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

[subshakerz]

So Waugh's team takes the No. 2 Test Team spot 6-4 in the vote. The No. 3 option should be a formality so I will declare it after the first few nominations going the same way.

1. Lloyd's WI
2. Waugh's Aus
3.

Now we are selecting Test Team No.3 of the all-timers from the below options:

Bradman's Invincibles (1940s)
Hutton's England (mid-1950s)
Benaud's Australia (Late 1950s)
Worrell's WI (Early-1960s)
South Africa (late 60s)
Chappell's Australia (mid-1970s)
Imran's Pakistan (late 80s)
Cronje's SA (mid-late 90s)
Akram's Pakistan (mid-late 90s)
Vaughn's England (Mid-2000s)
Dhoni's India (late 2000s)
Strauss's England (Early 2010s)
Smith's SA (Early 2010s)
Kohli's India (Late 2010s)
Williamson's NZ (Early 2020s)

 

[ataraxia]

invincibles

 

[trundler]

Invincibles

 

[Immenso]

Invincibles

 

[Line and Length]

Invincibles

 

[morgieb]

Yep, Invincibles

 

[subshakerz]

So the Invincibles takes the No. 3 Test Team spot as expected.

1. Lloyd's WI
2. Waugh's Aus
3. Invincibles

Now is where it should get interesting. We are selecting Test Team No.4 of the all-timers from the below options:

Hutton's England (mid-1950s)
Benaud's Australia (Late 1950s)
Worrell's WI (Early-1960s)
South Africa (late 60s)
Chappell's Australia (mid-1970s)
Imran's Pakistan (late 80s)
Cronje's SA (mid-late 90s)
Akram's Pakistan (mid-late 90s)
Vaughn's England (Mid-2000s)
Dhoni's India (late 2000s)
Strauss's England (Early 2010s)
Smith's SA (Early 2010s)
Kohli's India (Late 2010s)
Williamson's NZ (Early 2020s)

 

[Xix2565]

No. 3 Kohli's India (Late 2010s)

 

[kyear2]

Hutton's team

 

[steve132]

Hutton's 1950's England team

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Hutton's

 

[HookShot]

1953 or 55, it has to be Hutton’s team.

 

[trundler]

Was planning on voting for Hutton's team before it became a band wagon...

 

[subshakerz]

Huttons team on reflection is very strong, 3-4 batting giants plus Bedser, Tyson, Laker, Stratham. Could have competed with the Invicibles if not for Bradman.

 

[Chrish]

Under 90 overs per day, Waugh’s team. Under old rule when 90 overs wasn’t enforced, Loyd’s WI.

WI was more dominant of the two though. They didn’t loose a series for like a decade which is mind boggling. Aus were bit unlucky at a times since they ran into miracles like VVS 281.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Under 90 overs per day, Waugh’s team. Under old rule when 90 overs wasn’t enforced, Loyd’s WI.

WI was more dominant of the two though. They didn’t loose a series for like a decade which is mind boggling. Aus were bit unlucky at a times since they ran into miracles like VVS 281.

Australia won a lot more often, but had more losses. They often had clean sweeps. West Indies' tests were more attritional - relentless bowling obviously, but they drew more often.

Also apart from Pakistan and NZ no one else had good teams in the 80s to challenge the Windies. There were more quality players in other test teams in the 2000s (due to return of South Africa, emergence of Sri Lanka as a good side, and a golden generation of Indian batting).

 

[Slifer]

Australia won a lot more often, but had more losses. They often had clean sweeps. West Indies' tests were more attritional - relentless bowling obviously, but they drew more often.

Also apart from Pakistan and NZ no one else had good teams in the 80s to challenge the Windies. There were more quality players in other test teams in the 2000s (due to return of South Africa, emergence of Sri Lanka as a good side, and a golden generation of Indian batting).

Only because as someone pointed out the rules from that time. When overs/time were lost due to weather they were not made up. Plus there were no mandatory 90 overs a day etc.. For examples WI would've won against Australia at home 5-0 and away 4-1 in 1984 had the overs lost been made up. WI likely would've won in Pakistan in '86 for similar reasons. Etc. And referencing the teams of the 80s, none were as dire as the WI teams that Waughs teams routinely destroyed. Ditto NZ. India from the 80s imo, had a very good batting lineup; only their bowlers let them down.

 

[Line and Length]

Hutton's England (Mid '50s)

 

[subshakerz]

Only because as someone pointed out the rules from that time. When overs/time were lost due to weather they were not made up. Plus there were no mandatory 90 overs a day etc.. For examples WI would've won against Australia at home 5-0 and away 4-1 in 1984 had the overs lost been made up. WI likely would've won in Pakistan in '86 for similar reasons. Etc. And referencing the teams of the 80s, none were as dire as the WI teams that Waughs teams routinely destroyed. Ditto NZ. India from the 80s imo, had a very good batting lineup; only their bowlers let them down.

Actually the Australian and English sides WI faced in the early 80s were quite strong.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Only because as someone pointed out the rules from that time. When overs/time were lost due to weather they were not made up. Plus there were no mandatory 90 overs a day etc.. For examples WI would've won against Australia at home 5-0 and away 4-1 in 1984 had the overs lost been made up. WI likely would've won in Pakistan in '86 for similar reasons. Etc. And referencing the teams of the 80s, none were as dire as the WI teams that Waughs teams routinely destroyed. Ditto NZ. India from the 80s imo, had a very good batting lineup; only their bowlers let them down.

Huh? What do you mean Waugh's team routinely destroyed NZ? With DRS Fleming's side which was 3rd best in the world would've won a series in Australia vs Waugh's side.

Also the Windies routinely had a poor over rate - negative cricket, which stopped the opposition beating them. They could've got through their overs more quickly in pursuit of victory but were happy with draws.