View Full Version : Worst tail ever
WA circa 1990 - Alderman-Capes-Reid
Pakistan circa 1990 - Waqar Younis-Nadeem Ghauri-Aaqib Javed
NSW circa 2003/04 - MacGill-Bollinger-Clark
SA circa 1991 - George-McIntyre-Hickey
NSW 2003/04 - Clark-MacGill-Bracken... can't believe they batted Bracken after the other two!
Any others?
Bangladesh from their openers down.
Adelaide Hawk
12 Dec 2004, 16:28
England 1990-91 Fraser, Tufnell, Malcolm.
Ricketts
12 Dec 2004, 17:08
Macgill batting at 9.
:D :D :D
Want A Beer Mate
12 Dec 2004, 17:50
Bangladesh from their openers down.
GOLD :D
johnnyhoward
12 Dec 2004, 18:09
I seem to remember back in the 98/99 season when Bracken was still developing that he was actually considered a batsman? What went wrong with his batting anyway?
Bishop, Walsh, Cuffy, Thompson
4th test 1996/97 WI vs Aus
Best tail = NZ.
Mills, bats 11 with a first-class average in the high 30s. Surely no worse a batsman than Scott Styris, who batted at 4 in the first test.
ARDENSTREETforever
12 Dec 2004, 19:53
Best Tail:
8. Brendon McCullum
9.Chris Harris
10. Daniel Vettori
11. Kyle Mills
GrahamH
12 Dec 2004, 19:56
Australia in the WI 1991
Hughes
McDermott
Reid
Alderman
For memory, didnt make too many in that series
johnnyhoward
12 Dec 2004, 19:59
Best tail = NZ.
Mills, bats 11 with a first-class average in the high 30s. Surely no worse a batsman than Scott Styris, who batted at 4 in the first test.
The problem with NZ's batting line up is that they have too many all rounders, and the class they have at the bottom of the order are continually forced to make up the innings when the top order fails. But the lineup is very deep, Kyle Mills batted well in the Tests as well as the one dayer, and the only bunny they brought on tour was Martin.
Tasmania during the 90's, well actually, the whole line-up for most of the 90's would be the worst.
England had Caddick batting at 8 once which tells you how bad 9,10, jack were.
I think it was Mullaley, Tufnell & maybe Malcom.
Mind you I dare say that 1-7 weren't that much better.
Fred Yeomans
12 Dec 2004, 20:48
The West Indies have had some very ordinary tails in recent years. Earlier this year, they played some games with a #8 to #11 of:-
Best ....... Career average 7.45
Collins ........................... 6.38
Edwards ........................ 3.81
Lawson ......................... 5.00
:)
Milenko
12 Dec 2004, 21:13
Look no further that this coming Pakistan Test Series....
Kamran
Sami
Akhtar
Kaneria (the world's worst number 11, makes mcgrath look like bradman)
wagstaff
12 Dec 2004, 21:17
England had Caddick batting at 8 once which tells you how bad 9,10, jack were.
I think it was Mullaley, Tufnell & maybe Malcom.
Mind you I dare say that 1-7 weren't that much better.
There was a Test match in 1999 when England's tail was Caddick, Mullally, Tufnell and Giddens. Any tail that had Mullally at 9 was seriously bad.
eddiesmith
12 Dec 2004, 21:39
Gillespie
Lee
McGrath
MacGill
I'm sure they would have played together at some time
I want to see the 'Full strength' Blues one game, that would be the longest tail in the history of the game
johnnyhoward
12 Dec 2004, 21:52
I hope you're joking eddie. Gillespie and Lee are fine late order batsman.
BTW, anyone know what happened to Bracken?
Karbassiyoon
12 Dec 2004, 21:54
no mention of the indian tails with agarkar in them....
Kumble
Agarkar
Prasaad
Srinath
has to be a contender
Despite Agarkar's famous 1999/2000 Test series, he's actually an OK bat. In fact he's made a Test century. At Lord's.
I seem to recall Agarkar being talked of as an all-rounder when he first came onto the international scene.
Karbassiyoon
12 Dec 2004, 22:07
and i seem to remember more eggs than easter when he toured in 1999
ThePope
13 Dec 2004, 11:10
Despite Agarkar's famous 1999/2000 Test series, he's actually an OK bat. In fact he's made a Test century. At Lord's.
I seem to recall Agarkar being talked of as an all-rounder when he first came onto the international scene.
Pretty sure he still holds the Test record for lowest batting average of all test century makers, about 14.
Adelaide Hawk
13 Dec 2004, 11:25
Pretty sure he still holds the Test record for lowest batting average of all test century makers, about 14.
I'm sure every time Shane Warne hears that Argarkar has a Test century he wants to vomit.
Scottroo
13 Dec 2004, 11:44
(insert redbacks whole team here)
Boucher ave= 30.91
Pollock ave= 32.60
Boje ave= 23.13
Ntini ave= 9.65
How bout that
Go the Proteas....
Boucher ave= 30.91
Pollock ave= 32.60
Boje ave= 23.13
Ntini ave= 9.65
How bout that
Go the Proteas....
It's amazing they haven't won anything decent with all those great players.
docker_azza
13 Dec 2004, 21:32
England 98-99
Gough
Headley
Mullally
Such
XFactor1979
25 Nov 2010, 21:41
the english tail got 60 odd runs today, in the old days of cricket with the old bats the tail would've folded for nothing after siddle's hat-trick
"the rabbit" is a dying breed in test cricket - almost an extinct breed actually. most number 11s are number 11 because the number 10 was pushed down the order because the number 8 had his spot filled up by a number 7 (if that makes any sense). nowadays we have ben hilfenhaus, a guy built like a woodchopper getting the token 50.
a tremendous australian tail a few years back was mcgrath and macgill, nobody had any idea who to put for 11 on that lineup :) mcgrath batting at 10 called for some odd days in the australian tail, he was far more comfortable at 11
i can identify chris martin as the true rabbit in international cricket. bangladesh doesnt have a great 11. although they do rotate their lineup to find out who can play at international level.
andy_99
26 Nov 2010, 06:56
Surely the best tail in test cricket history was when South Africa played Australia in the 3rd test of their 97/98 series at the Adelaide Oval:
8. Brian McMillan (test match batting average: 39.36)
9. Shaun Pollock (test match batting average: 32.31)
10. Lance Klusener (test match batting average: 32.86)
11. Pat Symcox (test match batting average: 28.50)
And just in that match they combined for 219 runs in the first innings (weren't required to bat in the second)
Stuart MacGill used to send me into a completely irrational rage everytime he came out to bat. It was like he didn't care, he didn't want to even try and he thought it was a major inconvenince to have to bother padding up.
I know there were worse but by god he pissed me off.
Belnakor
26 Nov 2010, 08:58
He was in a partnership for almost 150? in the shield awhile back, so he isn't that bad
He was in a partnership for almost 150? in the shield awhile back, so he isn't that bad
someone must have been using him as their bat...
alderman and mike whitney would have been in the same side at some point.
cast your mind back to some of the touring west indies sides post 2000...
jerome taylor, centurion with an average of just under 16. agarker won't play tests again but taylor has a chance to slip under his average.
australia v west indies, 1st test, bris 2005. bravo came in (i think) and ramdin went to #8 shortly after
darren powell 5.15
fidel edwards 4.09
corey collymore 9.13
jermaine lawson 3.46
Gillespie
Lee
McGrath
MacGill
I'm sure they would have played together at some time
I want to see the 'Full strength' Blues one game, that would be the longest tail in the history of the game
Hmmm...:rolleyes:
Doodlesweaver
26 Nov 2010, 15:43
someone must have been using him as their bat...
MacGill also had a match saving partnership with Michael Hussey in 2005 or 2006 in Australia.
In the interview afterwards, journos were asking him if he was scared and he said he didn't get nervous when he batted because he wasn't generally a nervous person and also because he knows he can't bat.
I never could work out how he was allowed in the Aus team with their obsession with the right face fitting, he was an obvious misfit what with his novel-reading and wine-drinking.
Borisdog
26 Nov 2010, 16:33
I'll help you with why MacGill got in the side.
He was a very good bowler.
That seems optional in the Australian side lately.
Macgill was one of the many, many very unlucky players of his generation that would have absolutely walked into this current side. He and many others had the misfortune to be around when we had an incredible embarrassment of riches.
As far as bad tails go - anything with Jim Higgs in it would win my vote. Jeez he was shocking with a bat in his hand.
frankrizzo
26 Nov 2010, 16:39
Did macgill and tait ever play a test together?
That would have been a nasty tail, i mean who bats at 11 when you have two number 12's?
Selective Retention
26 Nov 2010, 18:32
#8 Siddle, #9 Doherty, #10 Hilfenhaus, #11 Bollinger.
The prospect of that keeps Johnson an automatic suggestion.
ps I'm sure MacGill has hung around a few times in shield/list a finals to win NSW the title.
dan warna
26 Nov 2010, 18:35
The English were brittle after atherton...well including atherton for that matter.
frankrizzo
26 Nov 2010, 19:18
if the tailend batting was a concern we probably would have stuck with haurtiz, he's been comfortably better with the bat than johnson for over a year.
Last 18 or so tests Johnson averages about 12 or 13 with the bat.
Bomber Bears
26 Nov 2010, 19:55
He was in a partnership for almost 150? in the shield awhile back, so he isn't that badI think i was at that day, shortly after the Sydney test where Waugh got his famous ton from memory. NSW were dominant that day. Macgill just smacking runs everywhere.
edit - checked scorecards, different game, Waugh did get a ton however
Murali batted similar to that as well.
Martin has to be just about the worst bat of all time.
I also remember being at the SCG when Mcgrath once came in at nuymber 10, one of the biggest roars I've heard him receive!
Mahmood
Harmison
Panesar
Hoggard/Anderson
was ordinary on the last tour.
Bomber Bears
26 Nov 2010, 20:37
Hoggard could block at least.
Bucking Beads
26 Nov 2010, 20:39
Siddle
Bollinger
Doherty
Hilfenhaus
That is what we are looking at if Johnson doesn't perform...
The Sim Dog
27 Nov 2010, 03:44
Siddle can hang around and score a few but yea I have no idea and don't expect much from the others. Thing is over the last couple of years the Aussie tail has actually done ok I think and kept us competitive despite the continued pathetic performances from our hopeless top/middle order.
Kyptastic
27 Nov 2010, 06:15
Hilfy has a test 50 by the way. Averages 17, not too bad. Doherty and Siddle can hold up an end as well.
It wouldn't be a horrible tail, we've just been spoilt with bowlers like Warne, Lee and Gillespie who were decent batsmen.
#8 Siddle, #9 Doherty, #10 Hilfenhaus, #11 Bollinger.
The prospect of that keeps Johnson an automatic suggestion.
ps I'm sure MacGill has hung around a few times in shield/list a finals to win NSW the title.
Siddle and Doherty can actually hit a few. Hilfenhaus is a decent 10. :cool:
Rave Slave
27 Nov 2010, 12:53
Considering the redbacks entire team just made a combined total of 55 I think they're giving this award a push.
For much of the early '90s NSW had Wayne Holdsworth and Glenn McGrath at 10 and 11, who at one point collectively averaged less than 10. I can't remember who generally batted at 8 and 9 but that's a pretty good start.
stmookeyj
27 Nov 2010, 18:44
Might nominate Zimbabwe's tail from 05. After Heath Streak at 8, the 3 after him were all hopeless.....Blessing Mahwire (who scored 147 runs in 17 knocks, one of which was a fluke 50), Graeme Cremer (test career av: 2.6) and Christopher Mpofu (test career av: 2.83). They were part of a side that got rolled for 54 by NZ (who themselves had Shane Bond and Chris Martin, both absolute bunnies).
Then there's the Windies bottom 4 from the 2000/2001 series. It started with Nixon McLean (av:12), Mervyn Dillon (av: 8 in both tests and FC), Marlon Black (av: 2 in tests, 6 in FC) and Courtney Walsh (7 average, 43 ducks). Colin Stuart (av: 3 in tests, 7 in FC) came in for an injured Black in Melbourne. It only slightly improved when Mahendra Nagamootoo (av: 15 in FC, 26 in tests) replaced an injured Dillon for Sydney.
Wallaby
27 Nov 2010, 19:19
How about Australia in 32/33 - 4rd test.
Ernie Bromley - test average 6, Bill O'Reilly 12, Tim Wall 6 and Herb Ironmonger 2.
Or in the 2nd Test 28/28 - Bert Ironmonger and Don Blackie were Nos 10 & 11 - the kicker being both were 46 years old.
I think you probably have to discount pre-war lineups. The pitch quality in those days was so awful that 12 was not exactly a terrible average for a tailender.
Wallaby
28 Nov 2010, 06:16
I think you probably have to discount pre-war lineups. The pitch quality in those days was so awful that 12 was not exactly a terrible average for a tailender.
The pitch quality didn't seem to affect Ponsford. Or Hammond. Or Hobbs. Or Sutcliffe. Or that little bloke.........
Did a couple of quick analyses on Cricinfo. First - average scores of Nos 8-11. The best decade by Australia was the 1920s. The second best was the 1940s. The worst was the 1930s. Make of that what you will.
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?batting_positionmin1=8;batting_positionval1=batti ng_position;class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=decade;orderby=b atting_average;team=2;template=results;type=batting
The second was for partnerships 7-10. Similar results (not exactly the same).
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=decade;orderby=fo w_average;partnership_wicketmin1=7;partnership_wicketval1=pa rtnership_wicket;team=2;template=results;type=fow
As an aside, the 1890s look like we had a stronger tail in general than the 1990s (or at least equal). And when you compare it to the top order, the 1890s we had our best ever tail.
The pitch quality didn't seem to affect Ponsford. Or Hammond. Or Hobbs. Or Sutcliffe. Or that little bloke.........
All greats of the game, hardly good examples.
Wallaby
28 Nov 2010, 14:52
All greats of the game, hardly good examples.
Maybe they were greats of the game because of the era they played in.
The average score per wicket in 1920s and 1930s were the 3rd and 4th highest scoring decades for Australia. (The 1940s and 2000s were the best 2.) They were higher than the 1990s, 1980s, 1970s etc.
I think it's generally accepted that apart from the occasional rare 'sticky', the between-wars pitches were roads. That's why they were able to have timeless tests.
Radical Roo
28 Nov 2010, 15:23
What during the 2008 SA tour of England. SA tail was Morkel, Harris, Nel, Ntini.
Maybe they were greats of the game because of the era they played in.
The average score per wicket in 1920s and 1930s were the 3rd and 4th highest scoring decades for Australia. (The 1940s and 2000s were the best 2.) They were higher than the 1990s, 1980s, 1970s etc.
I think it's generally accepted that apart from the occasional rare 'sticky', the between-wars pitches were roads. That's why they were able to have timeless tests.
Has a lot to do with the quality of Australia's teams in those decades. If you look at runs/wicket in FC competitions, or for other teams of the era, they tell a very different story.
Wallaby
29 Nov 2010, 06:29
The pitches for the test matches were prepared for timeless tests. In 1928/29, 3 of England's Top 4 bowlers for the series had an economy rate of less than 2 per over (the 4th was Larwood at 2.8). The Australian bowlers were similar. in 1936/37 - higher, but still well below 3. That was cricket in Australia between the wars.
Because the pitch was so dead (but there was no time limit), you just sat on the bowling until a bad ball came along.