despite the fact that in the mid to late 80s Pakistan were actually spoken of as being a serios challenger to West Indies crown as number one team in the world?...and England were generally a laughing stockRichard said:They might not have been a good one, but they certainly weren't poor. A side with Gatting, Gower and Lamb in it, plus a last-hurrahing Botham and a not-quite-yet-firing Gooch is not poor.
Certainly better than most sides in the subsequent 20 years, though obviously not better than Hussain's combination of 2000 and 2000\01.
Pakistan cricket, meanwhile, has ALWAYS had the chaotic streak. Even that side, who were good, had nothing on the side of the late '90s (Anwar, Ijaz Ahmed, Salim Malik, Inzamam-Ul-Haq, Youhana, Wasim, Waqar, Saqlain, Mushtaq, Shoaib), and they still didn't manage to achieve that much.
If Pakistan of mid-80s had played England they MIGHT have hammered them, they might have been hammered - that is ALWAYS (and probably always will) be the way with Pakistan.
but they certainly weren't a laughing-stock in 1985.Around that time my ranking would have been
1. West Indies
2. Pakistan
3. New Zealand
4. India
5. England
6. Australia
7. Sri Lanka (who the year before looked the better team vs England at Lords)
20 years, in case you can't count.marc71178 said:Yes, 15 years after the event
99 was the worst time for England without a shadow of a doubt.Richard said:The mid and late 80s were a different time... England mightn't have been the best, as you demonstrated... but they certainly weren't a laughing-stock in 1985.
In 1988 and 1989, of course, they were, and were comfortably the worst of the Test-class teams (Sri Lanka's promise of their early Test days had evaporated for the time being). Those 2 years for me reprisented the blackest days in English cricketing history, worse even than "we flippin' murdered 'em" 1996\97 and bottom-of-the-written-table 1999.
Oh, WI88 and Aus89 were good, no doubts. But England were truly dire, for reasons not totally confined to on-field (remember the old Rothley Romps?)Swervy said:99 was the worst time for England without a shadow of a doubt.
1988: dismantled by an hugley superior team, but yes England were in total disarray
1989: Simply beaten by a much better team, who were starting to improve one hell of a lot.
Sri Lanka are about equal, minus the Murali factor, to Sri Lanka in the mid-80s I reckon.in 1985, England were decidedly average (ok laughing stock was a bit too harsh)..you have to remember that going into the 5th test, the poorest Australian team for decades had actually pushed England quite well,and the scoreline was 1-1. The fact of the matter is that the quality of that Australian team was extremely poor bar the odd player (Border being the shining player)..the current England team would have eaten them alive...a 5-nil win would be on the cards.
When people talk about the quality of test cricket now being poor, really it isnt that bad. The current Aussie team would certainly give the West Indies mid 80's a run for the their money. Pakistan were far better then than now obviously, but I would say the current Indian team far outshines that 80's Indian team.
NZ were at a high back then, but I would say the current NZ team might push them a bit (esp if Bond was back), obviously Sri Lanka are miles better than then, West Indies have obviously slumped...but England now are miles better than the 80's version..there is absolutely no doubt about that one
you are kidding yourself there..Sri lanka were not as good as a Murali-less Sri lankan side of now..not even close...the bowling was very very weak, and the battting, whilst just passable, was nowhere near the calibre it is now.Richard said:Sri Lanka are about equal, minus the Murali factor, to Sri Lanka in the mid-80s I reckon..
england areny all of a sudden worse a team than last year, they are just playing outstanding opposition in Australia..and we have only had one test in the series.Richard said:England have had very short spells (2000, 2004) where they were miles better but otherwise most of the time since 1990 the team has been about the same strength. Australia then are probably comparable to West Indies now and vice-versa. New Zealand are obviously miles weaker now (Bond is not a proven Test player at all), Pakistan likewise. India were probably as strong in 1986 as any time (1971 and 2003 probably about equal).
The two have much in common, including that Test-cricket was in a terrible state.
Of course, it'll get better, as it did then.
But pretending it's not poor isn't the way to go.
England were the worst Test team in The World in 1989 (bar Sri Lanka who weren't good enough to be playing). Had Bangladesh been playing in 1999 England wouldn't officially have been worst either.Swervy said:no NZ 99 were a pretty decent team playing against a joke of a team..NZ won two tests in England, they had only won one other test away from home (apart from Zimb when they came into tests) in the previous 10 years and didnt win another test match away from home (again apart from vs Zimb) for another three years...there is a bit of a difference between the quality of NZ99 and WI 88 and Australia 89. Admittedly England in the late 80's were utterly shocking, but England have never been considered the worst team in the world apart from in 1999...remember to, just to compound the nightmare, they did awful in the WC99 as well..irrelevent to the tests scene..but just further indication of how low English cricket had gotten at that point
Hmm, Sri Lanka played well enough (as you mentioned) in England in several one-off Tests, and it's easy to forget just how difficult things get with no Murali... they're still perfectly good enough to be playing, of course, but they'll still struggle to win too much.you are kidding yourself there..Sri lanka were not as good as a Murali-less Sri lankan side of now..not even close...the bowling was very very weak, and the battting, whilst just passable, was nowhere near the calibre it is now.
England's opposition was far stronger in the summer of 2000 than it was in the summer of 2004. Only time England of the last year were tested was in South Africa and while they still won, it wasn't anywhere near as big an achievement as 2000\01 with the twin victories in the subcontinent.england areny all of a sudden worse a team than last year, they are just playing outstanding opposition in Australia..and we have only had one test in the series.
The 2000 England team beat a quickly fading West Indian team, which had absolutely no back bone.lara wasnt playing particularly wel..and neither were the other players other than Walsh and Ambrose..and even then both of those players werent the same players they had once been.
Again England beat poor opposition (much like in 1985)..there really wasnt that much difference in quality compared to 1999.
2000 was a damp summer which absolutely suited the England players..credit where credits due, they humilated the west Indies, but they were so poor, anything less would have been tantamount to failure.
At the moment we have 2 of the greatest spinners ever to play the game, one of the greatest fast bowlers, and some truely astonishingly good (and on retirement may well be considered great ) batsmen...honestly, it really int all that bad right now
the difference between 2000/01 and now if that England now have better bowlers and becuase of that should be able to maintain a position of relative dominance over pretty much every other country in world cricket other than Australia...however really England didnt unravel after 2000/01 they played ok in India,and England were clearly the better team in a 1-1 in NZ (how they lost after having NZ at 19-4 is beyond me)..and they again lost to a much better Australian team.Richard said:England were the worst Test team in The World in 1989 (bar Sri Lanka who weren't good enough to be playing). Had Bangladesh been playing in 1999 England wouldn't officially have been worst either.
Just because there was actually a table in 1999 it got more fanfare... but it was no worse.
Hmm, Sri Lanka played well enough (as you mentioned) in England in several one-off Tests, and it's easy to forget just how difficult things get with no Murali... they're still perfectly good enough to be playing, of course, but they'll still struggle to win too much.
England's opposition was far stronger in the summer of 2000 than it was in the summer of 2004. Only time England of the last year were tested was in South Africa and while they still won, it wasn't anywhere near as big an achievement as 2000\01 with the twin victories in the subcontinent.
No-one would have guessed things would unravel so badly then, either - and don't be surprised if they do so again.
England have only ever had brief moments since the early 1980s where they've enjoyed success.
I was talking about the fact these games were 15 years before you took an interest in the game, so quite how you know more about it than Swervy is a wonder.Richard said:20 years, in case you can't count.
2005 - 1985 = 20.
And what in the blue hell does being after the event have to do with anything?
England do not have a better attack, Harmison and co are nowhere near as proven as everyone assumes... most have still been bad far more often than good in their careers.Swervy said:the difference between 2000/01 and now if that England now have better bowlers and becuase of that should be able to maintain a position of relative dominance over pretty much every other country in world cricket other than Australia
Things very clearly unravelled in 2001 and 2001\02, how they played so well in India and NZ was amazing with such a weakened team (of course New Zealand were even more badly savaged by injuries). Still managed to lose the Final Tests at home to Pakistan and in NZ though, which was a bad enough feat in itself. Of course NZ wouldn't have recovered from 19-4 if Venkat had given Harris out when he blatantly gloved to short-leg....however really England didnt unravel after 2000/01 they played ok in India,and England were clearly the better team in a 1-1 in NZ (how they lost after having NZ at 19-4 is beyond me)..and they again lost to a much better Australian team.
Harmison is under no circumstances better than Caddick, Caddick has actually proven able to get batsmen out regularly rather than just have them get themselves out to him, you know.England now have harmison (who compared to caddick can actually play a full game at the same level of intensity and is simply a more threatening bowler in most conditions than caddick), Flintoff (much better with the ball than 4 years ago), Hoggard (again better than 4 years ago) and Jones (at least England dont have to rely on Mark Butcher like they did in NZ back then...hehehehe...joking).
Geez, I see what people meant when they said NZ didn't get the credit they deserved in 1999.Regarding 1999, yes it was worse...1989 was a poor team playing a good team..1999 was a poor team playing a pretty average team...1999 was a complete humilation for England..1989 at least people pretty quickly recognised that that Australian team was actually pretty damned strong
Again.Sri Lanka played well in several one off tests in England?
Played well vs a completely shell shocked England team who bowled terribly vs them in both innings (and too be honest Englands commitment levels in that game would have to be questioned, as well as sri lankas batting quality in general when Botham can take 6 wickets in an innings bowling mostly off spin) at Lords 1984
And in 88, England fielded a below standard (even for their standards back then) team who still outclassed Sri lanka (Phil Newport was not a test class bowler and yet he made SL look like nothing)
It was only in the early to mid 90's that SL really looked close to a real test team
No, much better to rely on limited highlights isn't it (!)Richard said:Because watching the game as it happens isn't the only way to know about it.
It is amazing that there can be two England sides within twenty years of each other with such "great" batting orders !!Scallywag said:GA Gooch, WN Slack, DI Gower, P Willey, AJ Lamb, IT Botham, JE Emburey, PR Downton, RM Ellison, PH Edmonds, JG Thomas.
This is the english team from 1985, how do posters think the current team would fair against this team.
Most of which is totally irrlelevant.marc71178 said:No, it is not, because it removes a heck of a lot of what actually happens.