They went winter after winter without really doing anything overseas.

England have been a thoroughly mediocre side in the 1990s and 2000s - have had lengthy periods of being poor and the odd very short period of being excellent - but they were at least better throughout both decades than they were in the second half of the 1980s.

If there was ever a time to question England's Test status, it'd be the second half of the 1980s, not the 1990s or 2000s.

 

[Sir Alex]

England have been a thoroughly mediocre side in the 1990s and 2000s - have had lengthy periods of being poor and the odd very short period of being excellent - but they were at least better throughout both decades than they were in the second half of the 1980s.

If there was ever a time to question England's Test status, it'd be the second half of the 1980s, not the 1990s or 2000s.

In the 90s they won away series only 2 times both against NZ and lost 11 series away. That is astoundingly mediocre stuff. India however takes the cake with 11 away losses (incl ZImbabwe) and just a solitary series win in Sri Lanka.

 

[Richard]

In the 90s they won away series only 2 times both against NZ and lost 11 series away.

And in the second half of the 1980s they played just 4 away series, the 1st of which was a Blackwash, the 2nd of which was a victory in Australia (who were every bit as bad as NZ were in 1996/97 and quite a bit worse than they were in 1991/92), and the other 2 of which were comprehensive outplayings (only one of which ended in defeat) in Pakistan and NZ. They were then saved from what would pretty well certainly have been a hammering in India when the tour was cancelled on political grounds.

What people should remember too is that away series' are not the only ones. England at home were utterly hammered in every single series in the latter 1980s; in the 1990s they were defeated comprehensively only by Australia (1993) and Pakistan (1996); they also lost close-fought encounters which could easily have gone the other way to Pakistan (1992), Australia (1997) and New Zealand (1999).

Make utterly no mistake, England were far, far worse in the second half of the '80s than they ever, ever came close to being in the '90s. In the '90s and the following decade England have been a mediocre mid-table Test team, but none of this comes close to being substandard.