PhoenixFire
International Coach
Adelaide 2006/7.
I felt like jumping off a bridge.
I felt like jumping off a bridge.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
The nadir of each test side
- Thread starter cover drive man
- Start date
PhoenixFire
International Coach
It was just how we had played to well, just to go and throw it all away. That is worse than simply playing badly all the way through and getting trounced IMO.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Far worse. It was an awful defeat, and I've rarely if ever felt more FFS
ish after a Test. The dropped catch annoyed me more than the fifth-day batting collapse (which was started, let's not forget, by a bad Umpiring decision and an unneccessary run-out which makes it even worse). There was just so much that could so easily have changed the outcome of that match.
But it felt almost as bad with the game at Bourda in 1998, which was the most disgraceful case of toss-decides-match I've ever seen. Basically, after we'd scrapped it to 1-1 in the opening two Tests, WI were gifted the Third on the toss of a coin. And the fact we were then deprived of another victory in the Fourth by rain, then lost the Fifth with a batting collapse (at The ARG of all places FFS! The flattest pitch in history) almost as bad as Adelaide, made that worse still.
I guess I never really thought we stood a chance in 2006/07, though. That made it a bit easier to take than it presumably was for those who honestly believed we were going to give 'em a good fight at worst.
ish after a Test. The dropped catch annoyed me more than the fifth-day batting collapse (which was started, let's not forget, by a bad Umpiring decision and an unneccessary run-out which makes it even worse). There was just so much that could so easily have changed the outcome of that match.But it felt almost as bad with the game at Bourda in 1998, which was the most disgraceful case of toss-decides-match I've ever seen. Basically, after we'd scrapped it to 1-1 in the opening two Tests, WI were gifted the Third on the toss of a coin. And the fact we were then deprived of another victory in the Fourth by rain, then lost the Fifth with a batting collapse (at The ARG of all places FFS! The flattest pitch in history) almost as bad as Adelaide, made that worse still.
I guess I never really thought we stood a chance in 2006/07, though. That made it a bit easier to take than it presumably was for those who honestly believed we were going to give 'em a good fight at worst.
PhoenixFire
International Coach
Yeah, despite what I said at the time, I don't think I ever actually thought we were in with a real chance.
cover drive man
International Captain
Dunno you did play well despite a couple of things its just that we played really well that series.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
Haha, Ashes 2005 was the lowest point in Aussie history? Come on now...
wpdavid
Hall of Fame Member
I certainly felt like hurling Peter May off something - or at least hurling something at Peter May - during the home series of 1986 and 1988. Ditto Dexter in 1989.
Adelaide 2006 was probably the single most painful test I can remember waking up to, but at least it was at the hands of a genius and the other 10 members of a truly great team. The string of home defeats (and the extent of them) in 1986, 1988 & 1989 were something else altogether.
Even if we didn't actually go 4 years without a win.
wpdavid
Hall of Fame Member
Ah - you were only talking about home tests then? Sorry, I missed that.
Swervy
International Captain
On paper it wasnt Englands worst side, but in general England played some really poor cricket in 1999
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
So they did - but
a) it wasn't actually as poor as it has often been made-out to be. Consider this: batting first at Lord's the weather-forecast suggested this was the wise decision, but the forecast turned-out to be wrong; fielding first at Old Trafford when the weather-forecast suggested this was the wise decision, but the weather turned-out to completely change the pitch in a way no-one could have expected. Both of these had a huge impact on how the series panned-out. And
b) this was merely one season in isolation. In all of 1998, 1998/99, 1999/2000 and 2000, England played some excellent cricket (as well as some poor stuff mixed in there).
1999 is often played-up for something it is not. It was a bad season, but there have been many as bad (1993 for instance; 1976 for another), and there have certainly been many far more sustained periods of wretchedness.
a) it wasn't actually as poor as it has often been made-out to be. Consider this: batting first at Lord's the weather-forecast suggested this was the wise decision, but the forecast turned-out to be wrong; fielding first at Old Trafford when the weather-forecast suggested this was the wise decision, but the weather turned-out to completely change the pitch in a way no-one could have expected. Both of these had a huge impact on how the series panned-out. And
b) this was merely one season in isolation. In all of 1998, 1998/99, 1999/2000 and 2000, England played some excellent cricket (as well as some poor stuff mixed in there).
1999 is often played-up for something it is not. It was a bad season, but there have been many as bad (1993 for instance; 1976 for another), and there have certainly been many far more sustained periods of wretchedness.
Swervy
International Captain
I think 1999 is as low as it got for England in the 1990s in that the team was more talented but didnt deliver, compared to say 1993 when they were simply outclassed by vastly superior talent.
For England in the second half of the 90s, they infact did play some good cricket, but it was never the norm. Good performances tended to be one offs.
I dont agree with you mentioning 1976, Again, England were outplayed by what was quickly turning into an all time great team, and infact for quite hefty chunks of the 76 series, England did compete pretty well.
As I say, 1999 was bad because NZ, although being a decent side, they weren't brilliant and any time you lose a series after being 1-0 has to be a nightmare. The 2-1 NZ victory flatters England quite generously
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
How on Earth, though, is having a side containing decent players and not performing worse than having an utterly crap side which never had a hope in hell (which was the story between '86 and '89)? One is hugely disappointing - below expectations - but I just don't get how it's worse than defeat when everything is at rock-bottom.
Yes, by-and-large performances between 1994 and 1999 did indeed tend to be pretty suprious, but there's many occasions when crucial games turned on misfortune or one small incident. I've probably named every single one of them before, so won't bother to do so again.
I just don't understand how this is supposed to be worse than having a crap team which is clueless and hammered in most games or every game. Think: in 1988 and 1989, England would have lost 11 home Tests out of 12 but for weather, using 28 and 29 players respectively in the summers.
Yes, by-and-large performances between 1994 and 1999 did indeed tend to be pretty suprious, but there's many occasions when crucial games turned on misfortune or one small incident. I've probably named every single one of them before, so won't bother to do so again.
I just don't understand how this is supposed to be worse than having a crap team which is clueless and hammered in most games or every game. Think: in 1988 and 1989, England would have lost 11 home Tests out of 12 but for weather, using 28 and 29 players respectively in the summers.
Swervy
International Captain
Just think about how the word 'nadir' is normally used.
The way i see it, when talking about a teams 'nadir' moment, its not just how a team plays, its the psychological affect it has on the team, the teams supporters and the teams opponents.
With everything that happened that season (The World Cup farce for England, losing the test series etc), English cricket was a laughling stock. They were ranked last in the world, we saw the famous tabloid paper headlines (front page headlines at that), lose a home series 2-1 vs an ok team (but nothing more) after leading 1-0, whilst playing a very poor standard of cricket. It was a real low
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Indeed it was. But as far as Test cricket only is concerned (try and look at realities, not at media hoopla) there have been worse times.
Forget the World Cup - England have been hopeless at ODIs much of the last 15 years. That was nothing exceptional. England have put in many worse showings than in the Test series against New Zealand in 1999.
Ironically, the Test they won was probably the Test they played the worst cricket in.
And wasn't that Rebel tour, announced midway through 1989, another of the lowest lows the game in this country has sunk to? It was bad in 1982, when we were a decent Test team. In 1989, when we were the lowest of the low, it was even worse.
Far worse, for my money, than some media hoopla that happened mostly because there was a Ranking system which had us bottom. Try and remember - if the same thing had been present in 1989, we'd have been bottom then - and what's more, we'd have deserved it, as I'm not really sure we did in 1999.
The team wasn't to blame for how bad 1999 seemed - it was the fault of the media's sensationalism. I don't know how much of this there was in 1989, being aged just 4 at the time. But I did think even at the time, and certainly have since, that more was made of the badness of 1999 than it actually merited.
Forget the World Cup - England have been hopeless at ODIs much of the last 15 years. That was nothing exceptional. England have put in many worse showings than in the Test series against New Zealand in 1999.
Ironically, the Test they won was probably the Test they played the worst cricket in.
And wasn't that Rebel tour, announced midway through 1989, another of the lowest lows the game in this country has sunk to? It was bad in 1982, when we were a decent Test team. In 1989, when we were the lowest of the low, it was even worse.
Far worse, for my money, than some media hoopla that happened mostly because there was a Ranking system which had us bottom. Try and remember - if the same thing had been present in 1989, we'd have been bottom then - and what's more, we'd have deserved it, as I'm not really sure we did in 1999.
The team wasn't to blame for how bad 1999 seemed - it was the fault of the media's sensationalism. I don't know how much of this there was in 1989, being aged just 4 at the time. But I did think even at the time, and certainly have since, that more was made of the badness of 1999 than it actually merited.