When was the worst era of each major cricketing nation?

[Dazinho]

Hiya - following on from the thread about ATG teams this seemed apt.

I suppose for the later entrants to test cricket the answer would be 'when they started' so it might be worth answering in a way that excludes that answer.

Off the top of my head, just from the cricket history that I have some accurate recall of over the last 45 years or so.

Australia - again a bit of a cheat but the Packer and immediately post-Packer 1980s period until AB came in as captain. Losing the Ashes to poor England teams, Kim Hughes crying etc.
England - this one is tough, we were pants for some of the 1990s and the Peter Moores era was grim as well, but I'm gonna say the second half of the 1980s which culminated in the 1989 Ashes horror.
West Indies - it would be the 2000s teams shorn of the great bowlers, whether they were 'the worst' or not the decline was apparent.
India - they're a bit difficult to call as they always had a strong home/away disparity. I thought the early-mid 90s India teams were pretty ordinary.
Pakistan - that weird period in the 2000s when you weren't quite sure whether a Pak match was straight or not.
New Zealand - probably the few years after Hadlee retired before getting decent again in the second half of the 1990s.
Sri Lanka - seemed to stay at a similar level from the mid-80s until Murali and a few others came along. Were seen fairly or unfairly as the weakest test nation until Zimbabwe were admitted in 1992.
Zimbabwe - the 'Mugabe ruination' period, in many ways Zimbabwe were a sort of 'second team' at international level and they were good for a while. Then politics was brought into it. A shame.
Bangladesh - a bit difficult as their worst period was clearly the first five years or so after they got test cricket and that was 25 years ago. No other answer.

Have I got any of these badly wrong? Sure there'll be some disagreement!!

Thanks for the comments in advance...

 

[Coronis]

Hiya - following on from the thread about ATG teams this seemed apt.

I suppose for the later entrants to test cricket the answer would be 'when they started' so it might be worth answering in a way that excludes that answer.

Off the top of my head, just from the cricket history that I have some accurate recall of over the last 45 years or so.

Australia - again a bit of a cheat but the Packer and immediately post-Packer 1980s period until AB came in as captain. Losing the Ashes to poor England teams, Kim Hughes crying etc.
England - this one is tough, we were pants for some of the 1990s and the Peter Moores era was grim as well, but I'm gonna say the second half of the 1980s which culminated in the 1989 Ashes horror.
West Indies - it would be the 2000s teams shorn of the great bowlers, whether they were 'the worst' or not the decline was apparent.
India - they're a bit difficult to call as they always had a strong home/away disparity. I thought the early-mid 90s India teams were pretty ordinary.
Pakistan - that weird period in the 2000s when you weren't quite sure whether a Pak match was straight or not.
New Zealand - probably the few years after Hadlee retired before getting decent again in the second half of the 1990s.
Sri Lanka - seemed to stay at a similar level from the mid-80s until Murali and a few others came along. Were seen fairly or unfairly as the weakest test nation until Zimbabwe were admitted in 1992.
Zimbabwe - the 'Mugabe ruination' period, in many ways Zimbabwe were a sort of 'second team' at international level and they were good for a while. Then politics was brought into it. A shame.
Bangladesh - a bit difficult as their worst period was clearly the first five years or so after they got test cricket and that was 25 years ago. No other answer.

Have I got any of these badly wrong? Sure there'll be some disagreement!!

Thanks for the comments in advance...

Australia 1882/83-1896

There were 11 Ashes series in this period. Australia lost 10 of them. 9-23-4. Lost 64% of our matches over a 14 year period.

 

[Ali TT]

As an England fan that grew up in the 90s that obviously brings back horror memories of batting collapses and selector insanity but you are right to point out the late 80s. When I was old enough to actually read up on that period I was shocked just how much worse the performances were, the off the field shenanigans and lack of professionalism, the low quality of players (especially bowlers) and the cycling through captains and even more inconsistent selection policy. At least in the 90s, if you take out the Ashes, we were often quite competitive, especially at home. I think the 80s players dined out on the Ashes wins against some crap Aussie sides, as if that made up for general garbage the rest of the time.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Dwayne Smith’s debut test century - present

 

[Dazinho]

As an England fan that grew up in the 90s that obviously brings back horror memories of batting collapses and selector insanity but you are right to point out the late 80s. When I was old enough to actually read up on that period I was shocked just how much worse the performances were, the off the field shenanigans and lack of professionalism, the low quality of players (especially bowlers) and the cycling through captains and even more inconsistent selection policy. At least in the 90s, if you take out the Ashes, we were often quite competitive, especially at home. I think the 80s players dined out on the Ashes wins against some crap Aussie sides, as if that made up for general garbage the rest of the time.

Yeah it's interesting to think of the well-known England players from that period and how many bad England defeats they played in.

Yeah apart from the Ashes (and maybe that India tour) England were ok-ish for some of the 90s.

 

[wpdavid]

As an England fan that grew up in the 90s that obviously brings back horror memories of batting collapses and selector insanity but you are right to point out the late 80s. When I was old enough to actually read up on that period I was shocked just how much worse the performances were, the off the field shenanigans and lack of professionalism, the low quality of players (especially bowlers) and the cycling through captains and even more inconsistent selection policy. At least in the 90s, if you take out the Ashes, we were often quite competitive, especially at home. I think the 80s players dined out on the Ashes wins against some crap Aussie sides, as if that made up for general garbage the rest of the time.

As someone who was not too young to follow England during the second half of the 1980s, I can vouch for all of that. The 1990s felt like a golden age in comparison.

 

[Chubb]

NZ were worse in the 40s and 50s than they were post-Hadlee. There is a reason it took so long to win a test.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

NZ were worse in the 40s and 50s than they were post-Hadlee. There is a reason it took so long to win a test.

Terrible in the 50s but the 1949 side was pretty good with several world class players.

2008-2011 was poor despite looking decent on paper.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Australia 1882/83-1896

There were 11 Ashes series in this period. Australia lost 10 of them. 9-23-4. Lost 64% of our matches over a 14 year period.

Remember it like yesterday

 

[Coronis]

Remember it like yesterday

Fun (?) stat, Australia have only had 2 decades where we lost more tests than we won. 1880’s (8-15-4) and 1980’s (27-31-1-38). Looks like we’re set for the next ~55 years.

 

[DrWolverine]

India

1932-1951 : 24 Tests. We did not win a single test.

1956-1960 : 23 Tests. We won just one test.

 

[SteveNZ]

NZ were worse in the 40s and 50s than they were post-Hadlee. There is a reason it took so long to win a test.

Yeah, was gonna say this. As **** as we were in the 90s at times, we didn't win a Test from 1929/30 to 1955/56. Then two in the next 12 years, both in the same series. It took us nigh on 40 years to win a series, then not again for another 10 years.

The early 90s were definitely dire, then we didn't beat anyone other than Bangladesh or Zimbabwe from late 05/06 to 13/14.

That last one definitely is underrated as a **** time for NZ cricket.

 

[govinda indian fan]

Not counting our minnow status till 1967.i would say 1980s. In 90s we atlest won @ home. But from mid 80s to early 90s was worst period for india. Multiple captains, match fixing allegations in sharjah and getting smashed by multiple teams in home

 

[Silver Silva]

Everything before Murali's debut. So 82-91

 

[Ali TT]

I think Pakistan's might be now. Yes they beat England recently but only through some pretty blatant pitch doctoring. They had a bad run in the 00s as highlighted above but still had the talent and a high quality pipeline that lead to their much stronger period a decade later. This current Pakistan side has neither. Feels like a cricketing nation on a terminal slide.

 

[Kenneth Viljoen]

I think Pakistan's might be now. Yes they beat England recently but only through some pretty blatant pitch doctoring. They had a bad run in the 00s as highlighted above but still had the talent and a high quality pipeline that lead to their much stronger period a decade later. This current Pakistan side has neither. Feels like a cricketing nation on a terminal slide.

Disagree.
For most countries what defines a horrible era is performances on the pitch. Not with Pakistan.

What happened to Pakistan cricket in the 2000's is still being felt by that country today, and it may still have an effect decades from now.

The match fixing scandals from Salim Malik convicted in 2000 to the 2010 spot fixing scandal in London.

A test match being forfeited

A national team coach Bob Woolmer dying in his hotel.

The severed ties with India that has cost Pakistan financially and hurt their cricket in my opinion..

The terror attack on the Sri Lankan bus which effectively banned Pakistan from playing at home for over a decade.

All these things have created instability in Pakistan cricket, only politicians thrive in instability.

 

[Chin Music]

As someone who was not too young to follow England during the second half of the 1980s, I can vouch for all of that. The 1990s felt like a golden age in comparison.

Yeah agreed. I remember 87-89 being very grim years indeed. I may have watched my first live ltest match as a young boy in '84 at the Oval for the 'blackwash' as it was known, but I was more mesmerised by the Windies quicks than anything. That '87-'89 had a Botham on a very steep decline, poor bowling lineups when every seamer under the sun who had a run of successful games in the County Championship was given a go.

That said, the late 90s had the monster tail with Giddins, Mullally, Tuffers being an example of 8, 9 10 Jack being gone in nigh on 60 seconds!

 

[Molehill]

At least 90's England were never beaten 5-0 in an Ashes series, and put up a decent fight in 1997. I think they were made to look average because so many other teams were particularly strong at the time, but late 80's was definitely the worst period. Getting hammered in the 89 Ashes by an Aussie team deemed to have little hope was the pinnacle.

 

[peterhrt]

Australia 1882/83-1896

There were 11 Ashes series in this period. Australia lost 10 of them. 9-23-4. Lost 64% of our matches over a 14 year period.

The period to 1893 saw Australian bowling match England’s remarkably quickly. They also had a great wicket-keeper. But the batting took much longer to develop and was barely of county standard. In addition to ten Test defeats, the Australians lost a further 53 first-class matches in England. Nottinghamshire alone beat them six times.

In 1888 and 1890 the Players (professionals) took on the Australians on three occasions, beating them by ten wickets, nine wickets, and an innings and 263 runs. The Gentlemen (amateurs) drew with the tourists after establishing a first innings lead of 311 in a match reduced to two days because of the Derby race on the third (reflecting the priorities of the time). Grace scored 165. In October 1893 the Gentlemen of Philadelphia beat the Australians by an innings in America.

English bowlers of this period can only really be judged on their overall first-class record. Their performances in so-called Test matches are irrelevant.

 

[Coronis]

The period to 1893 saw Australian bowling match England’s remarkably quickly. They also had a great wicket-keeper. But the batting took much longer to develop and was barely of county standard. In addition to ten Test defeats, the Australians lost a further 53 first-class matches in England. Nottinghamshire alone beat them six times.

In 1888 and 1890 the Players (professionals) took on the Australians on three occasions, beating them by ten wickets, nine wickets, and an innings and 263 runs. The Gentlemen (amateurs) drew with the tourists after establishing a first innings lead of 311 in a match reduced to two days because of the Derby race on the third (reflecting the priorities of the time). Grace scored 165. In October 1893 the Gentlemen of Philadelphia beat the Australians by an innings in America.

English bowlers of this period can only really be judged on their overall first-class record. Their performances in so-called Test matches are irrelevant.

I had not heard of this stat. That’s awfully embarrassing. That’s like if Pakistan or India had lost to Ireland or Afghanistan respectively.