Which is the best test team of all time?

[GotSpin]

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

Was it 93 or 94 that we narrowly lost to Windies at home?

In that case, the dynasty definitely started in '95, if not earlier, and went on until the end of the 06/07 ashes imo.

 

[The Sean]

Yeah we lost at home in 92/93.

 

[GotSpin]

Cheers mate. Always get them muddled up.

 

[sumantra]

having that england side (since 2009) is what puzzles me a little...and that is why the indian and the south african teams come to mind...(both of which, i believe, better than the english team mentioned there) let's not jump too much, hang on a while...(it's just too early for me)

it's just one series...i am taking nothing from their recent victory...but there is no doubt, that the indian team was under prepared (of course that's not a fault of england), missing some key players, and wickets were made to work for seam (again, nothing wrong in that)...i would say they brilliantly took advantage of the weaknesses of their opponent and made the most of it...bravo...but, it's too early for them to be in that list, if the indian team of last decade can't be there...as far as i know, england is coming for a test series in india next year...let's wait till then, at least india won test series there in 2007 and drew the previous one as well...

 

[Spark]

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

And cut out the last and arguably the greatest of the great sides (Ashes 06/7)? Don't think so.

 

[Ikki]

From my viewing time and the eras I am more knowledgable about (70s-present) I'd say Australia of 95-07. But, I reckon the Australian 'Invincibles' side may be even better.

 

[sumantra]

And cut out the last and arguably the greatest of the great sides (Ashes 06/7)? Don't think so.

i said 2006 cos i remembered that...

 

[weldone]

From my viewing time and the eras I am more knowledgable about (70s-present) I'd say Australia of 95-07. But, I reckon the Australian 'Invincibles' side may be even better.

Agreed (97-07 would be more accurate - that's the perod when they were devilishly dominant).

Invincibles might have been slightly better on paper indeed, but they didn't have such an extended period of supreme dominance as the 97-07 Aussie team.

 

[GIMH]

Haha come on people, I'm not the only one who sees this am I?

 

[centurymaker]

Haha come on people, I'm not the only one who sees this am I?

ofcourse not.
copy.

 

[marc71178]

Spotted it last week GIMH.

 

[smash84]

WI of the late 70s and 80s of course

 

[Days of Grace]

Invincibles might have been slightly better on paper indeed, but they didn't have such an extended period of supreme dominance as the 97-07 Aussie team.

The Invincibles never faced a strong lineup, or even a good lineup in their time.

 

[Burgey]

The Invincibles never faced a strong lineup, or even a good lineup in their time.

Hutton
Washbrook
Compton
Evans
Yardley
Bedser

were all very good or great players, but I don't think you could argue against the notion that England's stocks were greatly depleted after WW2.

 

[Days of Grace]

It is true that those players were indeed great, but as a team the English were not up to all that much until about 1951, when Bedser came into his own as a bowler.

Anyway, even if you concede that the English team of the late-1940s was decent, they were the only decent side that the Australians faced.

 

[Burgey]

It is true that those players were indeed great, but as a team the English were not up to all that much until about 1951, when Bedser came into his own as a bowler.

Anyway, even if you concede that the English team of the late-1940s was decent, they were the only decent side that the Australians faced.

Yeah I don't doubt that. That team was a fantastic side, but was only together a comparativelt short time.

Then again, same can be said for Armstrong's side.

 

[The Sean]

The Windies side they faced in 51/52 was a very strong batting team and had two great spinners, and had beaten England in England in 1950.

Obviously this was post-Bradman, but it was the same generation of players.

 

[Darth018]

I don't understand this. This thread had 8 votes for WI I remember that clearly. Then it got bumped back up to first page and then it miraculously goes from 8 to 15 votes and its the only tally that changes

What's going one here?

 

[BlazeDragon]

Multis.

But this is kind of a joke thread anyways. I mean 6 votes for the current England lol.

 

[smash84]

haha......6 votes to the current English side is a little premature to say the least