IS ENGLAND, the worst cricket team of all time.?

Question

the present team, Sri Lanka, could not get near the might Australian Team, but they skittle the poop poms for a miserable 81.

Are the persent day Poms the worst to represent their country?.

yeah fell into that one answer numb 1, but they would give the poms a run for their money after their effort of 81.

Answer 1

Not by a long way.

The 2001 home Ashes series was pathetic, Australia winning 4-1 and England using 19 players during the series.

The 1993/94 tourists to the West Indies lost the series 3-1 and were bowled out for 46 at Port of Spain.

The 1992/93 tourists lost all three tests in India - two by an innings - before also losing a one-off test in Sri Lanka, before they were any good.

The 1991/92 Ashes tourists lost 3-0, including managing to lose the first test by 10 wickets after bowling out Australia for 152 in the first innings.

In 1988 England lost 4-0 at home against the West Indies, using 4 captains in the 5 tests: Gatting, Emburey(2 tests), Cowdrey (captain on debut) and Gooch. England used 23 players that summer, which I believe is the record.

Finally, the 1983/84 tourists to New Zealand managed to be bowled out for 82 & 93 in the same match to lose by and innings and 132 runs at Christchurch. NZ won the series 1-0.

England teams have a long and undistinguished history of poor results, especially away from home. The current tourists to Sri Lanka haven't played well in general, although Sidebottom has had no luck at all, and no sympathy from the umpires or help from his teammates.

And all that above is without going into the details of the last Ashes tour (or just about any Ashes series excepting 2005 in the last 25 years), without mentioning the "blackwash" of 1984 or the tour to Pakistan in 1987/88.

Answer 2

I think Peter Moores is re building a side for the future this side is in transistion, players like Bopara, Prior and Broard, Sidebottom are all still relatively new to test cricket,

The side has lost most of it ashes heroes either due to injury such as, Flintoff, Simon Jones, Trescothick or due to loss of form (Strauss),

Also match winners such as Panesar and Pietersen are out of form,

This inexperienced side is touring possibly the hardest place to tour with the exception of Australia, so although they put in a dismal performance yesterday, the side is still young and every time they play the gain valuable experience, the real test will be next year when they play South Africa at home, then you can judge if the side is the worst of all time, but with quality players like Cook, Pietersen, Hoggard and Vaughan in the side it is only a matter of time before they start winning again, this side could actually peak at the perfect time for the 2009 ashes

Answer 3

YES THEY ARE CRAP, any team that are all out for 81 is useless. sharny above has no idea, so what if sri lanka are no2 in the world, England collapse under pressure, where as the Aussies never do, even if they lose early wickets, someone all ways steps up, unlike the spine less poms.

the guy below is not real clever, Australia have been a power since 1987, they beat England every time except that ashes hiccup, plenty of reasons why that happened, no magrath was a major reason, for most of the series, England are crap, they have hardly any 'real' English players any way.

Answer 4

Excluding Australia, Sri Lanka is one of the toughest teams. They made it to the 2007 cricket world cup final and defeated India, England, West Indies, Newzealand and even took south african 9 wickets (s.a. won by 1 wicket only against sri lanka).

Really it is the 2nd toughest team as of now. So you can't blame england for losing.

Answer 5

No the 2002-03 England Ashes squad that came to Australia was pretty bad even with all there star players in. Bowling is there real problem because of their lack of consistancy.

This team is probably worse but they are missing Flintoff in full flight aswell as Simon Jones.

It will be a good test for them when they play New Zealand and Shane Bond.

Answer 6

No, this isnt the worst team to represent England.

Back in 1999, they lost 2-1 to New Zealand at home in Nasser Hussains first series in charge. After this series they were officially ranked 9th and LAST in the world - Bangladesh was not a full Test nation at this time, and Zimbabwe were still a competitive team.

So I would say the current team is not the worst, but their performance in this match is one of their worst in recent times, alongside Adelaide last year.

Answer 7

No i dont think so, though england were bundled out for meagre 81 against srilanka.its is not fair to describe the england worst team of all time. but i personally feel england team have great potentiality with some superb players but still lack gameplan

Answer 8

No & how can u say that. Sri Lanka lost almost all matches after ICC 2007 final & just went threw Bangladesh.

However, Sri Lanka certainly needs to win the final Test match at Galle, Sri Lanka & only then, ur q will be answer.

Answer 9

While getting all out is disgraceful for any international team, one cannot arrive the conclusion that the present England Team isthe worst. Such things happens once in a while with every team.

Answer 10

no england is one of the greats. every teams gets out of form. there was a time when england was undefeatable. they were better than australia. then came the west indies and then came pakistan and now it's australia. there was a time when pakistan were soo goood that india refused to play them for 4 years because india didnt wanna get their asses handed to them. soo yea now look at pakistan, they suck right now. soo england will improve eventually while australia and india go out of form