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

[Burgey]

WI had to work pretty hard to jag a draw in the 81/82 series out here tbh. Lost the first test thanks to Kim & Dennis, there was a draw at Sydney then Lloyd somewhat bizarrely won the toss and bowled in Adelaide of all places, but they ended up winning pretty comfortably despite the heroics of TOTAB. Lillee got hurt and only bowled four overs in the WI run chase of 240 odd. Was a good series, that one.

 

[Burgey]

With DRS Fleming's side which was 3rd best in the world would've won a series in Australia vs Waugh's side.

OMG is this the series where rain stopped Aus going 2-0 up in a hand canter, only for NZ to play well in Perth and Aus to abort a day five run chase? FMD it's embarrassing Kiwis claim this as a "we wuz robbed" scenario.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

We still have rain which affects results. We have DRS now to stop umpiring bowlers affecting results. Pretty simple.

Honours were shared in that series 0-0 with NZ close to winning both the 1st and 3rd tests. It is a lie to say Australia "destroyed" NZ. I'm happy to admit Australia destroyed NZ in the most recent series because that is a true statement.

NZ also won 3 out 4 ODIs vs Aus that summer (would've been 4 out of 4 but for Michael Bevan), so definitely had the wood over that Aussie side.

 

[TheJediBrah]

OMG is this the series where rain stopped Aus going 2-0 up in a hand canter, only for NZ to play well in Perth and Aus to abort a day five run chase? FMD it's embarrassing Kiwis claim this as a "we wuz robbed" scenario.

haha beat me to it

Probably my biggest pet peeve when kiwis make this claim

also that they "nearly won" the first test after Aus sacrificed effectively sacrificed a whole innings to make a game of it. Without rain aus win by an innings.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

also that they "nearly won" the first test after Aus sacrificed effectively sacrificed a whole innings to make a game of it. Without rain aus win by an innings.

Without Fleming declaring it would've been boring too. McGrath ended up bowling negative lines because our final day run chase was too good and we were going to win. McGrath only took 5 wickets at 65 in that series as NZ competed well.

Anyway, I have work to do. Lunch is over.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Without Fleming declaring it would've been boring too. McGrath ended up bowling negative lines because our final day run chase was too good and we were going to win. McGrath only took 5 wickets at 65 in that series as NZ competed well.

Anyway, I have work to do. Lunch is over.

Not disputing at all that NZ competed well. They were excellent that series and punched way above their weight. But let's not pretend that anything other than 2 dominating victories (probably by an innings) for Aus would have led into that 3rd test if not for rain.

Claiming that NZ "almost won" that series is disingenuous by implication. Aus were by far the better team and played significantly better cricket.

 

[Chrish]

On topic, Smith’s SA..

Didn’t loose away series for a decade when every other team was essentially getting white-washed. Had a bowler that is contender for GOAT pace bowler. Had a GOAT contender all-rounder. Amazing batting in Abdv, Amala and opener such as Smith. Also, had a bowler like Philander who was a beast in certain conditions supported by giant Morlkel. Only visible weakness was lack of quality spinner; but that didn’t stop them from not loosing series against strong Indian/ SL / Pakistani teams.

Quality team with amazing longevity..

 

[Slifer]

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.

My bad. Maybe I'm just thinking about the 2000 series in NZ.

 

[Slifer]

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.

Or more accurately like the examples I used, teams clung on for draws. But WI and their overrates were just a product of their times. It's not like other teams didn't do the same. The rules were what they were back then. I theory is though, if they had to push through more overs,they may have lost a few more but they probably (more likely) would've finished off teams a lot sooner as well. One other fact to consider, is that during their period of preeminence the WI played the overwhelming majority of their tests (2/3) outside the Caribbean.

 

[Chrish]

Yeah WI always operated with quartet and never bothered with spinner because they never needed to. If they were operating under 90 overs rule, they would have developed a spinner. And even if that spinner weren’t particularly that great, their pace trinity would have worked just fine ie. SA since re-admission. Australia played several games without Warne and it didn’t matter much.

Each team is a product of their environment.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah WI always operated with quartet and never bothered with spinner because they never needed to. If they were operating under 90 overs rule, they would have developed a spinner. And even if that spinner weren’t particularly that great, their pace trinity would have worked just fine ie. SA since re-admission. Australia played several games without Warne and it didn’t matter much.

Each team is a product of their environment.

Not sure about the assumption that they'd be just as effective as having 4 gun fast bowlers going virtually all day

 

[honestbharani]

Smith's SA

 

[subshakerz]

So the Hutton's England takes the No. 4 Test Team spot easily 5-1.

1. Lloyd's WI
2. Waugh's Aus
3. Invincibles
4. Hutton's England (mid-1950s)

We are selecting Test Team No.5 of the all-timers from the below options. Interested to see the selections now.


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)

 

[Fuller Pilch]

SA late 60s

 

[Daemon]

What was SA's late 60s team core?

 

[Immenso]

My bad. Maybe I'm just thinking about the 2000 series in NZ.

That was also a good series. A good 0-3. Man that Waugh team was good.

They spanked the 2004 team, though.

 

[Immenso]

One other fact to consider, is that during their period of preeminence the WI played the overwhelming majority of their tests (2/3) outside the Caribbean.

Good point.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

What was SA's late 60s team core?

2 Pollocks, Barlow, Lindsay, Lance, Goddard, Procter, Richards, Irvine, Bacher...

 

[OverratedSanity]

Worrell's WI

 

[Line and Length]

2 Pollocks, Barlow, Lindsay, Lance, Goddard, Procter, Richards, Irvine, Bacher...

You've covered it fairly well. Really, it's a 1970 team. Pat Trimborn would have completed that XI