We'll Keep the White Flag Flying.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Good post by the way'

Got to keep some stuff back, so I'll get back to Flower and Moores later.

These misgiving may have always been around though. Look at the D'Oliveira Affair, or the treatment of Larwood post Bodyline.

[Durhamfootman]

I think the worst thing about the nineties was not the seemingly endless round of heavy defeats at the hands of a rampant and highly vocal Australia, it was that it happened on free to air TV and thus humiliatingly inevitable wimpitude was impossible to ignore the way I learned to ignore it in the last several years (the only test match I've seen since about 2011 was the home ashes test in 2013 that I paid £280 to watch).

[Arthur Crabtree]

I'm going to have a go at locating the absolute lowest point. There was often something in the nineties that could be enjoyed/celebrated in isolation. Dead rubber wins, usually in tight games. Usually involving a good Test for Angus Fraser.The eighties, post Botham's Ashes was more dismal. Apart from Ashes wins there was very little not to feel despairing about. And then eventually, there weren't even the Ashes wins.

[Durhamfootman]

could be Smith and MacKenzie batting for 2 days pretty much on their own, to save a test match will be right up there. That was pretty damned depressing, especially given the certainty that, from the same position that SA found themselves in, England would probably have gotten themselves out for 170, 'expressing themselves'

[Arthur Crabtree]

Yes, good point. SA have been good at that. I've gone easy on the noughties though. England crashed and burned after 2005, and the first Moores years were a shambles but there was much worse before and after, in different ways. Maybe I should have seen the signs in the late noughties, from when Sky took over the tv rights, but it took until about 2012 before England became something that felt alien and unappealing to me.

For a low on the pitch, I'm going back much further than that.

[Arthur Crabtree]

17. Bangladesh v England, Shere Bangla Stadium, Dhaka. October, 2016.

Bangladesh won by 108 runs.

In eight previous meetings between the sides, England had won eight. After 16 years and approaching a hundred Tests, Bangladesh had never beaten a major Test playing nation other than Floyd Reifer's strikebusting West Indies B side in 2009. Maybe this defeat was coming and any other tourists might have worn one in the way England did. It may have been Australia who ducked (cancelling their tour the previous winter) but it was the Poms who copped the custard pie.

England had made the most of some difficult fixtures in 2015-16, at least after their shared series in the Caribbean, with only a disappointing draw at home to Pakistan to spoil the picture of a team recovering from the discontent of 2014. England chose to use their tour of Bangladesh to prepare the players for an extremely challenging series in India which would follow directly after. The risk being that in treating Bangladesh as a means to an end, they wouldn't focus entirely on what was in itself a tricky task. Or appear not to. And it actually felt a bit patronising to treat the still emerging nation as a warm up for a main event.

It is only fair to commend England for touring at all given the assumed security risk. But preparation was awkward with Alastair Cook arriving only shortly before the first Test. England had to draw on a great deal of their superior Test experience to win a close game in Chittagong, having been exposed by the debutant spinner Hasan Miraz. England's response could hardly have been more misguided. Having dodged a bullet once, they dropped Stuart Broad (their lead pace bowler in the absence of the injured James Anderson) in order to give Steve Finn a game before India, and they took a punt their own debutant Zafar Ansari following a poor County season. England were left cursing in front of the delirious crowds at Dhaka, hopping and clutching their toes.

Bangladesh won in some comfort thanks to a hundred by Tamim Iqbal and another stellar performance by nineteen year old Hasan. England had stepped on the rake and blacked their own eye. It wasn't so bad that England lost to Bangladesh, and it was a feelgood victory for the Tigers. But England looked ridiculous for their condescension towards a side that proved stronger in the conditions. Especially as a 'big three' side. And they actually damaged their tour to India, arriving with some players who appeared unpickable, as well as long term problems such as top order collapses and poor spin options.

It was a plan, like many England have made in recent times, that had to succeed, or they would end up looking like they were better at running a circus than an international sporting team. Approaching the end of the India leg, the double tour feels an experiment that won't be repeated.


http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/m ... 29827.html

[Durhamfootman]

picking and then mismanaging a squad, on tour, so that they end up with an unsatisfactory XI and a bunch of unpickable players seems to be what a touring England do best.

[Durhamfootman]

you might have started this thread too early, AC. On a pitch that we were told only the team batting first had any sort of chance of posting a good score, and after posting 400, England allow an 8th wicket stand of 241 to lose test and series...........whilst at the same time not surprising anyone

[rich1uk]

you might have started this thread too early, AC. On a pitch that we were told only the team batting first had any sort of chance of posting a good score, and after posting 400, England allow an 8th wicket stand of 241 to lose test and series...........whilst at the same time not surprising anyone

yeah i was thinking that as well

hope AC has left some space for this game

[Arthur Crabtree]

Yes, this has gone from being an expected defeat into something worse. Too late for inclusion though. Not England's worst tour of India though. I've included the worst.

[Arthur Crabtree]

There is a little extra twist in a really demoralising defeat. In this one it's the selection of four seamers, just because spin hadn't won a game yet, and maybe because of a build up of general discontent.

[rich1uk]

There is a little extra twist in a really demoralising defeat. In this one it's the selection of four seamers, just because spin hadn't won a game yet, and maybe because of a build up of general discontent.

i just commented in the match thread about this and that the most distressing thing isn't just that we have been beaten by a better team but our decision making just looks clueless

[Arthur Crabtree]

16. Sri Lanka v England at the Sinhalese Sports Club, Colombo. March, 1993.

Sri Lanka won by five wickets.

For England's worst defeat to India look no further than the 3-0 whitewash of Graham Gooch's 1993 tourists. Tacked on to the end of that tour was a one off Test against Sri Lanka. Same battered squad, no warm up, and an already beaten side.

England had first played Sri Lanka in 1982 in the latter's inaugural Test, and beaten them handsomely. Anyone who felt that England didn't take Bangladesh seriously this year will find a precursor in relations between these two sides. In the ten years following their entry into Test cricket, England didn't play a single series against the new boys, just five one off Tests. As they would in their next, in 1998 at the Oval.

So England under Keith Fletcher sailed into Colombo harbour like broken royalty into exile. A defeated side, but surely still commanding respect in this far corner of the earth. Sri Lanka were led by Arjuna Ranatunga, who had played in the first Test between the two sides, somewhat fuller in stature in his thirtieth year. This was an opportunity for Sri Lanka to show one of the founding Test nations how their game was developing, and to display a younger generation of Sri Lankan talent.

Like 23 year old slow left arm all rounder Sanath Jayasuriya and 20 year old off break bowler Muttiah Muralithan who would be playing his fourth test, and already had 11 test wickets. And they would get another look at Aravinda de Silva who had scored runs against New Zealand two winters ago, but never passed fifty in three games against England. And Hashan Tillakaratne, who had failed at Lord's two years earlier.

The damage done by the Indian spinners is apparent at the top of the England order, with Robin Smith, whose career was ultimately wrecked by that India tour, opening the batting to ensure he didn't have to start against the slow bowlers. Having controversially left behind David Gower (after falling out with Gooch over the dashing left hander's flight in a biplane in Australia the previous winter), Graham Gooch was excused from the trip to Sri Lanka and Alec Stewart captained, batted at five and reclaimed the gloves from Richard Blakey.

England lost to Sri Lanka for the first time. Coach Keith Fletcher complained about the humidity claiming:"It's very nearly too hot here for Europeans to play cricket." There were comments about the home umpiring, and the action of one of the Sri Lankan spinners. The Middlesex slow bowlers, Tufnell and Emburey were outclassed, and there was little for Malcolm, Jarvis and Lewis to work with. Ranatunga brought Sri Lanka home on the last day with typical bullishness and Jayasuriya finished the game off with a six. England's humbling, fearful and chastening experience on alien Asian territory was complete.


http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63605.html

[Durhamfootman]

I note that there was a rest day in that match. I grew up with test cricket starting on a Thursday and with Sunday as a rest day

[KipperJohn]

I note that there was a rest day in that match. I grew up with test cricket starting on a Thursday and with Sunday as a rest day

Yes, with the selectors meeting the previous Saturday I think to select the team - in the 60s anyway.

Slightly off topic, but didn't they 'lose' the minutes of the meeting when they omitted Dolly from the SA tour!