The nadir of each test side

[wpdavid]

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.

1989 felt like the end of English cricket. The Gower / Gooch / Gatting / Lamb / Broad generation of batsmen seemed to have reached the end of the line, and, apart from Robin Smith, no-one else seemed to be coming through at all. Botham was gone. And the bowling stocks were even worse, with Dilley & Foster buggering off to SA and only Gus Fraser seeming to hold any hope for the future at all. The thought of playing WI that winter was about as unappealing as it gets.

1999 was obviously a huge disappointment, to put it mildly, but we had played well to beat SA 12 months previously and there was no reason why that bunch of players shouldn't sort things out.

 

[BoyBrumby]

The Ashes of 2006/07 seemed like a real low point, especially after 2005. Even when we were genuinely dire we'd always managed to avoid a whitewash against Oz, so to come from what was unquestionably the zenith of our achievements since I've been watching to such an arseholing in less than 18 months felt a vertiginous drop.

 

[_Ed_]

26 all out.

 

[Richard]

The Ashes of 2006/07 seemed like a real low point, especially after 2005. Even when we were genuinely dire we'd always managed to avoid a whitewash against Oz, so to come from what was unquestionably the zenith of our achievements since I've been watching to such an arseholing in less than 18 months felt a vertiginous drop.

Yet the signs were there. And no, I didn't expect us to get whitewashed either, but we'd been struggling, mostly with injury, for the previous 12 months.

The oddest thing is, we probably played better in 2006/07 than we did in 2002/03, when I was almost sure we were going to end-up whitewashed.

The only Test in 2006/07 where we were completely outclassed was the First Test. In 2002/03 we were outclassed in the first three-and-a-half. Then Australia started picking-up a few injuries to go with our countless ones, and we outplayed them in the Fifth Test.

Yet in 2006/07 we could easily have won the Second Test but for that drop, and obviously should have drawn it before that batting collapse. And while Australia were out of sight even before that Gilchrist torpedo and would almost certainly have won had he been out 1st ball and had we run through the tail, it'd probably have been fairly close (50 or so runs, say). Umpiring alone was the difference in the Fourth Test, as Hayden and Symonds' partnership made all the difference and both were out cheaply (Hayden twice) and not given. And had we polished-off the last two wickets cheaply in the Fifth Test we might have gained some respectibility or even won that.

While obviously losing 5-0 was a hell of a disappointment, it's difficult to call it a nadir for me as we weren't really comprehensively outplayed, despite being up against a massively superior outfit. I actually felt worse in August '99 than in January '06. And if anything, losing at home to India the following summer was as bad, too.

 

[Swervy]

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.

hey look, I am not saying 1989 wasnt totally dire for England, and may well have been as low as the team has been in the last 25 years, but I don't think you should underestimate the shockingness of that 1999 fiasco.

The thing is, you cannot ignore the 'media hoopla', as it is that that often either reflects or influences the publics view on a situation. If the publics view of something is bad, then in the world of sports, its bad, because it is the public who ultimately watch the product either at the ground or on TV. I dont think you can isolate the test team from the ODI performance either. All those things conspired together to make English cricket a joke that year...and with hindsight it doesnt look much better!!!! NZ were merely average, and England played really really bad. The one good thing that came out of it was that England could only get better, and they did quite quickly.

However, 1989 looking back, well it is obvious that England were outplayed by a much better squad. At the time, England were expected to win easily by the UK media, but that Australian team were much much better than that. With hindsight, yeah it was bad (and especially with the rebel tour stuff), but really, could it not have been expected.


So anyway, thats two real low points (although really the last half of the 80s was a joke for England, not just 1989)

The total demolition job WI inflicted on England in 1966 can't have been too good either, given the success of the England football team.

 

[Arjun]

India- losing all five Tests at home to the West Indies in 1983, and then some illogical step of sacking Kapil from captaincy. Then losing another Test series in 1985.

New Zealand- crushed by the Aussies in the mid-2000's, and that followed into a pattern of defeats at home. Unless they've been through something worse. The play-for-pay revolt could have been one period, but they won both Tests against India, visiting at that time.

 

[nightprowler10]

All that was happening in mid to late 2006.

 

[Richard]

India- losing all five Tests at home to the West Indies in 1983, and then some illogical step of sacking Kapil from captaincy. Then losing another Test series in 1985.

India lost 0-3 at home to WI in 1983/84, not 0-5.

New Zealand- crushed by the Aussies in the mid-2000's, and that followed into a pattern of defeats at home. Unless they've been through something worse. The play-for-pay revolt could have been one period, but they won both Tests against India, visiting at that time.

NZ were much worse in the early-1990s I think. Added obviously to the pre-Test-class period I mentioned earlier.

 

[Richard]

hey look, I am not saying 1989 wasnt totally dire for England, and may well have been as low as the team has been in the last 25 years, but I don't think you should underestimate the shockingness of that 1999 fiasco.

The thing is, you cannot ignore the 'media hoopla', as it is that that often either reflects or influences the publics view on a situation. If the publics view of something is bad, then in the world of sports, its bad, because it is the public who ultimately watch the product either at the ground or on TV. I dont think you can isolate the test team from the ODI performance either. All those things conspired together to make English cricket a joke that year...and with hindsight it doesnt look much better!!!! NZ were merely average, and England played really really bad. The one good thing that came out of it was that England could only get better, and they did quite quickly.

I'm trying to look at how things were, not how the media misled the public into thinking it was, TBH. I also as you know completely isolate Test and ODI cricket from each other - England have been shockingly abysmal in ODIs since 2000/01 too, but we've played a fair amount of decent to excellent Test cricket in that time. I'm never really interested in how ODI results go outside WCs, it doesn't really matter. And yes, of course 1999 was a WC, but it's still a different game to Test cricket.

However, 1989 looking back, well it is obvious that England were outplayed by a much better squad. At the time, England were expected to win easily by the UK media, but that Australian team were much much better than that. With hindsight, yeah it was bad (and especially with the rebel tour stuff), but really, could it not have been expected.


So anyway, thats two real low points (although really the last half of the 80s was a joke for England, not just 1989)

The fact that the second half of the 1980s was a joke makes 1989 worse. That is why I say it was the worst of the worse. The fact that it was 4 years of wretchedness culminating in new lows rather than just a one-off bad performance.

Australia were indeed underestimated by many in 1989, having gone from hopeless to indeed rather good in a very short space of time. But that doesn't really matter: England lost when they should have won in 1986, then were completely outplayed by better teams for the next 3 seasons. The whole point is that England were far worse than everyone else for those 4 years. Not that they underperformed - and not as much as some have suggested - in 1 single series.

You know, it's often annoyed me that it rained in those 2 Tests that year. If we'd lost 0-6 (as well as 0-5 the previous year to WI) I reckon people would take the "1989 was the nadir" notion a bit more for granted.

 

[DJellett]

Learned a new word at school CDM?
or random dictionary look up? should take a look at the section S or P or V could educate you even more.

hahaha

 

[Days of Grace]

But that doesn't really matter: England lost when they should have won in 1986, .

Umm, I thought England won the Ashes in 1986 downunder??

 

[wpdavid]

Umm, I thought England won the Ashes in 1986 downunder??

I think Richard's writing about our home defeats to India & NZ in 1986.

The loss to Indfia, coming in the first half of the summer, was particularly galling. NZ, tbf, were a very competitive side and obv had the outstanding bowler on view.

 

[Bahnz]

NZ's Nadir was unquestionably 93/94 - 96/97 (post 1960 anyway)

That was the period when our last class player of the 80's, Martin Crowe, was slipping out of the game. He was almost always injured, and at that point the younger stars hadn't really developed enough to take over. 1994/95 was a particularly embarassing season filled with test match firsts, such as being the first team in about 100 years to lose a 3 match series from a 1-0 lead (against South Africa), being the first team to lose a test series to Sri Lanka at home, and the first time we lost by more than an innings and 300 runs (322 against the windies at Wellington). I also remember losing every match in a 4 team ODI tournament in SA, being steam rolled 3-0 by the windies in ODI's, and getting flattened by Australia in a centenary match. That season did a lot to kill off the nation wide interest in cricket that had been built up after the 1992 world cup.

 

[Richard]

Umm, I thought England won the Ashes in 1986 downunder??

As David said - that, which was 1986/87, was rendered essentially irrelevant by the fact we lost 2-0 (should've been 3-0 too) at home to India in 1986. These were the only genuine Tests (ie, excluding Packer-depleted Australia matches) outside the subcontinent that India won in twenty-five years between 1976 and 2001. We also lost to New Zealand, who were clearly far better than us at that time, as was everyone else bar Australia.

Beating the worst Australian side ever is small consolation for such a shocking loss.

 

[Bahnz]

Having a look back at those results now, it's hard to believe how bad they were. New Zealand were quite unquestionably the worst team in the world, easily poorer than Zimbabwe. Out of 32 tests played over that period, we lost 15 matches and managed just 5 wins (two of which came right at the end of the period in question, and another came from a match that many suspect Pakistan threw).

 

[Craig]

NZ's Nadir was unquestionably 93/94 - 96/97 (post 1960 anyway)

That was the period when our last class player of the 80's, Martin Crowe, was slipping out of the game. He was almost always injured, and at that point the younger stars hadn't really developed enough to take over. 1994/95 was a particularly embarassing season filled with test match firsts, such as being the first team in about 100 years to lose a 3 match series from a 1-0 lead (against South Africa), being the first team to lose a test series to Sri Lanka at home, and the first time we lost by more than an innings and 300 runs (322 against the windies at Wellington). I also remember losing every match in a 4 team ODI tournament in SA, being steam rolled 3-0 by the windies in ODI's, and getting flattened by Australia in a centenary match. That season did a lot to kill off the nation wide interest in cricket that had been built up after the 1992 world cup.

And not to forget the off field controversy with Stephen Fleming, Dion Nash and Matthew Hart in Paarl. The Turner years (which just followed IIRC) , the less said the better

 

[oitoitoi]

Surely South African Cricket's nadir would have been being banned from the international game when they were the best side in the world. I mean that's got to feel pretty ****.

 

[Dissector]

As David said - that, which was 1986/87, was rendered essentially irrelevant by the fact we lost 2-0 (should've been 3-0 too) at home to India in 1986. These were the only genuine Tests (ie, excluding Packer-depleted Australia matches) outside the subcontinent that India won in twenty-five years between 1976 and 2001.

Wrong. India beat a regular Australian team in a test in 1981 in Melbourne. One of India's best wins too. If it hadn't been for rain they would have beaten Australia again on their next tour admittedly against a crappy outfit.

 

[Richard]

Haha, good grief, how on Earth did I forget that?

And yeah, I know India should've beaten Australia in 1985/86. Disappointing that they didn't TBH, their best chance yet. And they certainly should've won at home in 1986/87, they were by miles the better side.

BTW, I wonder if SJS is reading... if so, I wonder if he recalls the 1969/70 India-Australia series, which India somehow managed to lose 1-3 despite extraordinarily impressive performances both away and home in the surrounding 3 years or so.

 

[Richard]

As David said - that, which was 1986/87, was rendered essentially irrelevant by the fact we lost 2-0 (should've been 3-0 too) at home to India in 1986. With one exception, in Australia in 1980/81, these were the only genuine Tests (ie, excluding Packer-depleted Australia matches) outside the subcontinent that India won in twenty-five years between 1976 and 2001. We also lost to New Zealand, who were clearly far better than us at that time, as was everyone else bar Australia.

Beating the worst Australian side ever is small consolation for such a shocking loss.

Dammit, can't edit this post. See above for the correct version.