Worst beating in a test series?

[philreich]

Not that he was actually that bad a batsman normally, but Ajit Agarkar's run of outs in the 1999/2000 series here was one for the ages.

Indeed - wasn't it something like 6 ducks in 7 innings? I reckon he received a massive round of applause at the SCG for actually surviving a delivery, before being dismissed next ball .

 

[mianfei]

Don't overlook the 89 Ashes.

1. England playing at home.
2. England overwhelming favorites.
3. The first innings Lead to Australia in each tests was - 171, 242, 182, 187, 347, and 183.
4. There were 2 drawn tests. In the 3rd test, England passed the follow-on with 9 wickets down - then it rained and so was a draw. In the 6th test, England passed the follow-on with 8 wickets down - then it rained, and so was a draw.
5. The best England bowler took 12 wickets at 35. The worst of Australia's main 4 bowlers took 11 wickets at 27.
6. There were 12 Australian century partnerships - 2 for England.
7. 0-301 - one of only 5 instances of an opening partnership batting through the first day of a test.

And repeat Point 2 - England were overwhelming favorites. No one gave Australia a chance. But for rain, it would certainly have been 6-0.

There's no doubt how dreadful England were in 1989, especially in bowling where the decline in standards was so alarming that the TCCB thought up a plan to improve pitches so they did not help the short-of-a-length seamer who had so dominated English cricket since the 1950s simply because short-of-a-length medium pace is so easy to bowl. Moreover, covering of pitches, as I have noted earlier lost the advantages in technique England had had before the 1970s. (I have told those who know me that a book on the 1958 New Zealand tour I mentioned earlier, if one were written, ought to be titled Spare the Rain and Spoil the Batsman, but that could be a title for the history of English cricket in the last third of the twentieth century too).

It may have been forgotten that England had won one Test since 1985 at home against the developing Sri Lankan nation, which hardly suggests they should have been overwhelming favourites. More than that, there was Terry Alderman, who was banned from all first-class cricket for two years as a result of touring South Africa (being the most conspicuous absentee from the weak 1985 team) but whose potency in England had never been in doubt despite the fact that he had not done that much in Australia.

With hindsight and reading in Wisden (which I sometimes jokingly call the "Koran" since I do love to memorise it as a Muslim does the Koran and have done so since 1991) it seems odd England were such overwhelming favourites, especially with obviously such appallingly weak bowling as they had!

 

[Ronnie Baby]

You knew that was a mismatch from the time Ramnaresh Sarwan was run out on Morning 1 Day 1 attempting a 2nd Leg Bye. That team was so bad they even failed to chase down 120 against Zimbabwe when the 50 over games came around.

Their chase had just started as we went to the news and when we returned 30 minutes later they were already 8 for 31!

 

[Wallaby]

With hindsight and reading in Wisden (which I sometimes jokingly call the "Koran" since I do love to memorise it as a Muslim does the Koran and have done so since 1991) it seems odd England were such overwhelming favourites, especially with obviously such appallingly weak bowling as they had!

Because we were much, much worse. England had thrashed us in 86/87 - we only won the last dead rubber in a close one. They also handled us pretty easily in the Centenary test out here in 88. Yes, they had been thrashed by the Windies - but so had we.

At the start of the series:

Mark Taylor had played two tests, Steve Waugh had never made a hundred, Marsh was our Vice-Captain, 3rd senior batsman, and was averaging 33 with 3 hundreds in 25 tests, Boon was slightly better, but completely failed in England in 85, Alderman was 33 and had played 2 tests since 1984, Lawson was 32 and had played one test since 86 (and got his jaw broken last summer in Aus), we had no spinner (we had tried Matthews, Sleep, Holland, P Taylor, Bright, Bennett and others over the previous years - all rather rubbish), Healy was just starting, terrible, and averaging 17, Jones and Hughes were flakes. Our reserve batsmen were Moody and Veletta - not much there.

We were on paper clearly the worst side we had sent to England for decades. The fact that Taylor, Waugh Jones, Healy all developed into stars on that tour, and Alderman and Lawson managed to drag out career years in their last gasps (Alderman played only one test outside Australia after that, and Lawson played only two more in total) meant it came together perfectly. The poms helped by imploding and having Gower as captain.

 

[mianfei]

Because we were much, much worse. England had thrashed us in 86/87 - we only won the last dead rubber in a close one. They also handled us pretty easily in the Centenary test out here in 88. Yes, they had been thrashed by the Windies - but so had we.

At the start of the series:

Mark Taylor had played two tests, Steve Waugh had never made a hundred, Marsh was our Vice-Captain, 3rd senior batsman, and was averaging 33 with 3 hundreds in 25 tests, Boon was slightly better, but completely failed in England in 85, Alderman was 33 and had played 2 tests since 1984, Lawson was 32 and had played one test since 86 (and got his jaw broken last summer in Aus), we had no spinner (we had tried Matthews, Sleep, Holland, P Taylor, Bright, Bennett and others over the previous years - all rather rubbish), Healy was just starting, terrible, and averaging 17, Jones and Hughes were flakes. Our reserve batsmen were Moody and Veletta - not much there.

We were on paper clearly the worst side we had sent to England for decades. The fact that Taylor, Waugh Jones, Healy all developed into stars on that tour, and Alderman and Lawson managed to drag out career years in their last gasps (Alderman played only one test outside Australia after that, and Lawson played only two more in total) meant it came together perfectly. The poms helped by imploding and having Gower as captain.

That’s interesting – I had overlooked that Lawson and Alderman had not been playing much in the Tests before 1989! The spin issue is nonexistent – if you’re a cricket fan who is not appalled at how dreadful the standard of spin in the 1980s was (Pakistan is a weak exception) there is something really, really wrong with you!

Still, with hindsight the 1989 Australians were a moderate team who crushed utterly woeful opposition via luck with injuries and the form of their veteran pace bowlers. England had not toured any Test nation in 1988/1989, and the loss of Allan Lamb was certainly not a help, nor was their inability to find new bowlers.

Where England’s 1989 team would rank among the worst in Test cricket can be asked but seldom is – comparisons with the 1985 Australians, 1958 New Zealanders or 1959 Indians would be interesting. It’s tough to argue against it as the worst “team” England have ever fielded, especially in bowling.

 

[Doss]

England were meant to tour India in 1988/89, but the tour was cancelled for some reason.

Political trouble, perhaps?

 

[mianfei]

England were meant to tour India in 1988/89, but the tour was cancelled for some reason.

Political trouble, perhaps?

It was, if you remember, because India did not accept Graham Gooch – England’s best player of the time by far – owing to his having visited South Africa in 1981/1982.

 

[Doss]

It was, if you remember, because India did not accept Graham Gooch – England’s best player of the time by far – owing to his having visited South Africa in 1981/1982.

Ah! That would explain it.

He was serving an Apartheid ban and so didn't tour in 1984/85. Question is, if they didn't accept him in '88/89, why did they accept him four years later in '92/93?

 

[Wallaby]

Because in those days, the MCC (and Australia) were the powers in International cricket. The boards applied pressure to the BCCI (or whoever it was) and they caved.

John Emburey played tests, then went on a Rebel tour, then played tests again, did another Rebel tour, got forgiven and played tests again - and wound up on the board of the MCC.

 

[GROTTO]

Ah! That would explain it.

He was serving an Apartheid ban and so didn't tour in 1984/85. Question is, if they didn't accept him in '88/89, why did they accept him four years later in '92/93?

Apartheid did not have an end date but rather most of it's segregative legislation was dismantled between 1990 and 1992. The first fully democratic election was held in 1994; however Apartheid was already no longer practised at that time.

Given the fact it was in the process of being dismantled I presume thats why they allowed him to play.

 

[MisterMarcus]

Because we were much, much worse. England had thrashed us in 86/87 - we only won the last dead rubber in a close one. They also handled us pretty easily in the Centenary test out here in 88. Yes, they had been thrashed by the Windies - but so had we.

At the start of the series:

Mark Taylor had played two tests, Steve Waugh had never made a hundred, Marsh was our Vice-Captain, 3rd senior batsman, and was averaging 33 with 3 hundreds in 25 tests, Boon was slightly better, but completely failed in England in 85, Alderman was 33 and had played 2 tests since 1984, Lawson was 32 and had played one test since 86 (and got his jaw broken last summer in Aus), we had no spinner (we had tried Matthews, Sleep, Holland, P Taylor, Bright, Bennett and others over the previous years - all rather rubbish), Healy was just starting, terrible, and averaging 17, Jones and Hughes were flakes. Our reserve batsmen were Moody and Veletta - not much there.

We were on paper clearly the worst side we had sent to England for decades. The fact that Taylor, Waugh Jones, Healy all developed into stars on that tour, and Alderman and Lawson managed to drag out career years in their last gasps (Alderman played only one test outside Australia after that, and Lawson played only two more in total) meant it came together perfectly. The poms helped by imploding and having Gower as captain.

Yes, it really was the Perfect Storm of a series. On paper we must have looked extremely weak.

Another factor was that cricket was becoming a serious business by 1989, but England were still stuck in the old "County Pro" mentality. Steve Waugh in his biography was scathing of many England players for treating Ashes Tests like village green friendlies, and that selection was based on who had "paid their dues" rather than who had technique and character to succeed at the highest level.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

This series will Go mighty close lol

 

[damochandler]

2010/11 ashes is the worst the defeat for australia as far as i am concerned. 3 defeats by an innings.

 

[Natho]

So much for training facilities. I reckon maxwell could knock us over if he was a packi

 

[Ashton Agar]

This series will Go mighty close lol

It's a 2 match series. Can't really compare it.

2010/11 ashes is the worst the defeat for australia as far as i am concerned. 3 defeats by an innings.

India in 2013 was a shocker. Australian cricket's lowest point in a long time.

 

[ioppolo]

2010/11 ashes is the worst the defeat for australia as far as i am concerned. 3 defeats by an innings.

Was it that many? I must've repressed the hell out of that series...they did put up 600+ 3 or so times from memory.

 

[Marstermind]

It's a 2 match series. Can't really compare it.

India in 2013 was a shocker. Australian cricket's lowest point in a long time.

Agree. Can't compare. Losing an Ashes series at home with 3 inning defeats in 2010 has to be the worst defeat. However, the performance of this Australian team in these two tests against moderate competition is as bad as they have played. After having them 2/7 in the first half hour in the first game - Australia has hardly won a session. They certainly haven't won any with conviction. The batting has looked inept (Warner, Smith and Marsh aside - and even then they have only looked OK). The bowling utterly impotent. Clarke captaincy has looked stupid with weird and ineffectual field placings with the scoreboard reading 4/453 or something like that. If the old "Sidchrome SuperTest Team" applied to this series - it would just be "Pakistan."

I just hope it doesn't get locked away as "Sub-Continent series after a long lay off from Test or 1st class cricket. We'll smash India back home." I guess it's only 7 months since we won the Ashes 5-0 and won in South Africa. But it's not a young side and this performance has been disgraceful.

 

[Sammo360]

Their chase had just started as we went to the news and when we returned 30 minutes later they were already 8 for 31!

Carnage.

 

[Seagrave_Holmes]

2010/11 ashes is the worst the defeat for australia as far as i am concerned. 3 defeats by an innings.

This hands down. Worst part was getting dismantled on boxing day for 98 runs in front of 85,000 people.

 

[Craze]

Because we were much, much worse. England had thrashed us in 86/87 - we only won the last dead rubber in a close one. They also handled us pretty easily in the Centenary test out here in 88. Yes, they had been thrashed by the Windies - but so had we.

At the start of the series:

Mark Taylor had played two tests, Steve Waugh had never made a hundred, Marsh was our Vice-Captain, 3rd senior batsman, and was averaging 33 with 3 hundreds in 25 tests, Boon was slightly better, but completely failed in England in 85, Alderman was 33 and had played 2 tests since 1984, Lawson was 32 and had played one test since 86 (and got his jaw broken last summer in Aus), we had no spinner (we had tried Matthews, Sleep, Holland, P Taylor, Bright, Bennett and others over the previous years - all rather rubbish), Healy was just starting, terrible, and averaging 17, Jones and Hughes were flakes. Our reserve batsmen were Moody and Veletta - not much there.

We were on paper clearly the worst side we had sent to England for decades. The fact that Taylor, Waugh Jones, Healy all developed into stars on that tour, and Alderman and Lawson managed to drag out career years in their last gasps (Alderman played only one test outside Australia after that, and Lawson played only two more in total) meant it came together perfectly. The poms helped by imploding and having Gower as captain.

I like the story about a protest banner in one of the Tube train stations in London, which read 'Thatcher out!', as she was in the final stages of her leadership in 1989. Later someone scribbled underneath 'LBW Alderman'. Presumably a disgruntled pommy cricket fan.

The biggest drubbing I can recall was of Australia by the West Indians of 1984/85. Those first three tests in Perth, Brisbane and Adelaide were a debacle. It was men v.'s boys. We saved some face by hanging on in Melbourne, and then managed to win in Sydney. But the Windies couldn't have cared less by that stage.

 

[philreich]

Agree. Can't compare. Losing an Ashes series at home with 3 inning defeats in 2010 has to be the worst defeat. However, the performance of this Australian team in these two tests against moderate competition is as bad as they have played. After having them 2/7 in the first half hour in the first game - Australia has hardly won a session. They certainly haven't won any with conviction. The batting has looked inept (Warner, Smith and Marsh aside - and even then they have only looked OK). The bowling utterly impotent. Clarke captaincy has looked stupid with weird and ineffectual field placings with the scoreboard reading 4/453 or something like that. If the old "Sidchrome SuperTest Team" applied to this series - it would just be "Pakistan."

I just hope it doesn't get locked away as "Sub-Continent series after a long lay off from Test or 1st class cricket. We'll smash India back home." I guess it's only 7 months since we won the Ashes 5-0 and won in South Africa. But it's not a young side and this performance has been disgraceful.

Let's just be thankful that this series against Pakistan was only a 2 Test series, because the Third Test probably would have gone the same way as the first two.

But yeah: that Ashes series a few years ago was ordinary. When we were getting pulverised in the Sydney Test (which coincided with the Queensland floods), somebody sent a text to ABC radio, "There's more chance of me seeing bitumen in Rockhampton, than there is of us bowling the Poms out."