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

[Coronis]

They did go on a 5 year streak (09-14) without losing a series. Bookended by losses to Australia at home. 14 series in a row, with a 6 series win streak from 11-13.

And whilst the Invincibles was just one tour without losing, Australia actually never lost a post-war test until the final match of the 1951 Ashes.

 

[Brook's side]

They did go on a 5 year streak (09-14) without losing a series. Bookended by losses to Australia at home. 14 series in a row, with a 6 series win streak from 11-13.

And whilst the Invincibles was just one tour without losing, Australia actually never lost a post-war test until the final match of the 1951 Ashes.

The 6 winning series is impressive. The period you refer to 09-14, their record was W19 D10 L6.
Very good, although they whitewashed 1 of those 14 series (3 tests v Pakistan at home).
They've also got some very strong players (Smith, Amla, Kallis, de Villiers, Steyn, Philander). That Australia team's 2nd team's batting line up was better than anyone else's 1st team though. Same with the West Indies bowlers.
And they never terrified world cricket like some of the other teams did. To me that's the main point. Maybe I wasn't paying attention, but I never felt that Test cricket was going through the era of complete South African dominance. I don't remember thinking oh no here comes another inevitable hiding.

 

[Brook's side]

@kyear2
Do the series against Australia still hurt?

 

[kyear2]

@kyear2
Do the series against Australia still hurt?

What?

 

[Brook's side]

What?

Am just going through the SA results, 99-c2018.
That side 98-03 could have been a real contender if it had won (or won drawn) those 2 series.
Still a very good run of results though.

 

[kyear2]

Am just going through the SA results, 99-c2018.
That side 98-03 could have been a real contender if it had won (or won drawn) those 2 series.
Still a very good run of results though.

Just appreciate good cricket

 

[Brook's side]

Sorry, I'm watching the tennis.
I think there's 2 periods you could look at though for SA...

Nov 98-Jan 09
Matches
W 61
D 26
L 31

Series
W 25
D 6
L 9

(v Aus 4 series loss, 1 win)

Dec 11-Mar 18
Matches
W 35
D 13
L 15

Series
W 18
D 2
L 4

(v Aus 3 series win, 1 loss)

I don't know what the Australia sides' figures were, but WI at its peak was winning close to 4 games for every loss.

 

[Brook's side]

Australia
Nov 94 - Jun 2008
Matches
W 104
D 24
L 26

Series
W 39
D 3
L 5

 

[Brook's side]

WI

June 1980-Feb 1995

Matches
W 59
D 41
L 15

Series
W 20
D 9
L 0

 

[Brook's side]

Australia Mar 46-Jan 52
70 months, 31 matches, 7 series

Matches
W 24
D 5
L 2
W% 78 L% 6 Difference 72

Series
W 7
D 0
L 0

England Nov 54- Aug 60
69 months, 54 matches, 12 series

Matches
W 29
D 15
L 10
W% 54 L% 19 Difference 35

Series
W 10
D 1
L 1

Australia Oct 56-Aug 61
58 months, 31 matches, 7 series

Matches
W 17
D 11
L 3
W% 55 L% 10 Difference 45

Series
W 7
D 0
L 0

WI Feb 62-Jan 67
60 months, 23 matches, 5 series

Matches
W 15
D 5
L 3
W% 65 L% 13 Difference 52

Series
W 5
D 0
L 0

Australia Dec 72- Mar 77
52 months, 35 matches, 9 series
Matches
W 20
D 11
L 4
W% 57 L% 11 Difference 46

Series
W 7
D 2
L 0

WI June 1980-Feb 1995
178 months, 115 matches, 29 series
Matches
W 59
D 41
L 15
W% 51 L% 13 Difference 48

Series
W 20
D 9
L 0

Australia Nov 94 - Jun 2008
164 months, 154 matches, 47 series

Matches
W 104
D 24
L 26
W% 67 L% 17 Difference 50

Series
W 39
D 3
L 5

SA Nov 98-Jan 09
123 months, 118 matches, 40 series

Matches
W 61
D 26
L 31
W% 52 L% 26 Difference 26

Series
W 25
D 6
L 9

India May 07-July 11
51 months, 48 matches, 17 series

Matches
W 21
D 19
L 8

W% 44 L% 17 Difference 27

Series
W 11
D 4
L 2

SA Dec 11-Mar 18
76 months, 63 matches, 24 series

Matches
W 35
D 13
L 15
W% 56 L% 24 Difference 32

Series
W 18
D 2
L 4

New Zealand Dec 17-June 21
43 months, 27 matches, 13 series

Matches
W 18
D 4
L 5

W% 67 L% 19 Difference 48

Series
W 11
D 1
L 1

 

[Brook's side]

Australia Mar 46-Jan 52
70 months, 31 matches, 7 series
W% 78 L% 6 Difference 72
Series W 7 D 0 L 0

West Indies Feb 62-Jan 67
60 months, 23 matches, 5 series
W% 65 L% 13 Difference 52
Series W 5 D 0 L 0

Australia Nov 94 - Jun 2008
164 months, 154 matches, 47 series
W% 67 L% 17 Difference 50
Series W 39 D 3 L 5

West Indies June 1980-Feb 1995*
178 months, 115 matches, 29 series
W% 51 L% 13 Difference 48
Series W 20 D 9 L 0

New Zealand Dec 17-June 21
43 months, 27 matches, 13 series
W% 67 L% 19 Difference 48
Series W 11 D 1 L 1

Australia Dec 72- Mar 77
52 months, 35 matches, 9 series
W% 57 L% 11 Difference 46
Series W 7 D 2 L 0

Australia Oct 56-Aug 61
58 months, 31 matches, 7 series
W% 55 L% 10 Difference 45
Series W 7 D 0 L 0

England Nov 54- Aug 60
69 months, 54 matches, 12 series
W% 54 L% 19 Difference 35
Series W 10 D 1 L 1

South Africa Dec 11-Mar 18
76 months, 63 matches, 24 series
W% 56 L% 24 Difference 32
Series W 18 D 2 L 4

India May 07-July 11
51 months, 48 matches, 17 series
W% 44 L% 17 Difference 27
W 11 D 4 L 2

South Africa Nov 98-Jan 09
123 months, 118 matches, 40 series
W% 52 L% 26 Difference 26
Series W 25 D 6 L 9


Ranked (for presentation purposes) in order of biggest difference in % match wins and losses


*West Indies had a 30 game spell over 26 months (Mar 84-Apr 86)
where they played India, Aus and England and won 21 of 30 matches losing only 1.
W 70%
L 3%

 

[Xix2565]

I don't see Kohli's India????

 

[Brook's side]

I don't see Kohli's India????

The peak was only 26 months, and out of 8 series, I think 6 were at home and 1 other was in Sri Lanka.
I was looking for longer peaks. I ruled out SA in the 60s for the same reason. Also Vaughan and Strauss's England amongst others.
You could do it a different way, but that's just the exercise that I did.

 

[Brook's side]

If you wanted to look at particular cores of sides, then I think you'd need to go into it in more detail (and possibly include weaker periods outside of my peaks: for instance Benaud's side went through a leaner period after my cut off point), but that might give a steer for further investigation.

 

[Xix2565]

The peak was only 26 months, and out of 8 series, I think 6 were at home and 1 other was in Sri Lanka.
I was looking for longer peaks. I ruled out SA in the 60s for the same reason. Also Vaughan and Strauss's England amongst others.
You could do it a different way, but that's just the exercise that I did.

I don't think the NZ side should be here then considering they weren't outright best until the WTC Final in 2021. And they've also had a large proportion of their games at home like India. Seems very one-eyed to me for this to be reasonable.

 

[Brook's side]

I don't think the NZ side should be here then considering they weren't outright best until the WTC Final in 2021. And they've also had a large proportion of their games at home like India. Seems very one-eyed to me for this to be reasonable.

That period comprised of:
WI at home
England at home
Pakistan in UAE
SL at home
Bang at home
SL away
Eng at home
Aus away
Ind at home
West Indies at home
Pakistan at home
England away
India in England

So yes you're right a lot of home matches, and that needs to be considered.
The opposition's decent though.
Also 43 months an 27 matches is just about getting into respectable territory (although it needs to be factored in that it's not longer).
I think they're worth a mention, because the numbers are very good.
I'm not suggesting that my %diff number is the be all and end all, just an indicator.
I'm a POM btw.

 

[Xix2565]

That period comprised of:
WI at home
England at home
Pakistan in UAE
SL at home
Bang at home
SL away
Eng at home
Aus away
Ind at home
West Indies at home
Pakistan at home
England away
India in England

So yes you're right a lot of home matches, and that needs to be considered.
The opposition's decent though.
Also 43 months an 27 matches is just about getting into respectable territory (although it needs to be factored in that it's not longer).
I think they're worth a mention, because the numbers are very good.
I'm not suggesting that my %diff number is the be all and end all, just an indicator.
I'm a POM btw.

I mean that still doesn't explain the omission of Kohli's India though, since it was part of the OP. They were both worth a mention, yet only one was chosen for some reason.

EDIT: Seems worse in hindsight because of the other Indian side that did get mentioned, which was arguably far worse than this one.

 

[Brook's side]

I mean that still doesn't explain the omission of Kohli's India though, since it was part of the OP. They were both worth a mention, yet only one was chosen for some reason.

EDIT: Seems worse in hindsight because of the other Indian side that did get mentioned, which was arguably far worse than this one.

Just put it down to racism.

 

[Xix2565]

Just put it down to racism.

I didn't accuse you of anything apart from overlooking a side. Relax, see what your metrics tell you and let us know how they stand later.

 

[Brook's side]

As I've explained, NZ's run was over 43 months and included playing in UAE, Sri Lanka, Australia and England.
India's was over 16 months (edit: apologies, 25 months), and only included away games in Sri Lanka and a poor West Indies.
If you want to consider it in your assessment, that's completely up to you, this is just the basis for the figures which I've presented for consideration.