How good was Basil D'Oliveira?

[Marius]

Barry Richards also did rather well in the "Super Tests" in the Packer games. We probably need to take this into account as well.

 

[Dissector]

Do you have an opinion on the best Test team of all time?

Perhaps the 1980 West Indies team that won in Australia? The 1948 and 2000 Australians are contenders as well.

 

[fredfertang]

Perhaps the 1980 West Indies team that won in Australia? The 1948 and 2000 Australians are contenders as well.

Aha - the usual suspects

Being delusional I'd have to nominate Jardine's England and Armstrong's Australians as well .................................... oh and the 69/70 South Africans of course

 

[Dissector]

I plead guilty to being thoroughly boring in my choices. I admit that Jardine's England is a new one to my ears.

 

[Richard]

Wyatt
Sutcliffe
Hammond
Jardine
Leyland
Paynter
Ames
Allen
Voce
Larwood
Verity
has fair claim on being England's best team ever. It's a bit of a shame Hobbs wasn't still playing (if he was still good enough of course) at that time else it'd be fairly inequivocal.

The 1979/80 West Indian team might well have been their strongest combination:
Greenidge
Haynes
Rowe
Kallicharran
Richards
Lloyd
Murray
Roberts
Holding
Garner
Croft
Though the presence of Marshall and Dujon instead of Murray and Croft may make the team that, briefly, faced India in 1983 and 1984 stronger even though the batting had weak-links.

 

[Richard]

Forget the merits of India beating England in 1971, they were saved by rain twice and were also struggling in the match they won until a freak spell by Chandra bowled England out cheaply in the second innings.

Indeed they were - but the fact is that England lost. They may have been obviously the better team in that series - but they still lost. If they weren't enough better than India to beat them even with these disadvantages, I hardly expect them to have beaten the would-be SAfricans of 1970.

 

[Richard]

Wilson was just an example. As I said almost every England bowler had an impressive first-class record and overall the first-class records of the England team were roughly equal to SA.

They weren't, though. Most of those England bowlers were very good (not outstanding as many of the SAfricans were) at domestic level and good or very good Test bowlers. There's no reason whatsoever to believe the SAfricans wouldn't have been quite a bit better.

This is such a weird argument. If we can't take England seriously because they lost to India then we can't take Pollock and Richards seriously because they couldn't score heavily against England just the previous year. We can't take the 99 Australian team seriously because they lost to Sri Lanka for the first time. We can't take the 1981 Australia team seriously because they lost a test match at home to India. Any time a player performs under par against a weak team we can't take him seriously. Ridiculous argument really.

Not really. There's a huge difference between one player failing in one series and a team losing to a team they shouldn't be losing to.

It was always said that the Australian team of the late-1990s and early-2000s was weak in the subcontinent, and that's one reason I find the suggestion it was the best team ever ludicrous.

 

[Dissector]

It was always said that the Australian team of the late-1990s and early-2000s was weak in the subcontinent, and that's one reason I find the suggestion it was the best team ever ludicrous.

Because of course the 1970 South Africa team was just amazing in the subcontinent.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Indeed they were - but the fact is that England lost. They may have been obviously the better team in that series - but they still lost. If they weren't enough better than India to beat them even with these disadvantages, I hardly expect them to have beaten the would-be SAfricans of 1970.

I sometimes think I've stumbled across the free masons society. In the Second Test one and a half days were lost to rain including the whole of the last day when England were going to win. The fact they weren't "enough better" than India to win inside three and a half days is nothing to do with anything, least of all their prospects against South Africa a year later.

 

[Richard]

Because of course the 1970 South Africa team was just amazing in the subcontinent.

Unknown > known as poor.

 

[Richard]

I sometimes think I've stumbled across the free masons society.

Good good.

In the Second Test one and a half days were lost to rain including the whole of the last day when England were going to win. The fact they weren't "enough better" than India to win inside three and a half days is nothing to do with anything, least of all their prospects against South Africa a year later.

And the First Test? And the Third?

BTW, you've never seen England beat India in three-and-a-half days?

 

[Dissector]

Procter- 20 Wilson- 21
Pollock- 22 Underwood- 20
Goddard 22 Snow- 23
Barlow 24 Ward 23
Traicos 35 Old -23

These are the first-class averages of some of the England and SA bowlers at this time. Clearly there is very little difference between the two sides; in fact the advantage goes to England if any. Now personally I don't take first-class averages seriously at all, but if you do you would have to conclude that England at this time possessed one of the of the all-time great attacks (which it clearly didn't).

 

[Lillian Thomson]

BTW, you've never seen England beat India in three-and-a-half days?

I've seen them do it in two and a half and that also had no bearing on what was likely to happen 12 months later either.

 

[Dissector]

You know in a way I think the India-England series sheds light on the debate though not in the way Richard thinks. This was a series where England was the stronger team on paper (on their turf) but lost because of bad luck and an inspired performance by Chandra. This is precisely why you don't judge teams on paper; you judge them how they perform in actual test series; actual contests where the **** hits the fan and your opponents come at you from all directions.

This is what the West Indies endured for 16 years without being defeated. Winning again and again is what makes a great team not a collection of pretty first-class stats.

 

[Dissector]

Unknown > known as poor.

I would hardly say Australia was poor in the sub-continent; both their losses in 99 and 01 were rather freakish in different ways. But fair enough in a way; I was probably too generous to the Aussie team of the time compared to the West Indies of the early 80's which did of course win in the sub-continent. And since convincing victories >>>>>>> unknown, I rest my case.

 

[Richard]

Procter- 20 Wilson- 21
Pollock- 22 Underwood- 20
Goddard 22 Snow- 23
Barlow 24 Ward 23
Traicos 35 Old -23

These are the first-class averages of some of the England and SA bowlers at this time. Clearly there is very little difference between the two sides; in fact the advantage goes to England if any. Now personally I don't take first-class averages seriously at all, but if you do you would have to conclude that England at this time possessed one of the of the all-time great attacks (which it clearly didn't).

Knock out Alan Ward (who was a poor Test bowler in his limited and injury-hit career) and replace him with the much superior David Brown for starters.

Then look at the fact that conditions in England and South Africa (especially as the '60s became the '70s) were vastly different. As I've said, Wilson played most of his career on uncovered wickets - had he played exclusively on covered then his average would've been considerably higher - my guess would be about 26-27. Likewise, Underwood (and Raymond Illingworth, who you neglect to mention, and similarly Trimborn and Chevalier of South Africa - who were two of their better bowlers) were half the bowlers at international level (and I'd guess at domestic too though I haven't looked) after wickets became covered.

Basically, the only anomalous case involved in England's team was that of Alan Ward, the injury-hit man. The only excellent domestic seam-bowler who wasn't either excellent or good at international level.

IOW, there's no reason to suggest Procter and Trimborn would not have been excellent or at worst good Test bowlers. Goddard was fairly obviously a proven international force, with bat and ball (as were Graeme Pollock, Barlow, Bacher and Lindsay with bat and Peter Pollock with ball). I also don't see any reason why Richards could not have been one of the greatest Test batsmen the game has known, or why Brian Irvine couldn't have been a good, solid middle-order player of the ilk of Larry Gomes or Richie Richardson. The only cricketer with any real question-marks over him as far as I'm concerned from that side is Lance. And he certainly wasn't the worst in his not-completely-inconsiderable Test career.

 

[Richard]

You know in a way I think the India-England series sheds light on the debate though not in the way Richard thinks. This was a series where England was the stronger team on paper (on their turf) but lost because of bad luck and an inspired performance by Chandra.

England weren't merely the stronger team on paper - they were the stronger team on the park. They weren't strong enough, which suggests they'd fairly obviously not have been too strong for South Africa in 1970, but they were still stronger, and the on-paper result doesn't actually change that. The better team doesn't always win. And not winning doesn't actually change whether you're the better team or not - a result is just a result.

This is precisely why you don't judge teams on paper; you judge them how they perform in actual test series; actual contests where the **** hits the fan and your opponents come at you from all directions.

This is what the West Indies endured for 16 years without being defeated. Winning again and again is what makes a great team not a collection of pretty first-class stats.

No, pretty stats is what makes you a good team. If you've got players with pretty stats, you'll get pretty team stats, like West Indies had '76 to '86 (much less so '86 to '94). West Indies' team had the chance to prove their phenomenalness, and what's more it wasn't just one team, it was several over a couple of generations. South Africa's didn't, but that doesn't place object in my way of considering them the best ever. If someone else wants to, that's their choice. But I don't.

 

[fredfertang]

How often has this truism been quoted on this forum?

Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

Seems it is not always borne in mind by some

 

[Dissector]

Easing my way out of this debate, but just a quick clarification which I perhaps should have made earlier; I included Wilson for England because I had Goddard in there who also benefited from uncovered wickets. In any case Goddard was at the end of his career. You can take the two of them out and I think my general point about first-class averages still remains.

 

[Richard]

I would hardly say Australia was poor in the sub-continent; both their losses in 99 and 01 were rather freakish in different ways.

In a way, yes, but they were comprehensively outplayed in both series, deserved to lose and could not be argued to have been the lesser side. I suppose you could say they should have drawn the 2000/01 series in India because of a near-unthinkable collapse in the Eden Gardens Test, but they can't claim it was anyone's fault but theirs that they ended-up losing.

But fair enough in a way; I was probably too generous to the Aussie team of the time compared to the West Indies of the early 80's which did of course win in the sub-continent. And since convincing victories >>>>>>> unknown, I rest my case.

Indeed, and for that reason to consider West Indies of (perhaps) '79 to '83 the best Test team in history isn't an unreasonable suggestion. But it's not one I subscribe to.