Greatest teams of all time.

[Red]

If we could have a time machine so that these guys could compete in their prime, I wonder who would win.

1948 Australians

Barnes
Morris
Bradman *
Hassett
Miller
Brown/Harvey
Johnson
Tallon +
Lindwall
Johnston
Toshack

+ Loxton/Ring/McCool

Obviously any side with Bradman in it has an advantage immediately, but this side also has two great openers, a very strong middle order and bats deep to Lindwall at 9. Tallon is highly rated as a keeper, and the bowling options are strong and varied. Lindwall and Miller forming a potent pace attack, the underrated Johnston being both a left arm pacer able to dry up proceedings and a left arm orthodox later in the innings. Johnson was a decent off spinner, and both Toshack and Ring were better than serviceable spinners. Overriding facet of this team is it's allround capability, with Miller, Johnson and Lindwall all rightly considered allrounders, the strength in batting and the versatility in bowling.

 

[JBMAC]

Having seen most of these players , I would agree with you wholeheartedly

 

[harsh.ag]

WSC World XI

Roy Fredericks
Barry Richards
Gordon Greenidge
Viv Richards
Clive Lloyd
Tony Greig
Alan Knott
Mike Procter
Andy Roberts
Joel Garner
Derek Underwood

 

[mr_mister]

Early-mid 50s England had a lot of bowling and batting depth

Someone choose the best year, maybe 54?

 

[Red]

Early - mid 80s Windies

Greenidge
Haynes
Richardson
Gomes
Richards
Lloyd
Dujon
Marshall
Holding
Garner
Croft/Walsh/Roberts

My first cricket memories were watching this team decimate the Australians for what seemed every summer of my childhood. They were so good to watch, the batting had flair and brutality and the bowling was the most lethal bunch of quicks ever collected in one squad/team. Were nigh on unbeatable for 10-15 years, just a powerhouse sqaud and a perfect storm. Richards is IMO the second greatest batsman of all time, there was a long lasting and incredibly successful opening combo, Richardson and Lloyd made the top six super impressive, Dujon was a very good bat and a highly athletic keeper perfectly suited to keeping to the four quicks. Irrepressible.

 

[Howe_zat]

Early-mid 50s England had a lot of bowling and batting depth

Someone choose the best year, maybe 54?

An England team from the 1953 series could be

Hutton
Simpson
Compton
Graveney
May
Edrich
Evans
Trueman
Laker
Statham
Bedser

Except that side never actually played a test together. In the 1953 series Trueman and Statham played one game each, Laker didn't start the series and neither did Edrich. We had Kenyon who almost no one remembers opening the batting and Trevor Bailey playing sometimes as a batsman and sometimes as a bowler.

The problem with discussions like this is that people tend to fill the teams with the best career players, and judge their strength on the career of each player in them, without actually thinking about how they might actually have been going at the time. I've seen for example people post about the mid 1980s West Indians with Marshall leading a 4-man pace attack, because that's a more fun idea than all the times they actually played blokes like Roger Harper and Eldine Baptiste.

I think part of the reason we romanticise the past too much is that we have a better understanding of the form and faults of modern teams. Take the 2010-11 Australia batting side for example which on paper looks amazing with Ponting, Clarke, Hussey and Katich all at the same time. But they batted like arse for a period of about two years with Shane Watson, who will never be remembered as a great batsman, actually being the form player.

 

[TheJediBrah]

An England team from the 1953 series could be

Hutton
Simpson
Compton
Graveney
May
Edrich
Evans
Trueman
Laker
Statham
Bedser

Except that side never actually played a test together. In the 1953 series Trueman and Statham played one game each, Laker didn't start the series and neither did Edrich. We had Kenyon who almost no one remembers opening the batting and Trevor Bailey playing sometimes as a batsman and sometimes as a bowler.

The problem with discussions like this is that people tend to fill the teams with the best career players, and judge their strength on the career of each player in them, without actually thinking about how they might actually have been going at the time. I've seen for example people post about the mid 1980s West Indians with Marshall leading a 4-man pace attack, because that's a more fun idea than all the times they actually played blokes like Roger Harper and Eldine Baptiste.

I think part of the reason we romanticise the past too much is that we have a better understanding of the form and faults of modern teams. Take the 2010-11 Australia batting side for example which on paper looks amazing with Ponting, Clarke, Hussey and Katich all at the same time. But they batted like arse for a period of about two years with Shane Watson, who will never be remembered as a great batsman, actually being the form player.

Well that's just not true. Agree with the main point you're trying to make though.

 

[jimmy101]

Australia. First Test vs India, 2001

Slater
Hayden
Langer
M Waugh
S Waugh
Ponting
Gilchrist +
Warne
Gillespie
Fleming
McGrath

As we all know, what made Australia great during the 90's-00's was their immense depth. Elliott, Lee, MacGill, Lehmann, Hogg, Bichel & Kasprowicz were all around at that time. With players such Katich, Hussey, Hodge, Love, Clarke & Symonds all waiting in the wings.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Australia. First Test vs India, 2001

Slater
Hayden
Langer
M Waugh
S Waugh
Ponting
Gilchrist +
Warne
Gillespie
Fleming
McGrath

As we all know, what made Australia great during the 90's-00's was their immense depth. Elliott, Lee, MacGill, Lehmann, Hogg, Bichel & Kasprowicz were all around at that time. With players such Katich, Hussey, Hodge, Love, Clarke & Symonds all waiting in the wings.

Replace Slater with Martyn and Fleming with Lee and that's about the peak

edit: which actually happened in the very next series

 

[Burgey]

I think the Australian side after Ponting went to 3 was better tbh, but that's still a very good side.

 

[wpdavid]

All true, but the team's performances would be our starting point for rating them, which immediately excludes the 2010-11 Australians. And, to some extent the 1953 England side; beating Aus 1-0 in England must have meant a lot at the time, but I'd argue against it putting them in the top echelon, and the make-up of the team simply supports that view. Winning 3-1 in Australia 18 months later was another matter, arguably our finest post-WW2 performance.

 

[S.Kennedy]

In a loose sort of order,

West Indies of the late-1970s - mid '90s (peaking around 1983 -5)
Bradman era, 1930s sides and '48 Invincibles (you could split these two)
Australia 1995 - 2005
England of the '50s
West Indies of the early-mid '60s (Worrell era)
Close-Illingworth era England
Pakistan 78ish - 1985
South Africa 2006ish - 15
Vaughan's mid 00s England
India 1967ish - 71
India early - mid 00s (pity they didn't travel well).
Strauss, and to a lesser extent Cook's, England

 

[AndrewB]

In a loose sort of order,

West Indies of the late-1970s - mid '90s (peaking around 1983 -5)
Bradman era, 1930s sides and '48 Invincibles (you could split these two)
Australia 1995 - 2005
England of the '50s
West Indies of the early-mid '60s (Worrell era)
Close-Illingworth era England
Pakistan 78ish - 1985
South Africa 2006ish - 15
Vaughan's mid 00s England
India 1967ish - 71
India early - mid 00s (pity they didn't travel well).
Strauss, and to a lesser extent Cook's, England

I don't know that the Aussies in the 1930s were that great - the early 20s side is usually higher rated. Fingleton reckoned that if England hadn't handicapped themselves for later series by bowling bodyline, they'd have won the 34 and 36-7 Ashes.

I'd have thought Pakistan were better in the early 90s, when they had Wasim and Waqar. In 1978 (weakened by WSC, but then so were England) they got thumped by England; in 1982 they lost again in England - they were unlucky, but it was a pretty weak England team.

Similarly, India's strong period was in the early 70s when Gavaskar was in the team: in 1969 they had a lucky draw with NZ and lost 3-1 to Aus (both at home).

Some other teams worth mentioning: South Africa in 1970, and some pre-war teams (England in 1903-4/1905 and 1928-9; Aus in 1902 and 1921).

 

[OverratedSanity]

India early - mid 00s (pity they didn't travel well)

They were really good overseas before it all fell apart after the WC. Won in Eng in 07, lost a close series in Aus in 08, won in NZ in 09, and drew a very even series in SA in 2011. The entire batting lineup just declined pretty much simultaneously due to age after that.

 

[the big bambino]

I don't know that the Aussies in the 1930s were that great - the early 20s side is usually higher rated. Fingleton reckoned that if England hadn't handicapped themselves for later series by bowling bodyline, they'd have won the 34 and 36-7 Ashes.

Fingo also reckoned Australia's 34 side could have beaten Bradman's 48 champions. The 30s Aussies possessed our best batting line up, with Bradman's presence just tipping the advantage over our 90s and 00s teams, imo. Additionally we had great spinners but a serious weakness in pace. So amongst our best teams but not no.1 bcos of that weakness. Fingos point about England handicapping themselves post bodyline is a fair one though. Depriving themselves of tactics as well as personnel.

 

[fredfertang]

A second opener apart, Jardine's was an outstanding side

 

[S.Kennedy]

I don't know that the Aussies in the 1930s were that great - the early 20s side is usually higher rated. Fingleton reckoned that if England hadn't handicapped themselves for later series by bowling bodyline, they'd have won the 34 and 36-7 Ashes.

I'd have thought Pakistan were better in the early 90s, when they had Wasim and Waqar. In 1978 (weakened by WSC, but then so were England) they got thumped by England; in 1982 they lost again in England - they were unlucky, but it was a pretty weak England team.

Similarly, India's strong period was in the early 70s when Gavaskar was in the team: in 1969 they had a lucky draw with NZ and lost 3-1 to Aus (both at home).

Some other teams worth mentioning: South Africa in 1970, and some pre-war teams (England in 1903-4/1905 and 1928-9; Aus in 1902 and 1921).

True, you can extend that Pakistan period into the '90s. Pakistan were beating Australia, England and India quite regularly during that period and were the only team who seemed to have a hope in hell's chance at beating the West Indians other than the Kiwis who pulled it off in a controversial series right at the beginning of the West Indian's dominance and Gooch's England in 1990 when they nearly went 2-0 up away.

 

[S.Kennedy]

They were really good overseas before it all fell apart after the WC. Won in Eng in 07, lost a close series in Aus in 08, won in NZ in 09, and drew a very even series in SA in 2011. The entire batting lineup just declined pretty much simultaneously due to age after that.

Yes, good point. 2007 - 09 if you want to really restrict it. I'd say that was one of the great Indian sides.

 

[the big bambino]

A second opener apart, Jardine's was an outstanding side

England from 26-33 never given enough credit imo, and but for some inexplicably poor selections, their 36 team too.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

I love how the current England side has our 2 leading wicket takers ever, the leading run scorer and arguably one of the best bats we have ever produced and we would get mullered by virtually every team mentioned above.