Greatest Test XI

[kyear2]

There were quite a few really great teams over the history of the game, but generally comes down to these three. Which was the best?

 

[kyear2]

The Invincibles
Morris
Barnes
Bradman
Hassett
Miller
Harvey
Johnson
Lindwall
Tallon
Johnston
Toshack

1984* Windies
Greenidge
Haynes
Richardson
Richards
Gomes
Lloyd
Dujon
Marshall
Garner
Holding
Walsh

2002 Aussies
Hayden
Langer
Ponting
Waugh
Waugh
Martyn
Gilchrist
Warne
Lee
Gillespie
McGrath

 

[tony p]

This 1902 England side was regarded for a very long time, certainly by many cricket fans as one of the best.
Only played together twice in consecutive rain ruined matches.
In batting order at the time (6 legitimate quality all-rounders)

MacLaren
Fry
Ranjitsinhji
Jackson
J. Tyldesley
Lilley
Hirst
Jessop
Braund
Lockwood
Rhodes

 

[Qlder]

1984* Windies
Greenidge
Haynes
Richardson
Richards
Gomes
Lloyd
Dujon
Marshall
Garner
Holding
Walsh

I see you realised you had to make it 1984 to get Richardson and Walsh in

Funny how Roger Harper always seems to be omitted from the WI team sheet. In 1984 WI played 15 Tests with Harper playing 11 of them so Walsh would only be picked on his overall record rather than actual 1984

Garner - 15 Tests, 79 wkts @ 20.62
Marshall - 13 Tests, 73 wkts @ 20.15
Holding - 10 Tests, 43 wkts @ 19.46
Harper - 11 Tests, 31 wkts @ 25.48

Baptiste - 8 Tests, 14 wkts @ 30.00
Walsh - 5 Tests, 13 wkts @ 33.23

 

[kyear2]

I see you realised you had to make it 1984 to get Richardson and Walsh in

Funny how Roger Harper always seems to be omitted from the WI team sheet. In 1984 WI played 15 Tests with Harper playing 11 of them so Walsh would only be picked on his overall record rather than actual 1984

Garner - 15 Tests, 79 wkts @ 20.62
Marshall - 13 Tests, 73 wkts @ 20.15
Holding - 10 Tests, 43 wkts @ 19.46
Harper - 11 Tests, 31 wkts @ 25.48

Baptiste - 8 Tests, 14 wkts @ 30.00
Walsh - 5 Tests, 13 wkts @ 33.23

'84 was the team that I initially intended because of Richardson and Walsh, so yes. Can be argued though that Harper actually gave the team better balance, not to add fielding.

Similarly the players named for the Invincibles squad, never actually played together, but because the team changed for every game, the best names were selected from the series, including a very young Harvey.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Even though Ian Johnson played far more tests and was an Aussie captain, Colin McCool might be a better option.

 

[peterhrt]

This 1902 England side was regarded for a very long time, certainly by many cricket fans as one of the best.
Only played together twice in consecutive rain ruined matches.
In batting order at the time (6 legitimate quality all-rounders)

MacLaren
Fry
Ranjitsinhji
Jackson
J. Tyldesley
Lilley
Hirst
Jessop
Braund
Lockwood
Rhodes

All eleven had scored a first-class hundred by this time. Barnes couldn't get a game until later in the series.

Only caveat was that in a very wet home summer England lost the series. However they were robbed by the weather at least once after Hirst and Rhodes bowled Australia out for 36 at Edgbaston. A few days later Hirst and Jackson dismissed the Aussies for 23 when Yorkshire defeated the tourists.

 

[Qlder]

Similarly the players named for the Invincibles squad, never actually played together, but because the team changed for every game, the best names were selected from the series, including a very young Harvey.

Not really as 6 players named played all 5 tests and 4 others played 4 of the 5 tests. So it was down to selection of Loxton who played 3 Tests averaging 48 or Harvey who played 2 tests averaging 66. Fair decision.

Walsh on the other hand can only be picked on his overall record with Harper being the clear 4th bowler for Windies in 1984

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Even though Ian Johnson played far more tests and was an Aussie captain, Colin McCool might be a better option.

Ignore that - I didn't realise he didn't play any tests in 48.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

The Bradman factor sways it to the 1948 side IMO

 

[shortpitched713]

Don't think you can split the 84 WI and 03 Aus side, personally.

 

[kyear2]

Don't think you can split the 84 WI and 03 Aus side, personally.

I agree actually.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Don't think you can split the 84 WI and 03 Aus side, personally.

The only reason I voted for the latter is because while the former has a much better pace attack; the latter has a more balanced attack with Shane Warne.

 

[kyear2]

The only reason I voted for the latter is because while the former has a much better pace attack; the latter has a more balanced attack with Shane Warne.

Lloyd and Gomes were notes players of spin. It's McGrath that gives me pause. Don't think either batting line up will thrive though.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Lloyd and Gomes were notes players of spin. It's McGrath that gives me pause. Don't think any batting line up will thrive though.

I mean they were, but what I am saying is that the Windies attack had great pacers, some of the greatest of all time; but the attack lacked a quality spinner like Shane Warne or even Stuart MacGill.

 

[kyear2]

I mean they were, but what I am saying is that the Windies attack had great pacers, some of the greatest of all time; but the attack lacked a quality spinner like Shane Warne or even Stuart MacGill.

I understand, just saying, they proved you can be great without one, and unlike Lee for Australia, out attack didn't have a glaring "weakness"

 

[capt_Luffy]

I understand, just saying, they proved you can be great without one, and unlike Lee for Australia, out attack didn't have a glaring "weakness"

I understand that and I am not doubting their abilities; but I still think in a good turning track the bowling attack could be a little one dimensional against quality batting.

 

[fredfertang]

I'd go for Jardine's 32/33 side

 

[kyear2]

Think it would be an amazing series.

Both teams have their weaknesses, not sure how Haydos responds to Marshall and Garner up front, does he and Langer five Australia the trade mark launch that was key to their domination? How does Punter hold up, that one I wouldn't hazard a guess.

 

[kyear2]

I'd go for Jardine's 32/33 side

Over the 70's SA side for the next one up? Or even 2013 SA, 50' England?