Faisal1985
International Vice-Captain
Certainly can't see any other team being as poor as Pakistan....
I don't agree with the statement that their batting was "far from poor".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 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.Certainly the batting was far from outstanding, but compared to the fielding it looked masterful.
Just gonna be a pedant here, because well, I feel like itI 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.
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.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)
I thought selections should only judged on the evidence before the gameOn 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 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.you cannot pick a bowler on the basis of his batting at the best of times
Nah, England's performance in 06/07 was utterly pathetic and mirrored Pakistan's tour this year.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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).
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.I thought selections should only judged on the evidence before the game
I'm almost certain Harmison retired from ODIs in the middle of the Ashes tour.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.
IIRC hadn't Giles also outbowled Monty in the warm-up games?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.