Worst team to tour Australia

[GIMH]

His last ODI had he not reversed his retirement in 2008 would've been England's 2nd game of the Champions Trophy. Not sure he announced his retirement straightaway, but he was definately never going to play in the CB Series.

The CB series squad was announced during the Ashes, he announced his retirement from ODIs the day before the squad was announced. Dinnen is right.

 

[Richard]

Hmm, he said Harmison retired halfway through the CB Series - he certainly didn't. Halfway through The Ashes, yeah.

 

[GIMH]

He said halfway through the tour in his latest post:

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.

 

[Richard]

Yeah but the original one which I responded to said halfway through the CB Series - otherwise I wouldn't have posted my reply.

 

[Furball]

Yeah but the original one which I responded to said halfway through the CB Series - otherwise I wouldn't have posted my reply.

Can see why it appears that way, wasn't what I meant, which I clarified a couple of posts later.

 

[zaremba]

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.

I take the point about Giles not having played. But tbf, Monty hadn't bowled well in the warm-ups either.

Anyway mainly I was trying to make the general point that your spinner's batting ability (or lack thereof) might reasonably determine whether he gets selected.

 

[wpdavid]

England's 1982/3 side were pretty dire, Gower excepted. Don't be fooled by Willis & Botham's presence - the former was too old and the latter too fat. This side would have been whitewashed by any Aus sides from mid1990's onwards.

 

[Burgey]

England's 1982/3 side were pretty dire, Gower excepted. Don't be fooled by Willis & Botham's presence - the former was too old and the latter too fat. This side would have been whitewashed by any Aus sides from mid1990's onwards.

Norman Cowans ftw....

 

[Richard]

I take the point about Giles not having played. But tbf, Monty hadn't bowled well in the warm-ups either.

The warm-up - singular. There was just one of them. And as I say, it's not like Giles bowled like Superman in it - he was merely slighly better. If Giles had taken 10-98 and MSP 1-106 then maybe, just maybe, you could say fair enough disregard the fact that one hasn't played for a year and the other has.

The fact that Duncan Fletcher spent so much of his era decrying the need for tourist fixtures as well grated fairly hard with some people, and even I, one of his biggest fans, did not feel it painted him in good light.

Anyway mainly I was trying to make the general point that your spinner's batting ability (or lack thereof) might reasonably determine whether he gets selected.

Not just spinner - bowlers in general. I agree and have done since not long after I started seriously watching cricket that the bottom four cannot all be rank rabbits unless they're streets ahead of all other bowlers in the country (the Test that instigated that ideal in me was The Oval 1999, when England's seven-eleven were Irani, Caddick, Mullally, Tufnell, Giddins - which is even more horrific than Read, Hoggard, Anderson, Harmison, MSP would've been). But there is no way someone's ability to bat to decent-number-eight standard rather than number-eleven should outweigh the fairly considerable amount that MSP's bowling had going for it over Giles' in November 2006.

 

[Craig]

The Sri Lankan team that toured in 07/08 wasn't that flash either. Sangakkara missed the first Test, Dilshan didn't play in the Test series, and Malinga had been dropped for the first Test. Australia racked up 4/551 (dec.), 5/542 (dec.), and 2/210 (dec.). They played Murali with ease and they just simply weren't competitive. Jaques cashed in big time and Symonds would come in when the team had over 400 on theb oard and blast his way to a 50, to add insult to injury.

In both Tests they failed to avoid the follow on (even though Ponting batted again in Hobart). Just dire.

 

[Richard]

The Sri Lankan team that toured in 07/08 wasn't that flash either. Sangakkara missed the first Test, Dilshan didn't play in the Test series, and Malinga had been dropped for the first Test.

And Vaas for the second.

 

[Redbacks]

The Sri Lankan team that toured in 07/08 wasn't that flash either. Sangakkara missed the first Test, Dilshan didn't play in the Test series, and Malinga had been dropped for the first Test. Australia racked up 4/551 (dec.), 5/542 (dec.), and 2/210 (dec.). They played Murali with ease and they just simply weren't competitive. Jaques cashed in big time and Symonds would come in when the team had over 400 on theb oard and blast his way to a 50, to add insult to injury.

In both Tests they failed to avoid the follow on (even though Ponting batted again in Hobart). Just dire.

Never looked like taking 20 wickets, could say the same about alot of teams in live tests over the past 10 years, always made for a slightly lame days viewing

 

[Richard]

Seriously how many teams have toured Australia and genuinely looked like taking 20 wickets more than occasionally since 1989/90, never mind 1999/2000?

Can't think of many. South Africa in 2005/06 come to mind, and there's probably the odd one more here and there.

 

[Furball]

Seriously how many teams have toured Australia and genuinely looked like taking 20 wickets more than occasionally since 1989/90, never mind 1999/2000?

Can't think of many. South Africa in 2005/06 come to mind, and there's probably the odd one more here and there.

Early 90s Windies?

 

[Richard]

West Indies of 1992/93 IIRR only really looked like doing so in the last two of the five Tests, though I may recall mistakenly and CBA checking the cards now, so someone else can do it if they wish. Certainly they only looked like taking 20 and scoring more than Australia in said last two.

 

[Furball]

West Indies of 1992/93 IIRR only really looked like doing so in the last two of the five Tests, though I may recall mistakenly and CBA checking the cards now, so someone else can do it if they wish. Certainly they only looked like taking 20 and scoring more than Australia in said last two.

Took 20 wickets in each of the first 2 Tests.

 

[TT Boy]

We have a winner.

 

[aussie]

Since 99/00 in order of squad medicority & actual performances in the series IMO would be: (not considering BANG & ZIM)

- WI 2000/01
- PAK 2009/10
- WI 2005/06
- IND 99/00
- NZ 08/09

Although ENG where smoked in 02/03 & 06/07 that was just due to strenght of AUS. The ENG squads weren't exactly horrible on paper.

 

[Craig]

Grant Elliott proved why him playing Tests is epic failure.

 

[African Monkey]

NZs last two tours (2004, 2008) were both piss poor performances.