Sub-standard (minnow) teams in Test Cricket.

[Days of Grace]

Okay, this is similar to the minnow bashers thread but I just want to know your opinion on what you consider to be the sub-standard teams in the history of cricket?

For me, Zimbabwe 2003-present and Bangladesh are easy. I now think that West Indies, Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka were never really minnows.

That leaves us South Africa and New Zealand.

Maybe England in the 1980s/late 1990s?? (just kidding)

Richard has said that South Africa ceased becoming substandard when they hosted the 1902 Australian team. That sounds about right when I look at the scorecards.

New Zealand is a lot more difficult. I think they stopped becoming substandard momentarily during the 1949 tour to England but became substandard again throughout the 1950s, despite having geniune international class players in Sutcliffe and Reid. One could say that drawing tests against India in India in the mid-1950s would make them not substandard. What is your opinion??

What I am sure of is that the 2-2 series draw in South Africa in 1961 meant that NZ could never be considered substandard again.

 

[Richard]

Just FTR, I was actually saying that the series against Australia in 1901/02 was the last series of SA's "substandardness". I think they became a team worthy of the Test tag when they thrashed England in 1905/06 and acquired the wristspin trio of Schwarz, Vogler and Faulkner. So that's January '06 for SA.

 

[fredfertang]

Just FTR, I was actually saying that the series against Australia in 1901/02 was the last series of SA's "substandardness". I think they became a team worthy of the Test tag when they thrashed England in 1905/06 and acquired the wristspin trio of Schwarz, Vogler and Faulkner. So that's January '06 for SA.

There are those who add Gordon White's name and call it a quartet - that is stretching it a bit as White was not a regular bowler but no test attack since has consisted of 1 seamer and 3 leggies plus another part time leggie - given the success they had perhaps England should pick Rashid, Marshall and Salisbury?

 

[Wiglad]

the current west indian side?

 

[andruid]

the current west indian side?

Nope

And again why do we cricketwebbers love direness so much!?

 

[Days of Grace]

I looked at the scorecards of the 1902 series South Africa hosting Australia and it does appear that South Africa competed really well. If you can compete consistently in a series, you cease to become substandard, imo.

Now, I just need to figure out when NZ ceased to be substandard.

Wish I had the Men in White book with me.

 

[tooextracool]

Okay, this is similar to the minnow bashers thread but I just want to know your opinion on what you consider to be the sub-standard teams in the history of cricket?

For me, Zimbabwe 2003-present and Bangladesh are easy. I now think that West Indies, Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka were never really minnows.
.

Zimbabwe pre 2003 is hardly that much different from zimbabwe post 2003 IMO. With the exception of Andy Flower, there is little difference between the side that took the field before and after.

 

[Top_Cat]

Australia in the 80's were a minnow team in terms of fielding for a while.....

 

[Days of Grace]

Zimbabwe pre 2003 is hardly that much different from zimbabwe post 2003 IMO. With the exception of Andy Flower, there is little difference between the side that took the field before and after.

If you have one world-class player in a side, plus one or two international class players, you cease to be a substandard team, imo.

Otherwise, NZ would have been substandard throughout the 1980s.

Zimbabwe pre-2003 lost a lot of matches, but they almost always competed well, which is another criterion for being of test standard.

 

[tooextracool]

If you have one world-class player in a side, plus one or two international class players, you cease to be a substandard team, imo.

Otherwise, NZ would have been substandard throughout the 1980s.

Zimbabwe pre-2003 lost a lot of matches, but they almost always competed well, which is another criterion for being of test standard.

They competed in games where Flower almost single handedly gave them a chance. And they still werent winning anything. Id say post the Goodwin, Strang, Johnson era they were always minnows. Their bowling post 2003 was identical to their bowling pre 2003, hence the minnow bashers that often gorged themselves against them pre 2003 should not be lauded for their efforts. Price, Streak, Blignaut, Friend etc were still playing after 2003. As good a player as Andy Flower was, he wasnt good enough on his own to make them go from minnows to test standard on his own. Id be very surprised if their test record from 2000-03 was significantly different from their record from 2003-(before the issues with the board arose)

 

[Richard]

Andy Flower almost by himself made the difference for mine.

Alistair Campbell, Guy Whittall etc. who also went after WC2003 were hardly World-beaters but they were still a damn sight better than those who came in in their places.

And obviously, in ODIs Campbell was a pretty decent batsman and him and Flower leaving together, along with Whittall, clearly turned Zimbabwe from ODI-standard into substandard.

For mine, in hindsight, Zimbabwe's tour of England in 2003 was a clear watershed in Test terms though. They'd been weak for the previous couple of years but they were truly diabolical on that tour, then of course there was the series in Australia in 2003/04 which only emphasised it more.

In any case, in broad result terms Zimbabwe played 18 Tests against Test-standard teams between 2000/01 and 2002/03. They lost 13, but only 4 of these were innings defeats and 3 of these occurred on the subcontinent. They drew 4 games and won 1.

For mine, this is certainly different to the utter outclassing by a very moderate England in 2003, the burying by Australia and the massive defeat (admittedly accompanied by a near-victory) at the hands of West Indies in 2003/04.

 

[Days of Grace]

Richard, do you have any opinion on New Zealand?

NZ in the 1950s were interesting in that batting was arguably their strongest suite, with Sutcliffe and Reid being constants. But the bowling usually kept them in the games. They bowled out sides for under 300 consistently, only for a horrible batting collapse to ruin their chances.

They weren't substandard in the 1949 tour of England, but imo they were substandard throughout the 1950s until their tour to South Africa in 1961/62. Do you agree?

 

[Richard]

In all honesty, my previous impression was that the watershed was the 1961/62 South Africa tour. However, reading SJS' post in the previous thread, which you have exemplified on here, does make me wonder.

I'm probably going to have to look into it a bit more.

Certainly, NZ is the only case about which I have any doubt. The others (SA, Zim and Ban) are all clear-cut.

 

[tooextracool]

Otherwise, NZ would have been substandard throughout the 1980s.

NZ were by no means a one man team. Martin Crowe for one was as good as any batsman around at the time and the likes of John Wright, Jeremy Coney and Andrew Jones later on in the 80s were good enough to make most lineups across the world. NZ may have been a one man bowling attack, but they were by no means a one man team. One great player cannot turn a poor team into a good or even ordinary one even if he is of the calibre of Richard Hadlee or Andrew Flower.

 

[tooextracool]

Andy Flower almost by himself made the difference for mine.

Alistair Campbell, Guy Whittall etc. who also went after WC2003 were hardly World-beaters but they were still a damn sight better than those who came in in their places.

And obviously, in ODIs Campbell was a pretty decent batsman and him and Flower leaving together, along with Whittall, clearly turned Zimbabwe from ODI-standard into substandard.

For mine, in hindsight, Zimbabwe's tour of England in 2003 was a clear watershed in Test terms though. They'd been weak for the previous couple of years but they were truly diabolical on that tour, then of course there was the series in Australia in 2003/04 which only emphasised it more.

In any case, in broad result terms Zimbabwe played 18 Tests against Test-standard teams between 2000/01 and 2002/03. They lost 13, but only 4 of these were innings defeats and 3 of these occurred on the subcontinent. They drew 4 games and won 1.

For mine, this is certainly different to the utter outclassing by a very moderate England in 2003, the burying by Australia and the massive defeat (admittedly accompanied by a near-victory) at the hands of West Indies in 2003/04.

Talking solely about Tests, I cannot see how the likes of Alistair Campbell and Guy Whittall averaging in the mid 20s made much of a difference to a poor side. Whittall for one, wasnt even a permanent fixture in the side for part of the time between 2000-03. If you can honestly prove to me how Whittall and Campbell were significantly better than Ervine or Vermeulen who played thereafter then I will have no problem agreeing with you on this topic.