Which team is worse - Australia (in England) or England (in Australia)

[Cricketman]

I think there has been a competition from both sides to see who can suck more while touring. Australia were all over the place in the UK. Coach fired a day before the series, had like 25 openers in the starting XI, didn't know what to do with Watson, etc. Bowling was probably the only good thing happening but they were clueless in all other departments of the game. England were all over them.

England, obviously, have been really bad too. Trott's illness and absence from the series, Graeme Swann shock retirement, no-show from Matt Prior...but again bowling has been decent from England. Australia it seems always had to have some kind of reargard efforts from Haddin and co in the lower order in each match.

So which team takes the trophy for worst team?

 

[War]

Its a tie.

 

[Owzat]

England are playing way worse than the aussies in England.

In England the aussie batsmen were in a right pickle in a few innings, England's have been in all but a few and the aussie bowlers did well enough, England's bar Broad have not even been at the races

The aussies could and probably would but for forces beyond anyone's control, have won two Tests in England, England were in the 4th Test for half of it and mullered in the other three.

There isn't one Test you could say England came close to winning this series, or even close not to losing by a heavy margin. In England the aussies lost narrowly in the 1st Test, I'd say tea came in the nick of time or the aussies might have nicked it. England beat the aussies comfortably in two Tests, England have already been more than embarrassed in twice as many with one to go.

Even if England won the last Test by bowling the aussies out for under 100 each innings, and racked up 400, 500, maybe even 600, it still wouldn't be a close run question.


It's not even like England are missing lots of players, they chose Carberry and Stokes to play, they have Anderson, Broad, Bresnan, Pietersen, Bell, Cook and Root as a supposedly solid and reliable spine, Trott, Prior and Swann are casualties of war but none was in tangible form anyway so any argument along that lines would be fairly limp.

 

[puddleduck]

They're both shit. Australia's batting lineup is woeful on any pitch that doesn't bounce over the stumps from anything on a shorter length than a yorker.

England on the other hand can't score runs if the opposition actually bowls on off-stump for an extended period of time. Hit the top of off for a session and there's a good chance they'll lose 5-8 wickets for no more than 50 runs.

Bowling attacks. Both pretty decent though. If there's some swing Jimmy would be ripping through, whilst when there's a bit of bounce and pace Johnson, and far more importantly, Harris really excel. As for spinners, both countries now lack a genuine world class spinner against batting lineups that can actually play spin.

So yeah, they're both crap. Australia are just currently less crap.

 

[vet_m]

Australia in England is the winner.

 

[QuickSingle]

England far worse on tour than the aussies. The English summer series could've easily been 2-2,this one has been painfully one-sided..
Both sides are well behind SA at the moment but will be interesting to see how aus get on there on tour in a few months...

I really hope the world test championship usurps the ashes as the premier test cricket event.. It just seems like the format is off the mark when there is such a fuss about a 5 match test series with teams that are ranked number 3 and 5 in the world...
As much as I love Boycott, he calls the Ashes the 'Ryder cup' of cricket which shouldn't be the case...

 

[sifter132]

Australia in England is the winner.

The winner at sucking? Or the better team


Anyway, the stats clearly bear out England as worse than Aus...

Australia's batting average in England was 30.73, their bowling average was 33.60, they were close to winning 3 of the Tests, led on the first innings in 4 of them.

England's batting average through 4 Tests in Australia is 22.96, and bowling average is 45.38, and they haven't come close to winning any of the games, have led only once on the 1st innings.

Even if England win this 5th Test it's been a disaster. If you made an XI of the best players in this series, there are ZERO players that are locks for England: KP, Stokes and Broad probably would get in. Whereas for Australia in England, a lot of their players did well.

 

[Sedition]

Interesting question. I'm assuming there hasn't been any coverage of the Ashes in the US, what with world championships being decided in sports no else plays and all, so it's a legitimate enquiry.

Australia, as usual, took the fight to the host country and made England play way above themselves to achieve victory. Sure there was luck, a lot of luck infact, but England (and I use that term loosely) managed pulled off the unimaginable despite fielding a line-up with the likes of Trott, Prior, Swann, Broad and others.

Fast forward to this series and I almost wish we had India back out here for another whitewash. Yeah, I know they're incredibly boring to watch, but at least they showed heart and a bit of national pride when being demolished in each every test.

I've read around a bit and not once have I seen England thank us for retiring Graeme Swann. Not once. Typically ungrateful towards Australia for preserving their future for the umpteenth time. The guy was a disease on that team and maybe now they can focus on a cure for the Pietitis that has been plaguing them for just as long.

What I have seen though, is a lot of criticism from the so-called purists. Guys like Warner, Rogers, Smith, Haddin, Johnson and Lyon all bashed ad nauseum by a bunch of toothless poms. Well how does it feel now, bitches?

I could taste the salty tears from here every time one of them notched up a hundred or took a bag full of English wickets, and they tasted good.

There was one bright spot to come out of this for England though. Our bros from across the ditch in NZ managed to produce their one good player per century and like a South African wishing his parents had just travelled a little further, or not at all, Ben Stokes made his way back to the motherland. A tight-lipped, no personality player like him is just what England needs to replace a Swann or Pietersen going forward.

Might have to stick to poaching players from actual test playing nations though. Boyd Rankin showed why Ireland isn't there yet. Unable to handle even a one day quota of overs on Day 1, he didn't just fail the test, he bombed harder than an IRA operative in Dublin. Nah, but seriously, I love you Irish, even though I can't understand a freaking word you say.

Anyway, looking forward we're off to South Africa next. Pretty good timing since we just finished destroying half a South African team. If, by the logic that SA should be twice as good, I'm looking forward to at least a semi-competitive series as we tear our way back to #1 .

 

[midgetwars]

Australia's highest score in England was 527. England's Highest score in Australia was 353.

Australia's lowest score in England was 128. England's lowest score in Australia was 136.

Australia's best batsman in England was Watson/Clarke averaging 40s. England's best batsman was Stokes/Pietersen averaging 29/34.

Australia's best bowler in England was Harris 24 wickets average 19. England's best bowler was Broad 21 wickets at 27.

Australia total runs in England was 2735. England's total runs in Australia was 1846, average 184 per innings.

Australia didn't make 200 three times in England and two of them were declared. England didn't make 200 six times in Australia.

From the stats alone, England were worse.

----------

Though it is interesting to note that the two best bowlers in the visiting side took the same amount of wickets +/- 2 and had the same average as the same when they were home being Harris and Broad.

 

[MUFC1987]

In Australia, England played really badly and Australia played exceptionally well. Hence the scoreline of 5-0.

In England, England played pretty badly and Australia were even worse. Hence the scoreline of 3-0.

Coin toss for me, England certainly played a much better side in Australia than Australia did in the last series.

 

[IceAgeComing]

England were awful in Australia; while Australia were merely pretty bad.

The Summer Ashes easily could have been 2-2; had Australia scored a few more in the first test and perhaps bowled a bit better in the last one. There is no game in the winter series where England were close. NONE.

 

[Bobthedog]

I personally think that its more of a Australian revival and England are sinking with their older players weighing them down. Sure, Haddin saved the aussies ass a lot. But he's apart of the team, and the team won.. Of course, Im probably being biased as I am australian..

I also think that come the next ashes, we may see one of the closest we've seen yet. Stokes looks like he'll be around for awhile, Ballance looked pretty good too, so England do still have a bright future that I am looking forward to seeing. But I do hope they can kick cook.. Terrible captin. Either that or he just needs some guidance.

On the other hand, come the next ashes, Australia would have hopefully worked on their batting lineup (swap watson for hughes, bailey for khawaja). But also, Harris wont last that long (Injuries), Johnson will probably burn out (who knows) But we'll have starc, pattinson ect. so who knows..

So all of that taken into account, Australia Played worse in England. They played well at times, but couldnt get a win. I think its because they were generally always behind because Australia currently has the best bowling attack in the world. Notice i said 'Attack'? Once we're behind, they panic, cant defend and England done well to take advantage of that. England in Australia just underperformed, Australia were slightly more up for it and took it by the throat and the 'Attack' Was always there..