• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Worst Test Team Ever

Worst Test Team Ever

  • Australia 1986

    Votes: 1 2.5%
  • England 1990's

    Votes: 2 5.0%
  • West Indies 2004

    Votes: 3 7.5%
  • Zimbabwe 2004

    Votes: 34 85.0%

  • Total voters
    40

Beleg

International Regular
Of actual test teams WI of 1996/97 was easily the worst performance I have ever seen. But they had a lot of potential. In terms of total haplessness England of 1998/99 takes the crown.
'
I didn't count Zimbabwe post 2002 and Bangladesh.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Current Zimbabwe have got to be down there; they weren't any great shakes with the rebel players, they're manure without them.

And it's a bit tight to have "West Indies 2004" in there. Did they or did they not win the Champions Trophy?
 

Linda

International Vice-Captain
I agree, its a bit rough.
Anyway, its not really a tough decision imo, Zimbabwe 04 for sure.
 

Buddhmaster

International Captain
Yep, no contest Zimbabwe of 04/05 are really bad. But I can see they have some good developing in the team in Matsycanaye(sp) and Elton Chigumbura and maybe in a couple of years, they will have a competitive team.
 

Mr Casson

Cricketer Of The Year
Buddhmaster said:
Yep, no contest Zimbabwe of 04/05 are really bad. But I can see they have some good developing in the team in Matsycanaye(sp) and Elton Chigumbura and maybe in a couple of years, they will have a competitive team.
Panyangara and Utseya aren't that bad either.

And it's Matsikenyeri. :)
 

Chubb

International Debutant
I think it's very unfair to say that the 90's England team was that bad and most of the problems in that side could probably be put down to Illingworth and the other bunch of old people attempting to run the side. Its failure was administrative and selectorial not the players. Under Duncan Fletcher they probably would have acheived a lot more, and when Fletcher took over he still had the nucleus of the 90's team and results immediately improved. And if they were that bad how did they beat Australia so well in the first and last tests of the 1996 series?

As much as I support Zimbabwe I think that the current team are probably the worst ever. I (obviously) didn't see early NZ and SA sides so I don't know, of the modern era certainly Zimbabwe post-Streak and Flower.
 

wpdavid

International Coach
Chubb said:
I think it's very unfair to say that the 90's England team was that bad and most of the problems in that side could probably be put down to Illingworth and the other bunch of old people attempting to run the side. Its failure was administrative and selectorial not the players. Under Duncan Fletcher they probably would have acheived a lot more, and when Fletcher took over he still had the nucleus of the 90's team and results immediately improved. And if they were that bad how did they beat Australia so well in the first and last tests of the 1996 series?

As much as I support Zimbabwe I think that the current team are probably the worst ever. I (obviously) didn't see early NZ and SA sides so I don't know, of the modern era certainly Zimbabwe post-Streak and Flower.
England's nadir was in the 2nd half of the 80's, when we really were hopeless, despite the presence of some famous names. We weren't world beaters in the 90's but we were much more competitive than we had been from 1986 to 1989. That being said, obviously the current Zim side are in a league of their own.
 
Last edited:

a massive zebra

International Vice-Captain
In a comprehensive list the early South Africans and New Zealanders should be in there. In the 19th century the springboks averaged 8.86 with the bat. New Zealand started Test cricket in 1929 and did not win a match until 1955.

Australia 1986... West Indies 2004... Please 8-)
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
This most-recent-is-best-remembered syndrome really is ridiculous.
To suggest that any might be worse than the early SAfricans or NZers is ridiculous.
And it'd be the case with West Indies too but for George Headley.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
wpdavid said:
England's nadir was in the 2nd half of the 80's, when we really were hopeless, despite the presence of some famous names. We weren't world beaters in the 90's but we were much more competitive than we had been from 1986 to 1989.
The 1989 Ashes were, beyond question, superseded by the 1999 New Zealand loss.
Both terrible moments (I remember one and I don't remember the other) but at least in '89 there was the consolation of The Genius being the prime destroyer.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
BoyBrumby said:
And it's a bit tight to have "West Indies 2004" in there. Did they or did they not win the Champions Trophy?
I think this means Test-cricket.
 

a massive zebra

International Vice-Captain
Richard said:
To suggest that any might be worse than the early SAfricans or NZers is ridiculous..
Are the current Bangladesh and Zimbabwe teams any better?


Richard said:
And it'd be the case with West Indies too but for George Headley.
Ever heard of Learie Constantine, Manny Martindale, Clifford Roach, George Challenor?
 

Camel56

Banned
What about the bangladesh side? Or the original Sri Lankan side? Surely they were right up there witht he worst.
From an Australian point of view though, our side of the mid 80s was pretty ordinary.
 

Top