Worst team to tour Australia

[Faisal1985]

Certainly can't see any other team being as poor as Pakistan....

 

[Richard]

Only in the field has this Pakistan side been poor beyond the bounds or normality and acceptability. With bat and, especially, ball the 2009/10 tourists have been far from poor.

Poor fielding - and especially exceptionally poor fielding - of course can turn a decent side into a running joke however.

 

[Sir Alex]

Only in the field has this Pakistan side been poor beyond the bounds or normality and acceptability. With bat and, especially, ball the 2009/10 tourists have been far from poor.

Poor fielding - and especially exceptionally poor fielding - of course can turn a decent side into a running joke however.

I don't agree with the statement that their batting was "far from poor".

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Only 1 player crossed 200 in the whole series, Salman Butt, who averaged 46 (which was the highest average). The only guys to average above 30 were Shoiab Malik, Khurram Manzoor and Umar Akmal apart from Butt and the former two just played one test and even among them the highest was 38.50.

 

[Richard]

Certainly the batting was far from outstanding, but compared to the fielding it looked masterful.

 

[Sir Alex]

Certainly the batting was far from outstanding, but compared to the fielding it looked masterful.

I am intrigued and flummoxxed by your ability to make comparisons across disciplines. However I gather what you meant. Their fielding was bottom of the barrell stuff, absolutely dire. Their batting was poor while bowling was pretty good.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I think our 06/07 tourists have to be up/down there. There were up against a very, very good Australian side but given we travelled with, if not hopes of a win, then cautious optimism of a decent showing at least, 5-0 was somewhat galling tstl.

We were hamstrung by some curious selections (the recall of Giles and GoJo for the first test looked even at the time optimistic at best and an old pals act at worst), unavailability of some of our better performers from 2005 (& neither Tres nor Jonah ever made it back) and choice of captain (one can't imagine Strauss ever turning up still wankered for a morning nets) but we rather resembled a rabble by the end of the test series. Us winning the CB series afterwards was no more than proof that the sporting gods are not without a sense of irony.

 

[GIMH]

I think our 06/07 tourists have to be up/down there. There were up against a very, very good Australian side but given we travelled with, if not hopes of a win, then cautious optimism of a decent showing at least, 5-0 was somewhat galling tstl.

We were hamstrung by some curious selections (the recall of Giles and GoJo for the first test looked even at the time optimistic at best and an old pals act at worst), unavailability of some of our better performers from 2005 (& neither Tres nor Jonah ever made it back) and choice of captain (one can't imagine Strauss ever turning up still wankered for a morning nets) but we rather resembled a rabble by the end of the test series. Us winning the CB series afterwards was no more than proof that the sporting gods are not without a sense of irony.

Just gonna be a pedant here, because well, I feel like it

It was during the CB series that Freddie turned up to nets steaming. Not that it makes it justifiable or anything, but we went on to win that series so maybe that was just the tonic

 

[Richard]

We were hamstrung by some curious selections (the recall of Giles and GoJo for the first test looked even at the time optimistic at best and an old pals act at worst)

On the contrary, there was precious little in common between the two. Giles' selection made zero sense whatsoever (you cannot pick a bowler on the basis of his batting at the best of times, less still so when he's not bowled properly for a year) but "GoJo"'s selection had some amount of merit behind it, and in the First Test looked a decent stab at what was essentially a 50\50 call. After the Second and Third it became clear it wasn't; and after the Fourth and Fifth it became clear that whichever option was taken it wasn't going to make the slightest difference.

Had MSP been picked for the opening couple of Tests however a whole load of totally unneccessary aggro could've been avoided.

 

[GIMH]

On the contrary, there was precious little in common between the two. Giles' selection made zero sense whatsoever (you cannot pick a bowler on the basis of his batting at the best of times, less still so when he's not bowled properly for a year) but "GoJo"'s selection had some amount of merit behind it, and in the First Test looked a decent stab at what was essentially a 50\50 call. After the Second and Third it became clear it wasn't; and after the Fourth and Fifth it became clear that whichever option was taken it wasn't going to make the slightest difference.

Had MSP been picked for the opening couple of Tests however a whole load of totally unneccessary aggro could've been avoided.

I thought selections should only judged on the evidence before the game

 

[zaremba]

you cannot pick a bowler on the basis of his batting at the best of times

I disagree with that. If there's one thing that the last 2 Test series have proven, it's that lower-order batting can change the outcome of matches and series. Whether it was Giles or Panesar, the spinner was going to play a supporting role, and so Giles' batting and fielding were relevant factors to weigh in the balance.

The media's dream team had Flintoff at 6, Read at 7, Hoggard at 8. Yuck.

 

[Furball]

They are.

The title says 'worst team' so I don't think either our 06-07 effort, or Pakistan's this year can come into it. I also find it a little simplistic to say that 5-0 takes some beating, as we were up against arguably the best team ever and they happened to be up for it more than ever.

I don't know which team is the worst I've seen in Australia but I've seen plenty of teams worse than those two. Pretty poor performances though, particularly from England in Melbourne and Sydney. The players should have been forced to pay the fans' airfare after that shambles.

Nah, England's performance in 06/07 was utterly pathetic and mirrored Pakistan's tour this year.

Got walloped in the first Test, competed very well in the 2nd Test, before capitulating pathetically. As much as Pakistan were atrocious at Sydney on the 4th day, the England performance on the 5th day at Adelaide is still comfortably the worst performance I've ever seen from a Test side. It was completely and utterly spineless, and ruined what up until the 4th day, was shaping up to be an interesting, competitive series.

Once Australia went 2-0 up, you just knew they were going to win all 5. Collingwood completely disappeared, Strauss got a shocking run of decisions, and the rest of the bowling attack bar Panesar and Anderson at times at Sydney, were completely anonymous and gave Flintoff absolutely bugger all support. England's performance in 06/07 was spineless and abject in the extreme, which continued into some absolutely pathetic performances in the tri-series (including Harmison's pathetic ODI retirement half way through). England did bounce back well to win the CB Series, but for the entire Test leg and the first half of the CB Series it was the worst performance I'd seen.

 

[Flem274*]

NZs last side we sent over is right down there.

 

[Furball]

I disagree with that. If there's one thing that the last 2 Test series have proven, it's that lower-order batting can change the outcome of matches and series. Whether it was Giles or Panesar, the spinner was going to play a supporting role, and so Giles' batting and fielding were relevant factors to weigh in the balance.

The media's dream team had Flintoff at 6, Read at 7, Hoggard at 8. Yuck.

Giles hadn't bowled for a year, if they were that desperate for extra batting they'd have been as well picking an extra batsman and playing Pietersen as their front line spinner.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I always considered the West Indies team that toured in 00/01 to be a shocking team, now before Liam Camps jumps in, I'm not saying that the all players were bad, but their performances as a team left a lot to be desired. Courtney Walsh was on his last legs as a bowler, and they were just so comprehensively, admittely that Australian team was one of the best ever. Not much can be said of the team that toured in the 05/06 season either.

Honoured to get a pre-emptive mention here, but I really wouldn't have disagreed either. Not about the team at least. I'd disagree about Courtney Walsh though, as he certainly wasn't a spent force at that stage. He had a very poor series, sure, but bowled superbly for 25 wickets in the next series against South Africa- his last.

 

[Richard]

I disagree with that. If there's one thing that the last 2 Test series have proven, it's that lower-order batting can change the outcome of matches and series. Whether it was Giles or Panesar, the spinner was going to play a supporting role, and so Giles' batting and fielding were relevant factors to weigh in the balance.

The media's dream team had Flintoff at 6, Read at 7, Hoggard at 8. Yuck.

Ind33d yuck, but Geraint Jones was precious little better than Read and while Giles was better than MSP the difference was nowhere near enough to justify picking a bowler who was basically a complete unknown.

If you know your bowlers' quantity and can guess what you're going to get from them - fair noof. But Giles was simply not someone who should have even been considered.

Granted said above post didn't really read how it should. Nonetheless if you've got 4 bowlers who can average ~25 with the ball and ~6 with the bat and 4 who can average ~31 with ball and ~20 with bat I know who I'll pick and it won't be the latter.

 

[Richard]

England's performance in 06/07 was spineless and abject in the extreme, which continued into some absolutely pathetic performances in the tri-series (including Harmison's pathetic ODI retirement half way through).

TBH, Harmison retired after the 2006/07 Champions Trophy. And his retirement was not a moment too soon - he was never ODI-class and should never have played a ODI.

 

[Richard]

I thought selections should only judged on the evidence before the game

Ind33d, but the point is the evidence before the game showed that there was no obvious choice between Geraint and Read. Either would've been fair enough; Fletcher went for Jones then Read; what eventually turned-out showed that it really didn't matter.

It's just a shame he didn't save himself some grief by picking Read.

 

[Furball]

TBH, Harmison retired after the 2006/07 Champions Trophy. And his retirement was not a moment too soon - he was never ODI-class and should never have played a ODI.

I'm almost certain Harmison retired from ODIs in the middle of the Ashes tour.

I remember criticising it because it smacked of a softie wanting to go home to his mummy.

 

[Craig]

IIRC David Lloyd ripped into Harmison during the NZ - Eng Test in Hamilton in 2008, questioning his commitment for England, saying that Harmison earns more money then the Prime Minister and he always gives off the impression he would rather not be there.

If I were an England selector it would be hard to fathom whether or not Harmison is 100% committed when the team leaves England, and would rather that he was left in Durham.

 

[marc71178]

I disagree with that. If there's one thing that the last 2 Test series have proven, it's that lower-order batting can change the outcome of matches and series. Whether it was Giles or Panesar, the spinner was going to play a supporting role, and so Giles' batting and fielding were relevant factors to weigh in the balance.

IIRC hadn't Giles also outbowled Monty in the warm-up games?