Inzamam-ul-Haq (As a captain)

[Richard]

Pretty close. Gatting was indeed sacked after the first test. The selectors said they didn't believe the press story about ***ual shenanigans in his hotel room, but thought they should sack him anyway. More to do with the Rana affair really, but they hadn't had the guts to sack him straight away. Or else for his reverse sweep in the WC final, which really should have cost him his job on the spot. This was the first time in 11 tests that England had not lost to WI. The rain played a part, but they batted pretty well 2nd innings and deserved the draw, IIRC. Thereafter, they fell apart. Emburey was in charge for 2 games, then Cowdrey & Gooch for one apiece.

Interesting call which was worse, 1988 or 1989. In 1988 we got through one less player but in one less test. Plus, in 1989, we lost a dozen or so players midseason after they signed up for a "rebel" tour of SA. Anyone who criticises the current selectors for being too conservative when it comes to changing the test side should be forced to watch ball-by-ball footage all of England's home tests in 1986, 1988 & 1989 imo.

I'd say the rebel-tour announcements made 1989 even worse, reading what Michael Atherton and Angus Fraser had to say on the matter. Added, of course, to the fact that in 1989 we'd already had 1988 in the memory-bank, so the pain must've been even worse. I can only be thankful that I don't remember either.

Someone else who would do well to watch ball-by-ball footage of '86, '88 and '89 (and probably '87 and most of the winters, too): those who "recall" the early 1990s (when things in reality took an upturn of sorts) as being a wretched time. (Yes, I know, I bang-on about that a bit)

 

[Richard]

Didn't Mark Butcher also captain against New Zealand in 1999?

He was in the Flintoff\Strauss mould of being a stand-in.

 

[NZTailender]

EPO.



English polls only.

 

[Craig]

He was in the Flintoff\Strauss mould of being a stand-in.

That series was a bit farcial.

Say what you like about the English selection management, but least they didn't go back to the 'bad old days' and make wholesale changes quicker then a Brazilian football club goes through a manager (that is some clubs will go through 4 or 5 of them a season ).

 

[Craig]

EPO.



English polls only.

As idiotic as this may sound, I had always wondered what EPO meant, except for the drug EPo...

 

[wpdavid]

I'd say the rebel-tour announcements made 1989 even worse, reading what Michael Atherton and Angus Fraser had to say on the matter. Added, of course, to the fact that in 1989 we'd already had 1988 in the memory-bank, so the pain must've been even worse. I can only be thankful that I don't remember either.

Someone else who would do well to watch ball-by-ball footage of '86, '88 and '89 (and probably '87 and most of the winters, too): those who "recall" the early 1990s (when things in reality took an upturn of sorts) as being a wretched time. (Yes, I know, I bang-on about that a bit)

1989 certainly felt worse. Although the 1988 disaster was avoidable, we were used to being hammered by WI, so we eventually consoled ourselves with the thought that this is what WI did to everyone. Untrue of course, but it helped us through a wretched summer.

And we figured that the captaincy fiasco was a oneoff, and that a steadier hand on the selection rudder (May had gone by 1989) should see things improve. Especially against an Aus side that we'd beaten fairly easily 2 and a half years previously. Aus were supposed to be dire in 1989, and we reckoned we weren't as bad as we'd looked in 1988. That sounds stupid now, but in 1987 we'd only narrowly lost a couple of series to what was obviously a very good Pakistan side, so we did feel the side should be OK given proper leadership. Unfortunately we got Lord Ted & the return of Gower ....

 

[Craig]

1989 certainly felt worse. Although the 1988 disaster was avoidable, we were used to being hammered by WI, so we eventually consoled ourselves with the thought that this is what WI did to everyone. Untrue of course, but it helped us through a wretched summer.

And we figured that the captaincy fiasco was a oneoff, and that a steadier hand on the selection rudder (May had gone by 1989) should see things improve. Especially against an Aus side that we'd beaten fairly easily 2 and a half years previously. Aus were supposed to be dire in 1989, and we reckoned we weren't as bad as we'd looked in 1988. That sounds stupid now, but in 1987 we'd only narrowly lost a couple of series to what was obviously a very good Pakistan side, so we didn't feel the side should be OK given proper leadership. Unfortunately we got Lord Ted & the return of Gower ....

Talk about when it rains...

 

[Richard]

That series was a bit farcial.

Say what you like about the English selection management, but least they didn't go back to the 'bad old days' and make wholesale changes quicker then a Brazilian football club goes through a manager (that is some clubs will go through 4 or 5 of them a season ).

It was a funny series, in that either side could quite easily have won it 4-0. The captaincy management was, so to speak, not the best (Hussain's injury meant first Thorpe, then Butcher, got the captaincy, and when Hussain returned Butcher's form was sufficiently poor for him to be dropped). It wasn't, quite, as bad as 1988, but it was up there.

Yet if Hussain and Butcher had chosen differently at their respective toss-wins, England could've won both Tests (as New Zealand did and nearly did). And as we all know, England won at Edgbaston after being dominated for 2 days, and lost at The Oval because of their inability to polish-off the lower-order.

 

[Richard]

1989 certainly felt worse. Although the 1988 disaster was avoidable, we were used to being hammered by WI, so we eventually consoled ourselves with the thought that this is what WI did to everyone. Untrue of course, but it helped us through a wretched summer.

And we figured that the captaincy fiasco was a oneoff, and that a steadier hand on the selection rudder (May had gone by 1989) should see things improve. Especially against an Aus side that we'd beaten fairly easily 2 and a half years previously. Aus were supposed to be dire in 1989, and we reckoned we weren't as bad as we'd looked in 1988. That sounds stupid now, but in 1987 we'd only narrowly lost a couple of series to what was obviously a very good Pakistan side, so we did feel the side should be OK given proper leadership. Unfortunately we got Lord Ted & the return of Gower ....

Interesting...

But surely the most crucial difference between Aus in 1985 and 1986\87 compared to 1989 was simple. One man, in fact.

Terry Alderman.

 

[wpdavid]

Interesting...

But surely the most crucial difference between Aus in 1985 and 1986\87 compared to 1989 was simple. One man, in fact.

Terry Alderman.

Yes, Alderman was badly missed in 1985. You'd have to figure that another 40 wicket haul may have affected the series just a bit. As you probably know, he wasn't as effective in Aus, although he must have done better than some of the guys we came across in 1986/7. Especially in the 2 tests that we won: you couldn't see him doing much in conditions in the 2 drawn games.

Beyond that, the extra experience, especially under Border's leadership, made them a different prospect by 1989. Boon, Waugh, Jones & Hughes were all much better by our annus horribilis than they had been on the Gatting tour.

But yes, Alderman's absence was crucial. Ditto Lillee in 1977, Chappell in 1981 & McGrath in 2005. We don't win many against full-strength Aus

 

[Richard]

Well, Alderman certainly had his moments in Australia - perhaps not surprisingly around the 1981 and 1989 times, and not much in between (obviously he was injured and banned for quite a bit of it).

I thought you said (in early 2005) that the 1977 series, even with Lillee at home resting, was the best victory you'd seen. Even without him, it was still a strong side, and Thomson was still in and bowling well (a la Warne in 2005).

Seriously, though - virtually no-one beats full-strength top-class sides with all the bowlers performing. It's not an English-exclusive club.

 

[wpdavid]

Well, Alderman certainly had his moments in Australia - perhaps not surprisingly around the 1981 and 1989 times, and not much in between (obviously he was injured and banned for quite a bit of it).

I thought you said (in early 2005) that the 1977 series, even with Lillee at home resting, was the best victory you'd seen. Even without him, it was still a strong side, and Thomson was still in and bowling well (a la Warne in 2005).

I did say that. Subsequently the 2005 ashes overtook it, but I still maintain that the 1977 win was a fair achievement. I know it's fashionable in some quarters to write off that Aus team as being divided over Packer, but it's stretching credulity to suggest that they weren't completely up for it as a result.

 

[Richard]

It's fashionable in most quarters to find all sorts of excuses.

EG in 2005: the Aussies were complacent (really? They've been complacent in all the other series around the time, and it's never been a problem then), they'd never seen a ball reverse-swing before (even if they hadn't, they'd seen balls swing before, and swing is the same to the batsmen whether it's reverse or conventional), Bowden gave a poor decision (he did, and it nearly cost England the Test, not Australia), etc. etc.

Silly reasons for defeat are part-and-parcel of the game.

 

[Fusion]

Fraz, a question for you. If anyone does not get along with Shoaib, are they automatically crap?

 

[FRAZ]

Fraz, a question for you. If anyone does not get along with Shoaib, are they automatically crap?

I am not his wife or an ex-girl friend to properly comment upon this issue . And its just not me but just yesterday I heard Imran (once again on Geo) that it was bad to drop Shoaib in the first place and then kicking him out from the tour like this .
Shoaib vs him is a different saga tbh . As a whole I don't like Inzi as a captain ,And yes Mishandeling of Shoaib is a matter of concern for all the people who realy love this game and the ones who are concerned about the sub-continental dieng race of real fast bowlers !!!!!!!!!

 

[gunner]

it doesnt matter what sort of captain he is

1 thing is for sure that when he is batting he inspires the whole team

just look at the karachi 2004 odi vs india

 

[silentstriker]

I am not his wife or an ex-girl friend to properly comment upon this issue . And its just not me but just yesterday I heard Imran (once again on Geo) that it was bad to drop Shoaib in the first place and then kicking him out from the tour like this .
Shoaib vs him is a different saga tbh . As a whole I don't like Inzi as a captain ,And yes Mishandeling of Shoaib is a matter of concern for all the people who realy love this game and the ones who are concerned about the sub-continental dieng race of real fast bowlers !!!!!!!!!

Is it possible that Shoaib does more harm than good in the team?

 

[silentstriker]

it doesnt matter what sort of captain he is

1 thing is for sure that when he is batting he inspires the whole team

just look at the karachi 2004 odi vs india

A lot of time when he's batting, he is the team. With all due respect to Yousuf, I'd have Inzy over anyone else in the Pakistan batting line up.

 

[FRAZ]

Is it possible that Shoaib does more harm than good in the team?

You have started thinking like Inzamam !!!!!!!!!!

 

[FRAZ]

it doesnt matter what sort of captain he is

Ha !