Why were england so s***?

[Gough]

Sounds like the SACA really. Most of this post explains South Australian cricket, without the success, in the last 30 years.

The SACA were absolutely bricking it when the vote won't through for the redevelopment, it was suggested to me that at the time they were trading insolvent and if it didn't pass they were basically f***, hence the fact they bent over and let the AFL go in dry.

 

[big_e]

Probably not but im fairly certain that they were 9th of 9 at one point in the rankings

Almost.

 

[BronCrow]

The SACA were absolutely bricking it when the vote won't through for the redevelopment, it was suggested to me that at the time they were trading insolvent and if it didn't pass they were basically f***, hence the fact they bent over and let the AFL go in dry.

What they then may have been more worried about was the coming to light of how they had become insolvent.

 

[DaRick]

The SACA were absolutely bricking it when the vote won't through for the redevelopment, it was suggested to me that at the time they were trading insolvent and if it didn't pass they were basically f***, hence the fact they bent over and let the AFL go in dry.

What they then may have been more worried about was the coming to light of how they had become insolvent.

I know nothing about the inner workings of SA Cricket, so I'm obviously just speculating.

Was there any question of embezzlement or other impropriety involved in their alleged insolvency, or was this just a case of off-field incompetence matching the on-field incompetence?

 

[BronCrow]

I know nothing about the inner workings of SA Cricket, so I'm obviously just speculating.

Was there any question of embezzlement or other impropriety involved in their alleged insolvency, or was this just a case of off-field incompetence matching the on-field incompetence?

I have to be honest, it is the first I have heard about the insolvency part, so I am more going off what Gough was saying and adding my own though to it. It would surprise me if it is true, as it was well known that SA Cricket had been, and continues to be poorly run. I would suspect that it is just off-field incompetence, with arrogance mixed in to boot.

 

[Sammo360]

Probably not but im fairly certain that they were 9th of 9 at one point in the rankings

In ODIs. November and December 1997

International Cricket Council - Match Zone - Team Ranking

The International Cricket Council official website provides information on all major ICC cricket events, the Reliance ICC Rankings and live cricket scores from all levels of the game.

web.archive.org

 

[Partridge]

So most counties told the groundsmen to produce green top pitches to guarantee a result if no rain, Essex were the dominant side of the 80s, 6 titles from 1979 to 1991, but they were the worst offenders, fast medium or medium fast bowlers just had to hit the seam at Chelmsford and the ball jagged all over the place, Foster and Lever would take 100 wickets at less than 20 regularly, Pringle and his medium pacers were a threat as first change . Throw them onto a flat test pitch and they didn't have the skills or tools to bowl sides out. The whole of county cricket was like that, any bowler with real pace was flogged into submission on the circuit. England's only real quick for a 20 year period was Bob Willis, in county cricket he bowled within himself to save himself for test cricket, it worked but it didn't make him very popular amongst his county committees and members... or captains.

That's another massive flaw they had, completely self-imposed. How about the award winning decision to not bring John Snow here in 1974/75? Ian Chappell still rates him the best fast bowler he faced. Or let Boycott take 3 years off just because he felt like it (and worse, let him walk back in)? All comes back to who the favourites are, and how players conform instead of how they perform.

Ian Botham said it explicitly years ago, England wants its sportsmen to be nice people who come second. Goes for cricket, soccer, everything.