Which is the best test team of all time?

[smash84]

awta

 

[wpdavid]

You'd need to split the WI option into more than one side. Maybe 1978 to 1984 under Lloyd, then late 1980's/early 1990's under Richards. Either way, Frith is wrong to simply pick the 1984 side, whose attack wasn't as strong as the one from a few years earlier.

Likewise Australia, as we're discussing at three separate teams from 1999 to 2007

 

[GIMH]

The comments section at the bottom of this article gave me a shock just now, tbh. Why are those posts there?

Anyway, only goes to further cement my credentials as cricket pundit.

When a thread is created for a new article, the replies to it are linked onto the article (they are filtered out, so no filth makes it but it looks like whoever approved yours wasn't checking them properly )

 

[G.I.Joe]

When a thread is created for a new article, the replies to it are linked onto the article (they are filtered out, so no filth makes it but it looks like whoever approved yours wasn't checking them properly )

You watch your step or I'll have to predict a post Ashes-2005 fate for this team

 

[JBMAC]

It is interesting note from the above polling no one has given any thought to those 2 early aussie sides and only 2 of us have voted for the other early aussie side. Did any of you actually do some homework before you voted or voted on what you have see? Curious
I suppose it is dictated by the age of posters on here

 

[weeman27bob]

It is interesting note from the above polling no one has given any thought to those 2 early aussie sides and only 2 of us have voted for the other early aussie side. Did any of you actually do some homework before you voted or voted on what you have see? Curious
I suppose it is dictated by the age of posters on here

It's difficult to know how good a side was when you haven't seen them play at all. The 70's/80's/90's WI team is probably just recent enough for enough people to have seen something of them, whereas the early Australian sides are too far back really.

That being said, for how much I've heard about them, the Invincibles team does seem to be underrated, to a degree.

 

[weldone]

I personally think that the following collection of XI players make a better team than any Aussie team of the last 15 years:

Haynes
Greenidge
Kallicharan
Richards
Lloyd
Richardson
Dujon
Marshall
Garner
Roberts
Holding

But IIRC this team never played a test together (in fact, I'm not sure if Richardson debuted before Roberts' last test)...Moreover, this bowling attack did play only a handful of test matches together. Though Colin Croft was a very good bowler, I'm not a big fan of Gus Logie or Larry Gomes. On the other hand, Australia played a collection of 11 very good players a lot more times.

 

[wpdavid]

It's difficult to know how good a side was when you haven't seen them play at all. The 70's/80's/90's WI team is probably just recent enough for enough people to have seen something of them, whereas the early Australian sides are too far back really.

That being said, for how much I've heard about them, the Invincibles team does seem to be underrated, to a degree.

Agreed. It would be especially had to vote for the 1902 side, even if Armstrong reckoned it superior to the 1920 one. On paper, they weren't as dominant as later teams, so you're only going on contemporary accounts by writers with very little to compare them to.

 

[fredfertang]

It is interesting note from the above polling no one has given any thought to those 2 early aussie sides and only 2 of us have voted for the other early aussie side. Did any of you actually do some homework before you voted or voted on what you have see? Curious
I suppose it is dictated by the age of posters on here

I didn't go for the 1902 team on the basis that they nearly lost, albeit to a good England team, and I didn't go for the 1920 side because England were very poor and, arguably, made them look better than they were.

For the Australian teams either side on WW2 the pre war ones had no outstanding pace bowlers, and the "Invincibles" no spinner - so I am the only soul so far to have voted for England in the 50's - at their peak together I think the following would be unbeatable

Hutton
Washbrook
Edrich
Compton
May
Bailey
Evans
Laker
Bedser
Trueman
Statham

Tyson for Bedser in Australia

Some might say it carries a bit of a tail - but so ****ing what!

 

[Neil Pickup]

Would love to see that XI face up to the current crop.

 

[weldone]

Would love to see that XI face up to the current crop.

...would destroy the current crop tbh...

 

[Joao]

This crop of players aint bad. 1st Test v India in Mumbai 2001

Slater
Hayden
Langer
Waugh
Waugh
Ponting
Gilchrist
Warne
Fleming
Gillespie
McGrath

Each player not at their peak at the time but damn if they all weren't awesome players at some point (a little bias as I thought Fleming was awesome...stupid injuries).

 

[sumantra]

that indian side that went to the finals of 2003 was one of the best sides that i have seen...and indian side from 2001 to 2009 should have been there as a choice...

 

[sumantra]

also the south african team of mid to late 90's and early 2000 should have been there

 

[Spark]

I didn't go for the 1902 team on the basis that they nearly lost, albeit to a good England team, and I didn't go for the 1920 side because England were very poor and, arguably, made them look better than they were.

For the Australian teams either side on WW2 the pre war ones had no outstanding pace bowlers, and the "Invincibles" no spinner - so I am the only soul so far to have voted for England in the 50's - at their peak together I think the following would be unbeatable

Hutton
Washbrook
Edrich
Compton
May
Bailey
Evans
Laker
Bedser
Trueman
Statham

Tyson for Bedser in Australia

Some might say it carries a bit of a tail - but so ****ing what!

Swann and Laker having a bowl off on a genuinely sharp turner would be great fun to watch. Would definitely back the latter though.

EDIT: Although if we're playing in the modern day with modern day umpires and possibly UDRS, Swann could get a lot of assistance out of exploiting old school thrust-forward-pad-and-bat techniques.

 

[The Sean]

that indian side that went to the finals of 2003 was one of the best sides that i have seen...and indian side from 2001 to 2009 should have been there as a choice...

also the south african team of mid to late 90's and early 2000 should have been there

Given that neither of those sides spent an extended period as unquestionably the best team in the world (ok India had a year or two), it's difficult to make a case to shortlist them for the best team of all time.

 

[sumantra]

Given that neither of those sides spent an extended period as unquestionably the best team in the world (ok India had a year or two), it's difficult to make a case to shortlist them for the best team of all time.

well, if the england team from 2009 to present can be there in that list, then i see no reason why the indian and south african squad that i mentioned can't be there...the indian sqaud comprising sehwag, gambhir, dravid, sachin, laxman, ganguly, dhoni, harbhajan, kumble, zaheer and ishant is better than this present england side, and in my book, so would be that south african side of late 90's...

 

[sumantra]

and i also don't agree with the extended timeline of australia (from 1990-2009)...while almost till mid 90's west indies were the best...or better than australia still...and 2005-06 would have been proper to finish with it, (after that it should have been india)...for me, australia from 98 to 2006

 

[GotSpin]

and i also don't agree with the extended timeline of australia (from 1990-2009)...while almost till mid 90's west indies were the best...or better than australia still...and 2005-06 would have been proper to finish with it, (after that it should have been india)...for me, australia from 98 to 2006

Just because you lose a series against England doesn't mean your reign is finished and the Windies were toppled by 1995 (Or was 1995 the series we lost at home under tubby and then we won in 1997?)

 

[The Sean]

Just because you lose a series against England doesn't mean your reign is finished and the Windies were toppled by 1995 (Or was 1995 the series we lost at home under tubby and then we won in 1997?)

You were right the first time - we won in the West Indies in '95.