Greatest teams of all time.

[kyear2]

That pretty much wipes that listed team from contention then

Wouldn't argue that.

 

[Qlder]

I could also name the '76 - '79 West Indies, but a lot of cross over.

West Indies lost to Australia 5-1 in 1975/76 and WSC was 1977-79 so not sure how that Team is up there unless you're counting WSC. 1979/80 was WI taking over World Test cricket from my memory

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

West Indies lost to Australia 5-1 in 1975/76 and WSC was 1977-79 so not sure how that Team is up there unless you're counting WSC. 1979/80 was WI taking over World Test cricket from my memory

That win in Aus was the series that announced them as the best and in a separate tier from the rest. They had erased the demons from the last tour

 

[wpdavid]

FWIW, in "Ten Greatest Test Teams" (post-war teams up to 1987), Graveney's top five teams were
1 - Bradman's 1948 Australia
2 - Lloyd's 1984 West Indies
3 - Chappell's 1975 Australia
4 - Worrell's 1963 West Indies
5 - Hutton's 1953 England
with the 1969 South Africa team in 7th (behind May's 1956 England, which obviously has a few overlaps with the 1953 England team).

I find it interesting that Graveney didn't include Hutton's 1954/55 side that won 3-1 in Australia, as that's a more impressive performance than either of the wins in 1953 and 1956. I suppose that means picking Tyson, on the basis of one outstanding series, ahead of Trueman's far superior longevity. And Appleyard and Wardle ahead of the generally more lauded Laker and Lock. But I know which achievement I reckon is superior.

 

[Qlder]

Possibly the best 8 lineups since the war?

Australia
Barnes
Morris
Bradman
Hassett
Miller
Harvey
Johnson
Tallon
Lindwall
Johnston
Toshack

England
Hutton
Edrich
May
Compton
Graveney
Bailey
Evans
Laker
Statham
Trueman
Bedser

West Indies
Hunte
Carew
Kanhai
Sobers
Butcher
Solomon
Worrell
Murray
Hall
Griffith
Gibbs

South Africa
Richards
Goddard
Bacher
Pollock
Barlow
Irvine
Lance
Lindsay
Procter
Pollock
Traicos

West Indies
Greenidge
Haynes
Richardson
Richards
Gomes
Lloyd
Dujon
Marshall
Holding
Garner
Walsh

Australia
Hayden
Langer
Ponting
Waugh
Martyn
Waugh
Gilchrist
Warne
Lee
Gillespie
McGrath

South Africa
Smith
McKenzie
Amla
Kallis
de Villiers
Prince
Boucher
Morkel
Harris
Steyn
Ntini

India
Dhawan
Rahul
Pujara
Kohli
Rahane
Pant
Jadeja
Ashwin
Sharma
Shami
Bumrah

Not going to attempt to rank them or profess that the list is perfect.

So your first two teams are now found to be 'paper' teams rather than actual XI's that played together. Should we now check the other 6?

I'm pretty sure your 2nd WI XI and 2nd Aus XI are real, I don't know enough about the other 4 teams?

 

[Coronis]

The England one didn't. The deciding Test at The Oval in 1953 saw one change from this line-up: Lock for Statham.

By the end of the following year all four specialist bowlers from The Oval had been discarded. Trueman, Bedser, Lock and Laker had been replaced by Tyson, Statham, Wardle and Appleyard. All on skipper Hutton's say-so. The only constant was all-rounder Bailey.

Trueman, Statham and Bedser never played together.

Uh yes, England selections were very high quality in this time period, especially regarding bowlers.

 

[peterhrt]

I find it interesting that Graveney didn't include Hutton's 1954/55 side that won 3-1 in Australia, as that's a more impressive performance than either of the wins in 1953 and 1956. I suppose that means picking Tyson, on the basis of one outstanding series, ahead of Trueman's far superior longevity. And Appleyard and Wardle ahead of the generally more lauded Laker and Lock. But I know which achievement I reckon is superior.

Good point. The 1953 and 1956 sides were well equipped for home matches in favourable conditions. In his West Indies 1954 end of tour report, Hutton made clear that Trueman, Lock and Laker were not in his plans for the following winter as none would be good enough on Australian pitches.

Bedser had been rested for the West Indies and was rested again, along with Bailey, for the last Test of the home summer against Pakistan. England gave debuts to Tyson and Loader to take a look at them. On a pitch tailor-made for medium pace, Fazal took 12 wickets and levelled the series for the visitors. Bailey's absence was also highlighted by Evans batting number six ahead of five specialist bowlers.

For the first Test of the 1954-55 series at Brisbane, England fielded no spinner for only the second time ever and lost by an innings. (On the other occasion they suffered their one defeat of the Bodyline series). Bedser was dropped. Wardle and Appleyard played all the remaining Tests, three of which were won. With Tyson, Statham and Bailey completing a perfectly balanced attack in Australian conditions, Hutton's selections appeared justified.

 

[kyear2]

I would say that the primary difference between then and now would be the 2000's Aussie team over Hutton's one in the top 5. I think the subsequent SA squad for me rolls in just after?

If I were to try to rank them


1. '84 West Indies
1. '02 Australia
3. '48 Australia

4. '08 South Africa
5. '75 Australia
6. '63 West Indies

7. '70 South Africa
8. '53 England

I could also name the '76 - '79 West Indies, but a lot of cross over.

Thoughts on the order?

Want to keep this separate, but looking at the squads, especially starting from the 60's squads, they almost seems to be a facsimile of each other.

A really good opener, must have at least one

An aggressive middle order lead by an ATG

A fearsome opening attack led by at least one ATG

A brilliant keeper and cordon to support the bowlers

No team will have everything, but it seems that some aren't negotiable, you need that alpha male in your middle order, with the ability to up the tempo when needed, and that fast bowling presence, up front, and the ability to consistently take you catches and the half chances where possible.

Just my throw away thoughts.

 

[kyear2]

So your first two teams are now found to be 'paper' teams rather than actual XI's that played together. Should we now check the other 6?

I'm pretty sure your 2nd WI XI and 2nd Aus XI are real, I don't know enough about the other 4 teams?

Please note that those were similar to teams as listed multiple times in the thread as well, including the op. I also tried to ensure they all played in the same series.

Both SA, Australia & WI teams I did check to verify they played together, the Indian one as well.

Any other critiques?

 

[AndrewB]

So your first two teams are now found to be 'paper' teams rather than actual XI's that played together. Should we now check the other 6?

I'm pretty sure your 2nd WI XI and 2nd Aus XI are real, I don't know enough about the other 4 teams?

The 1st WI XI (Hunte-Carew-Kanhai-Butcher-Sobers-Solomon-Worrell-Murray-Hall-Griffith-Gibbs) played at Manchester and Birmingham in 1963 (Carew and Murray's first series and Worrell's last).
The 1st SA XI (Richards-Goddard-Bacher-G Pollock-Barlow-Irvine-Lance-Lindsay-Procter-Pollock-Traicos) played at Johannesburg in 1970.
The 2nd WI XI (Greenidge-Haynes-Richardson-Richards-Gomes-Lloyd-Dujon-Marshall-Holding-Garner-Walsh) played at Perth, Brisbane and Sydney in 1984. (The Sydney Test they lost by an innings).
Hayden-Langer-Ponting-Waugh-Martyn-Waugh-Gilchrist-Warne-Lee-Gillespie-McGrath played 9 Tests together in 2001-2.

 

[subshakerz]

I would say that the primary difference between then and now would be the 2000's Aussie team over Hutton's one in the top 5. I think the subsequent SA squad for me rolls in just after?

If I were to try to rank them


1. '84 West Indies
1. '02 Australia
3. '48 Australia

4. '08 South Africa
5. '75 Australia
6. '63 West Indies

7. '70 South Africa
8. '53 England

I could also name the '76 - '79 West Indies, but a lot of cross over.

Thoughts on the order?

I dont think we can put 70s SA there or can we?

 

[kyear2]

I dont think we can put 70s SA there or can we?

???

 

[subshakerz]

???

It's kind of an open question given how much they played.

 

[wpdavid]

It's kind of an open question given how much they played.

And it's a fair question.
Only played one series vs. The quality of players in the side as also demonstrated in previous tests and subsequently in WSC and elsewhere.

I tend not to, but others will disagree.
Some would even argue that we shouldn't be swayed by 4-0 against a transitional Australian side.

 

[Coronis]

Pretty sure the Invincibles only played one series too.

 

[kyear2]

And it's a fair question.
Only played one series vs. The quality of players in the side as also demonstrated in previous tests and subsequently in WSC and elsewhere.

I tend not to, but others will disagree.
Some would even argue that we shouldn't be swayed by 4-0 against a transitional Australian side.

Good point

Pretty sure the Invincibles only played one series too.

And this...

 

[capt_Luffy]

Pretty sure the Invincibles only played one series too.

Yeah, but they did won 7 series straight post WWII till '53; loosing 2 matches while winning 24.

 

[kyear2]

Yeah, but they did won 7 series straight post WWII till '53; loosing 2 matches while winning 24.

No Bradman though, which is the primary attraction of the invincibles.

 

[wpdavid]

No Bradman though, which is the primary attraction of the invincibles.

We do also have the 1946/47 series which did include Bradman of course. The general focus seems to be how weak England were in that series, but that's slightly unfair to the Australian side.

 

[capt_Luffy]

No Bradman though, which is the primary attraction of the invincibles.

Different issue completely. The Australian team post War till '52 was as dominant as any ever, with or without Don.