England's Worse Ever Cricket Team

Following on from watching a documentary on BBC3 about some of the worse ever players to have represented England at Football, what players would make it into the worse ever England Cricket Team?

I'll go for Chris Cowdrey. Perhaps as captain?

BE WARNED.

Anyone who makes the mistake of suggesting Darren Pattinson should have to set up a Tiddlywinks section and spend a year there!

It's tough, are we talking about those who did worse in an England shirt (compared to expectations) or those who were so poor they should never have gotten near the shirt to start with?

In any case, Derek Pringle and (sorry guilford, but this one's fairly indisputable) Ian Salisbury weren't the greatest test cricketers I've ever seen. Steve James played a test once didn't he? That was a mistake...

I hate to say it but Ramps deserves a mention, so much talent as he's shown over and over again but just never delivered on the international side.

Luke Wright

Gregers wrote:I hate to say it but Ramps deserves a mention, so much talent as he's shown over and over again but just never delivered on the international side.

That was because he along with other unfortunate players who were looking to establish themselves in the England cricket team during the 1990's such as Graeme Hick were very poorly managed and the selection policy was a complete disaster more times than not.

Mike Selig wrote:It's tough, are we talking about those who did worse in an England shirt (compared to expectations) or those who were so poor they should never have gotten near the shirt to start with?

In any case, Derek Pringle and (sorry guilford, but this one's fairly indisputable) Ian Salisbury weren't the greatest test cricketers I've ever seen. Steve James played a test once didn't he? That was a mistake...

Rather than thinking about those players who didn't quite fullfill the expectations that they were burdened with like Graeme Hick, I am thinking more along the lines of those players who should never even have gotten anywhere near getting an England cap at either a test or an ODI level as they just simply weren't good enough to begin with.

hamilton?

Graeme Swann's Cat wrote:Luke Wright

Ahh Luke Wright, England's own answer to Shane Watson.

Has anyone got 11 names to make up a Worse Ever England XI?

Mike - yes, I accept Saisbury is a fair call.

I've discussed this before with the Corporal on the Surrey threads. Most Surrey supporters feared for Solly and England when he got his Test call up. He did pretty well for Surrey but what the national selectors stupidly overlooked was that most of his success came when bowling in tandem with Saqlain Mushtaq. At his prime when fit, Saqlain bordered on being a world class bowler. Saqlain put so much pressure on the batsman that he would often lose concentration and push his luck too far when facing Salisbury at the other end. Salisbury was a more than useful junior partner when bowling with Saqlain. However, Salisbury was never going to be good enough to be England's number one slow bowler. The selectors really should have seen that.

Bit unkind this ... But I can't resist it

Mark Lathwell
Geoff Cook
Ian Ward
Usman Afzaal
Roland Butcher
Gavin Hamilton
Chris Cowdrey (c)
Warren Hegg (wk)
Ian Salisbury
Martin McCague
Jonathon Agnew...

Some of these fellows may just have been picked at the wrong time , and I do feel bad about including Hegg as he actually kept OK in his couple of matches ,but I needed a wicketkeeper and his batting efforts were very ordinary...

In truth they all deserve credit just for making it to the top level in the first place , but none of them could claim to have ever looked at home once they got there...and I am reasonably confident that they would together be capable of losing Test Matches in pretty well any conditions around the world

I think I'd have to stick Peter Such in even though he got some wickets.

His "Oh that was so close to being out" face as the ball sailed into the stands used to do my gulliver in.

There was a succession of left arm seemers that were average at best including Muwally and Illot.

How about Tufnell? Couldn't field, couldn't bat and could rarely bowl!

Duty281 wrote:How about Tufnell? Couldn't field, couldn't bat and could rarely bowl!

Youre kidding right? By England spinners of his ears standards the guy was a genius. By no means the worst

alfie wrote:Bit unkind this ... But I can't resist it

Mark Lathwell
Geoff Cook
Ian Ward
Usman Afzaal
Roland Butcher
Gavin Hamilton
Chris Cowdrey (c)
Warren Hegg (wk)
Ian Salisbury
Martin McCague
Jonathon Agnew...

Some of these fellows may just have been picked at the wrong time , and I do feel bad about including Hegg as he actually kept OK in his couple of matches ,but I needed a wicketkeeper and his batting efforts were very ordinary...

In truth they all deserve credit just for making it to the top level in the first place , but none of them could claim to have ever looked at home once they got there...and I am reasonably confident that they would together be capable of losing Test Matches in pretty well any conditions around the world

Alfie - first of all, I agree that this is a 'bit unkind' and 'all deserve credit just for making it to the top level in the first place'. However, it is fun!

You've picked a very good team ... err ... ... well, you know what I mean.

I might be able to resolve your wicketkeeping dilemma by suggesting Richard Blakey of Yorks. He played a couple of Tests in India in the early nineties. Picked mainly for his batting, he amassed 7 runs in 4 completed innings.

Cowdrey is certainly a good shout for a place and as skipper. My cyber friend the Corporal has pointed out in the past that it was only a coincidence that Cowdrey's godfather happened to be Peter May, chairman of the England selectors at the time!

Post Botham and pre Flintoff, England did use some pretty ordinary players to try and fill the allrounder spot at number six. Ronnie Irani (sorry CF!) can count himself especially unlucky to miss out on a place in your team. I'll mention just two others now - Ian Greig and Chris Lewis. Greig is described on CricInfo as being 'a scaled down version of his brother - not as big; not as loud; not as good.' To be fair, Lewis had a fair amount of in born talent. Unfortunately, he failed to show that he had any brain cells to go with it. On a tour of the West Indies, he shaved all the hair off his head just before taking to the field in an Island game without a hat. He then had to sit out the following Test with sun stroke! I'll skirt over where he is now even though that does rather back up my view.

To top and tail your team, you could do worse (but not much!) than Wayne 'Ned' Larkins and Les Taylor. Larkins was an aggressive opening or middle order bat who usually got out early. Somehow, his Test career lasted eleven years although he never cemented his place in the side and had to settle for a top score of 64. He was also used to disastrous effect to make up a fifth bowler combo in the 1979 ODI World Cup final. Taylor, meanwhile, was a Leics team mate of Aggers. A useful county seamer but never truly Test standard. A dreadful batsman even when judged by the standard of number elevens and not much better at fielding. Best remembered now if at all for his Lord Lucan moustache.

With apologies to thoise named above and the many more missed out.

Might be a tad harsh on ramper and jones but i did not want to keep picking players who onley played 1 or 2 times for england

Lathwell
Carberry
Wayne Larkins
Mark Ramprakash
Chris Cowdrey
Geraint Jones (WK) (sorry butter fingers)
Owais Shah
Ian Salisbury
Kabir Ali
Darren Pattinson
Amjad Khan

What about Ed Smith, Mike Watkinson, Steve Rhodes, Tim Rhodes and Alan Igglesden.

paulscholes wrote:
,,,,
Darren Pattinson

Scholesy - I'm sorry but you now have to set up a Tiddlywinks section and spend the next year there. I did warn you in an earlier post above.

It is a complete urban myth that Pattinson played dreadfully in his only Test. In fact, as CricInfo put it it, he ''performed creditably''. Against a strong South African batting line up, he took a couple of valuable wickets - Amla and Prince - in his 30 overs and went for just over 3 an over.

Not the best ever Test debut certainly but a lot better than some. It's often overlooked now that Stuart Broad also played in that South Africa Test and had less success with the ball than Pattinson. Broad had also made a rather ordinary start to his Test career a few months earlier and emerged from that with just one wicket. I'm not suggesting Pattinson would have gone on to enjoy Broad's international success - he wouldn't have done; however, he doesn't deserve to be regarded so lightly.

England were hammered in Pattinson's only Test due principally to the failure of their batsmen in the first innings. Eight of the top nine reached double figures but no one went on to score a fifty and England crumbled to just over 200 all out and ultimately a 10 wicket defeat. That wasn't Pattinson's fault. It was however why the selectors did a rethink on the side for the next match and consigned the gamble of his selection to history.

Alfie has made a few good shouts it has to be said: Martin McCague! Ian Ward was a terrible international cricketer.

There have been at least 4 spinners worse than Phil Tuffnel to play for England in the last 20 years (although some could classify as better cricketers): Tuffers was also unlucky in that the England management constantly wanted a defensive spinner to tie up an end and he was never that. One suspects that a few players mentioned so far may have had far better international careers under the current regime (whether Tuffnel would have been able to adapt to the modern regime is another question).

Mark Lathwell is a tough call, I thought he was a tremendous talent who should have had far more of a chance.

Geraint Jones had some excellent innings for England. Ironically he was dropped when his keeping had improved because he no longer could score runs. I still think Fletcher got that call (between him and Read) right: Read simply wasn't an international number 7, and with Flintoff at 6 it wasn't workeable.

Mike Watkinson is one who should never have played test cricket. He was a good county cricketer and could have done a job at ODIs. Test cricket though?

Mike Selig wrote:Alfie has made a few good shouts it has to be said: Martin McCague! Ian Ward was a terrible international cricketer.

There have been at least 4 spinners worse than Phil Tuffnel to play for England in the last 20 years (although some could classify as better cricketers): Tuffers was also unlucky in that the England management constantly wanted a defensive spinner to tie up an end and he was never that. One suspects that a few players mentioned so far may have had far better international careers under the current regime (whether Tuffnel would have been able to adapt to the modern regime is another question).

Mark Lathwell is a tough call, I thought he was a tremendous talent who should have had far more of a chance.

Geraint Jones had some excellent innings for England. Ironically he was dropped when his keeping had improved because he no longer could score runs. I still think Fletcher got that call (between him and Read) right: Read simply wasn't an international number 7, and with Flintoff at 6 it wasn't workeable.

Mike Watkinson is one who should never have played test cricket. He was a good county cricketer and could have done a job at ODIs. Test cricket though?

I think that Watkinson's selection had a lot to do with being in the same county team as Mike Atherton who was then the England captain back in 1995. Anyway other candidates I can think of include Paul Parker, Simon Brown, Min Patel, Tim Munton, Mark Benson.

I think the current team has a pretty good shout at this... Anyone else agree? Anyone?

Makrish wrote:I think the current team has a pretty good shout at this... Anyone else agree? Anyone?

You mean the West Indies team?

Makrish wrote:I think the current team has a pretty good shout at this... Anyone else agree? Anyone?

maybe gbboycott

Richard Dawson was pretty bad!

I also forgot about Jason Gallian and Graham Lloyd. Surely 2 of the worse ever players to have played for England. Also there is Hugh Morris who England bizarrely selected to play against the West Indies in the final test at the Oval in 1991.

Trevor Jesty
Ian Greig

Saj Mahmood
Amjad Khan

Good shout on Saj, he was always rubbish

And still is.

David Capel
Jimmy Ormond

Wayne Larkins
Mark Lathwell
Ian Ward
Roland Butcher
Usman Afzaal
Chris Cowdrey
Gavin Hamilton
Tim Ambrose
Chris Schofield
Jimmy Ormond
Darren Pattinson

KP/Bell/Strauss the day before they hit a match winning century


If you asked KP, Nick Knight

Can't pick a worst XI because we picked so many bad players through the 80s and 90s. However, some of the nominees here are reminding me of just how poor we used to be.

A quick look at Wikipedia's list of 1980s and 1990s England players brings up a few more nominees (that I don' tthink have been listed earlier):

Batsmen:
Wilf Slack
Neil Fairbrother (good ODI player, but 10 tests and averaged 15)
Tim Curtis
Rob Bailey
Matthew Maynard
Darren Maddy

Bowlers
Neal Radford
Min Patel
(I think most of the others have already been nominated)

John Stephenson
Les Taylor
Mark Benson

Les Taylor, lest we forget, took the wicket that won the Ashes - in 1985. I would like to nominate Neil Foster who did OK in some Tests but was always, for reasons that escaped nearly everyone, picked for the Lord's Test on the grounds that he had once done well there.
Result? He went all round the ground in a way that made Mitchell's Johnson's 2009 efforts at cricket's HQ look positively brilliant.

Foster was a bit better than some we have seen, imo anyway.

29 tests with an average of 32 isn't to bad.

Oh yeah Darren Maddy and Chris Adams both played a few tests didn't they? Crikey...

Matt Maynard was a terrific player, should have had a very good test career. A bit like Hick/Ramprakash (with fewer chances).

David Capel though...

The fact is if we go by the england footballs worst team done by bbc 3 as a blueprint- it was also about naughty boys not just underacheivers or bad players.

gotto go with a phil tufnell i suppose for loving the herbs and only being ok at his job- he takes the spinner place for sure.


Freddie flintoff(although one of my fav england players) has to be a consideration for captain as due to his love of liqour and pedlos.

has anyone mentioned Aftab Habib yet?

Mad for Chelsea wrote:has anyone mentioned Aftab Habib yet?

Nope, since when did he play for England? Also there is another player like Habib. His name is Usman Afzaal who was amazingly chosen to play for England against the rampant mighty Australians in 2001.

just for you gb

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/player/13985.html

Afzaal did manage a test 50 did he not? Given how many truly awful players we picked in the middle-order around the turn of the millenium I think that automatically disqualifies him from this discussion...

Just been looking down the list of test caps...
614A McGrathEngland v Zimbabwe at Lord's, 2003
615RL JohnsonEngland v Zimbabwe at Chester-le-Street, 2003
616RJ KirtleyEngland v South Africa at Nottingham, 2003
617ET SmithEngland v South Africa at Nottingham, 2003
618Kabir AliEngland v South Africa at Leeds, 2003
619GJ BattyBangladesh v England at Dhaka, 2003/04
620R ClarkeBangladesh v England at Dhaka, 2003/04
621MJ SaggersBangladesh v England at Chittagong, 2003/04

613 was a young seamer with almost county experience who took another 6 years to become Jimmy Anderson.
England really were scrapping the barrel in 2003.

then again:

McGrath - did well against Zimbabwe, then failed a couple of times against SA and was immediately ditched.

Johnson was a fine bowler, but was unlucky with injuries throughout his career. Was picked when he was past his best but didn't do too badly.

Kirtley won a test match for England, but was only really effective on certain types of pitches.

Smith had talent but the talk is he over-analysed his own game too much.

Kabir Ali - Vaughan says he felt he was never quite quick enough for test cricket, but he did well in his one test match (though as with Kirtley it was on a helpful pitch)

Batty - just never good enough for test cricket, but Fletcher had an obsession about his spinner(s) needing to be able to bat (Keedy was ten times the bowler Batty was).

Clarke - picked as a "replacement" for Flintoff on a BD tour and didn't do too badly IIRC though shouldn't have been playing in the first place - England's obsession with five bowlers rearing its ugly head again.

Saggers - good county operator, but how he was picked ahead of Jones or Anderson is a mystery.

To be fair McGrath and Johnson actually have amazing test records, albeit in limited numbers of games against poor opposition. From what I remeber Johnosn was only picked because theyd pretty much ran out of anyone else fit and wanted a guy who could swing the ball (hi Pattinson). Kirtley couldnt even bowl legally. Smith through to Saggers though, were any of those guys good enough?
The point is 9 caps in a row and not a single one was really a genuinely class player or went on to win a significant number of caps in any format, prior to that there was a kid put in 3 years too early. The year before you had Jones Harmisson and key debuting , the year after Colli, G Jones, Strauss and Bell. 2003 was not a vintage year for English test selection.


Looking at player records Ian Salisbury does stand out, 15 tests managed an average a shade under 77 with the ball. Thats pretty epic.

Another thing that really stands out is that since the Bangladesh series in 2009/10 England have only handed out 4 new caps, although none of those have gone on to make their mark (Bairstow pending).

Clarke shouldn't have been near the England side? Seriously? He remains one of the most talented players in the country to this day. In fact, he would probably have 50 Test caps if he was from any country other than England.

Fists of Fury wrote:Clarke shouldn't have been near the England side? Seriously? He remains one of the most talented players in the country to this day. In fact, he would probably have 50 Test caps if he was from any country other than England.

Really? how did he get a most improved player award if he had already been one of the best players in the world for the previous decade?
Ok the guy had potential but also had the potential to be woeful and nearly end up dropping out of the game altogether when he shouldve been at his peak.


he will not go down as one of the greatest England success stories of all time will he. Aside from a skewed test bowling average (4 wickets) his international record is poor despite playing a third of his games against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe and never having faced one of the top sides.

Sorry but Rikki Clarke is the epitomy of a solid county player whowasnt strong enough in either batting or bowling for the international arena, especially tests where "bits and pieces" and "variety" is less effective.
Clarke v2 may have improved beyond recognition and now be the new Botham but thats nearly a decade on and not really true anyway.

Maybe I got a little carried away, as I'm a huge fan of Clarke, but he is a wonderful cricketer. Superior to Ravi Bopara and the like in every aspect of the game now that he has got his head in the right place at Warwickshire. A middle order batsman that can adapt to any situation, a fine containing and wicket taking change bowler, and the best slip catcher in county cricket, if not the world.

You're spot on with regard to his fluctuations earlier in his career, though.

Fists of Fury wrote:Maybe I got a little carried away, as I'm a huge fan of Clarke, but he is a wonderful cricketer. Superior to Ravi Bopara and the like in every aspect of the game now that he has got his head in the right place at Warwickshire. A middle order batsman that can adapt to any situation, a fine containing and wicket taking change bowler, and the best slip catcher in county cricket, if not the world.

You're spot on with regard to his fluctuations earlier in his career, though.

I'm sure that had Clarke played in the 1990's, he would have established himself as a regular member of the England test team as back then we were looking for an all-rounder to bat at number 6 but who could bowl well enough to at least contain the opposition batsmen.