How would you rank the greatest test teams of all-time?

[TheJediBrah]

To be fair though that's 4 tours, and a one off vs a minnow and India was equally garbage. Additionally while the invincibles extended as Sean pointed out until '52, but Bradman retired in '49, after which they don't quite compare to the other two teams.

Didn't play many tours back then though. Not a reasonable comparison to modern teams

 

[HookShot]

Should probably mention the Chapman side of 1928/29 which smashed Australia 4-1 away.

Here is the line-up from the 2nd Test in Sydney;

01. Jack Hobbs
02. Herbert Sutcliffe
03. Walter Hammond
04. Douglas Jardine
05. Patsy Hendren
06. Percy Chapman *
07. Harold Larwood
08. George Geary
09. Maurice Tate
10. George Duckworth +
11. John White

 

[HookShot]

I think that Bradman’s side would beat Waugh’s side as I can’t imagine any of the front-line batsman having too many issues against Warne. McGrath perhaps, but even then.

On-the-other-hand that 1948 side has so much variety in attack.

 

[AndrewB]

Should probably mention the Chapman side of 1928/29 which smashed Australia 4-1 away.

Here is the line-up from the 2nd Test in Sydney;

01. Jack Hobbs
02. Herbert Sutcliffe
03. Walter Hammond
04. Douglas Jardine
05. Patsy Hendren
06. Percy Chapman *
07. Harold Larwood
08. George Geary
09. Maurice Tate
10. George Duckworth +
11. John White

Possibly England's strongest squad for batting: The top 5 plus Mead, Tyldesley and Leyland (who all played at some point in the series) all averaged 45+ in Tests.

 

[subshakerz]

Current score:

Invincibles 4
Waugh's team 3

Didn't know the Invincibles would be in such high standing.

 

[Coronis]

As much as I love the invincibles, it has to be Waugh’s Australia.

 

[trundler]

What was the best 4-5 year period of Waugh's Australia? Maybe that will give us a more accurate assessment

 

[Daemon]

Rahane’s India

 

[OverratedSanity]

Waugh's australia

 

[subshakerz]

What was the best 4-5 year period of Waugh's Australia? Maybe that will give us a more accurate assessment

His period was basically 99-2004. Peak was likely 2002 against SA.

 

[Anil]

there are only two teams who deserve to be in the mix, the aussie super teams of the 90s and the early 2000s...and the west indies teams of the 80s...every other team is inferior to those two...

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Should probably mention the Chapman side of 1928/29 which smashed Australia 4-1 away.

Here is the line-up from the 2nd Test in Sydney;

01. Jack Hobbs
02. Herbert Sutcliffe
03. Walter Hammond
04. Douglas Jardine
05. Patsy Hendren
06. Percy Chapman *
07. Harold Larwood
08. George Geary
09. Maurice Tate
10. George Duckworth +
11. John White

Very strong side that. And good old Tate labelled Bradman "his bunny". Famous last words...

 

[subshakerz]

there are only two teams who deserve to be in the mix, the aussie super teams of the 90s and the early 2000s...and the west indies teams of the 80s...every other team is inferior to those two...

So I assume your vote is for Waugh's team for No.2?

 

[subshakerz]

Looking at Waugh's Aussies, the only real weaknesses in that side was perhaps a relative susceptibility to quality spin, having lost in Sri Lanka in 99 and India in 2001. But they beat those team in their following tours so its not like they were weak in that respect.

I do think that the relative decline of WI, Pakistan and SA from 2000 onwards also played a role in the absolute dominance. Essentially, Australia became better and their competitors became worse, and the gulf widened between them (except for India).

You could also make a case that Aus under Ponting around 2006/7 were as strong as under Waugh.

 

[Xix2565]

Looking at Waugh's Aussies, the only real weaknesses in that side was perhaps a relative susceptibility to quality spin, having lost in Sri Lanka in 99 and India in 2001. But they beat those team in their following tours so its not like they were weak in that respect.

I do think that the relative decline of WI, Pakistan and SA from 2000 onwards also played a role in the absolute dominance. Essentially, Australia became better and their competitors became worse, and the gulf widened between them (except for India).

You could also make a case that Aus under Ponting around 2006/7 were as strong as under Waugh.

That applies to a lot of dominant teams discussed here, where the gulf in quality is so big that they get to dominate with impunity. When teams are closer in quality, especially when it comes to bowling attacks (since bowling is far more important in winning Tests) you get more even competition and less dominance. If Waugh's Australia gets marked down for that so do everyone else being discussed here really, especially sides pre 1950s like Bradman's and such who also just had less sides to play against and so less competition overall.

 

[subshakerz]

That applies to a lot of dominant teams discussed here, where the gulf in quality is so big that they get to dominate with impunity. When teams are closer in quality, especially when it comes to bowling attacks (since bowling is far more important in winning Tests) you get more even competition and less dominance. If Waugh's Australia gets marked down for that so do everyone else being discussed here really, especially sides pre 1950s like Bradman's and such who also just had less sides to play against and so less competition overall.

Yes that is fair. For LLoyd's WI, for example, they had more competitive series in Aus and Eng in 81 and 80 when those sides were still stronger, compared to how they crushed weaker versions of them in 84/85.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Looking at Waugh's Aussies, the only real weaknesses in that side was perhaps a relative susceptibility to quality spin, having lost in Sri Lanka in 99 and India in 2001. But they beat those team in their following tours so its not like they were weak in that respect.

Technically they weren't Waugh's team then though . . . that was Ponting/Gilchrist's Australia

personally I think the 2004-2007 Aus team was slightly stronger than around 2002. 2005 Ashes was a huge anomaly

 

[subshakerz]

Technically they weren't Waugh's team then though . . . that was Ponting/Gilchrist's Australia

personally I think the 2004-2007 Aus team was slightly stronger than around 2002. 2005 Ashes was a huge anomaly

I agree. And they would have likely won in 2005 if McGrath was fully fit. That side had early career Hussey who was very useful down the order and then guys like Stuart Clark who was worldclass.

 

[Xix2565]

Gilchrist's Australia

Like Rahane's India, probably the greatest side of that generation.

 

[Slifer]

Yes that is fair. For LLoyd's WI, for example, they had more competitive series in Aus and Eng in 81 and 80 when those sides were still stronger, compared to how they crushed weaker versions of them in 84/85.

Tbf, WI did destroy a fairly strong Australian team down under in 79/80 but agree with the essence of your post.