Best teams for years.

[Swervy]

by the way..its a good job NZ isnt included in that period considering NZ outplayed India IN India just before that period started

 

[Pratters]

So West Indies were the third best team in the world around the year 2000?

India played few tests as you indicated. But they beat England at home and then Windies away (with a depleted attack for Windies though if I am correct).

Wisden Asia Cricket did a champion team from different eras and put India there for a very brief period in the 70s as well.

Despite England losing to Pakistan and to India in the forthcoming series, if they win versus Pakistan and in Australia, some would say they are the world champions. (Australia's record by then would also be a matter of consideration).

 

[C_C]

I would have thought you of all people would accept that playing 13 tests in 4 years gives no evidence whatsoever that India were anything more than an occassionally dangerous and yet in general average team.

No India didnt play anyone other than England and WI in that time, so in fact they didnt get to play vs NZ, Australia,Pakistan...3 series vs 2 teams in 4 years will never be enough to come up with some thing which even remotely looks like India were number one.My suspicions are that if Australia had ahve gotten hold of them, India would wouldnt have know what'd him them.

I thought i would see if I could find a site which may shed to light on the matter...I found this http://www.geocities.com/gwozok/postwar.html ...which looking at how the rating have changed through time, look fairly accurate. It has India hovering in the bottom half, which is where I would put them around that time I reckon

timeframe matters far more than matches played IMO ( which is why i consistenty argue that ENG has to keep winning for atleast 2-3 years before they can be legit clear #2) and its a 4 year timeframe.
And yes, FYI,IND did beat the kiwis at home in 1970 IIRC.
As per suspicion- well suspicion isnt fact. Its mere speculation. By your logic, i can always argue that if the WI fourprong got hold of the current Aussies, the Aussies wouldnt know what hit em.
The fact is, the only team unbeaten in the 1970-1974 period was India and therefore they were the best team of that period.

 

[Swervy]

So West Indies were the third best team in the world around the year 2000?

Well they werent doing TOO bad around that time, I seem to remember they might have beaten Pakistan, drawn with Australia etc, it really went to pot after the summer of 2000 for WI.

India played few tests as you indicated. But they beat England at home and then Windies away (with a depleted attack for Windies though if I am correct).

They beat a WI team that was in the middle of a run of getting on 30 tests or somthing without winning a single test over about 4 years, and were far from convincing vs England....sorry, but it is simply a poor effort to consider them to have been number one, when they didnt play vs the acknowledged number (Australia) or Pakistan or NZ

 

[wpdavid]

How one did is decieded by the series score. Not individual match score.
You win 5-0 and then lose 1-4 and i win 2-1 and 2-1, the FACT is, i am unbeaten while you got pasted in one series. End of story.

The best team of any period is the one who has the best series results and for 70-74, India was the team.

The problem with all this is that a lot changed between 1970 & 1974. Aus & WI had decent claims to being the best side by 1973, but both were weak in 1970 & 1971. England could reasonably claim to be the best in the world after the 1970/71 Ashes series, but not once they had lost to India 9 months later, and certainly not after they had been lucky to draw at home with Aus in 1972 and been completely outplayed by WI in 1973. How would India have got on against Aus & WI once they began to develop decent pace attacks? We know that they lost at home to WI in 1974/5, and it's highly unlikely that they would have fancied Lillee from 1972 onwards. Supposition, I know, but there you go.

tbh standards in the first couple of years of the 1970's were not high. I'll settle India for briefly being top of the pile by the end of 1971, but I reckon Aus had overtaken them by 1972 and WI by 1973, even if they didn't get to play each other at the time.

 

[Autobahn]

And yes, FYI,IND did beat the kiwis at home in 1970 IIRC.

Well in 1969-70 NZ drew with India 1-1 in India, and that was only because the Indians where saved by the weather after collapsing to 79 for 7 chasing 268 and a deliberate go-slow by the groundstaff.

"Again the New Zealand pace bowlers were completely on top and the seventh wicket fell at 66. Over two and a quarter hours of playing time remained when the rain clouds burst, and there was a very heavy fall for half an hour, followed by hot sunshine. No real effort was made to get play started again. Instead of the covers being removed, a few workers with rags, some of them women, were given the task of removing the water from the covers and although there were official denials later, it looked very much like a deliberate go-slow policy. For perhaps the first time in cricket history a Test captain ( Dowling) was on the field in bare feet, helping to remove the water. The match was abandoned twenty minutes before time, and this brought another demonstration by the crowd."

 

[Swervy]

timeframe matters far more than matches played IMO ( which is why i consistenty argue that ENG has to keep winning for atleast 2-3 years before they can be legit clear #2) and its a 4 year timeframe.
And yes, FYI,IND did beat the kiwis at home in 1970 IIRC.
As per suspicion- well suspicion isnt fact. Its mere speculation. By your logic, i can always argue that if the WI fourprong got hold of the current Aussies, the Aussies wouldnt know what hit em.
The fact is, the only team unbeaten in the 1970-1974 period was India and therefore they were the best team of that period.

ok...so what is your gut feeling about it then??? Do you really think that India were the best team in the world at the time????

...CC, you know full well that playing 13 tests against 2 opponents over such a long period of time will not give a good indication on how good a team was...

Timeframe more important than test played!!!!!...so if India played one test match in 1970, and one test in 1974, and won both, that would be sufficient to say India were the best team in the world (the time frame is the same etc)....if not, where is the cut off where the number of tests is sufficient to allow to make such deductions.

IMO, tests were so rarely plyed back then by most countries that it is almost impossible to judge a team of series results alone over a period of time..unfortunately, an element of subjectivity has to come into it...and I think you know that really werent the best team in the world at that time!!!

 

[Pratters]

Well they werent doing TOO bad around that time, I seem to remember they might have beaten Pakistan, drawn with Australia etc, it really went to pot after the summer of 2000 for WI.

Well I would put Australia, South Africa and Pakistan in the top three back then.

They beat a WI team that was in the middle of a run of getting on 30 tests or somthing without winning a single test over about 4 years, and were far from convincing vs England....sorry, but it is simply a poor effort to consider them to have been number one, when they didnt play vs the acknowledged number (Australia) or Pakistan or NZ

England acquired the position by beating some previous world champion at home if I am not mistaken. Maybe Australia if you say Australia was the no. 1 arounf the period. Any way it was unlikely India would play so many teams over a period then considering fewer tests played by India.

Ideally I would see it as home and away against the champion team plus a small comparison versus other teams. Back then it wasn't possible to have it that way. Also even if they were far from convincing versus England (the way you put it), it shouldn't take away from that specific series victory.

We may have disagreements regarding who was the best and when. I will go back to that issue of WAC and do a bit of research on who was better when in different eras in Mid march when I return to Calcutta because it is a very interesting topic and I have always wondered about the same but haven't gone into as much detail as I would like on the same.

 

[Swervy]

and it's highly unlikely that they would have fancied Lillee from 1972 onwards. Supposition, I know, but there you go.

it is supposition, but I guess we all know enough about the game to make asumptions like this, given India back then were not very good against express pace...and thats what I meant in my earlier post

 

[Pratters]

I'll settle India for briefly being top of the pile by the end of 1971

Could you expand on why you reckon so David?

 

[Swervy]

Well I would put Australia, South Africa and Pakistan in the top three back then.

and I agree...but dont forget WI did actually beat Pakistan back then..but yeah, someone with half a cricketing brain would recognise that WI werent too hot back then and not a top three team...and thats why using a bit of common sense is required as opposed to just soley going off a couple of series results.




[/QUOTE]

 

[Tom Halsey]

India weren't great.

They did win 3 out of 4 series. But in the 3 they won they were far from convincing and pretty lucky (and England 1971 springs to mind). Then, they got taken apart in England in 1974, losing 3-0, and conceding 629 in England's only completed innings. Their own highest score was 302, and they also got skittled for 42. Their overall batting average was 19.5 compared to England's 67.8. In 74/75 they also got hammered by WI on their own patch.

If you're going to say India were the best, 1974 can definitely not be included. Maybe 70-73 but not 74.

 

[Pratters]

India weren't great.

They did win 3 out of 4 series. But in the 3 they won they were far from convincing and pretty lucky (and England 1971 springs to mind)

Like England were lucky when they won the Ashes?

Really in sport you have to make the best of the situation and win despute adverse situations. India winning shouldn't be grudged just as England winning the Ashes shouldn't be grudged.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Like England were lucky when they won the Ashes?

Erm, how were England lucky during the Ashes? There was the odd specific instance but overall we were not lucky to win the series.

 

[Pratters]

I am not saying that England were. But a case can be made just like a case can be made for India being lucky like you said.

 

[wpdavid]

Could you expand on why you reckon so David?

Winning in England, who had been the best in the world given the absence of SA. I don't buy the argument that India were especially lucky in England in 1971: England may have been on top at the close of the drawn tests in that series, but they were far from convincing. Ultimately India took their chance to win and good luck to them. Beyond that, I don't think the state of the Aus & WI attacks would have hugely troubled them even if they had played them more often around that time. At the risk of damning with faint praise, standards weren't high at the end of 1971, and India had more of a claim to the top spot than the others.

Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, I think the 1972 emergent Aus side with Lillee in full flow would probably have been too strong for them, and ditto the revitalised WI side in 1973 with Boyce & Julien on song.

 

[C_C]

ok...so what is your gut feeling about it then??? Do you really think that India were the best team in the world at the time????

...CC, you know full well that playing 13 tests against 2 opponents over such a long period of time will not give a good indication on how good a team was...

Timeframe more important than test played!!!!!...so if India played one test match in 1970, and one test in 1974, and won both, that would be sufficient to say India were the best team in the world (the time frame is the same etc)....if not, where is the cut off where the number of tests is sufficient to allow to make such deductions.

IMO, tests were so rarely plyed back then by most countries that it is almost impossible to judge a team of series results alone over a period of time..unfortunately, an element of subjectivity has to come into it...and I think you know that really werent the best team in the world at that time!!!

India were the best team between 1970 and 74- yes!
And yes, timeframe is much more important than the sheer volume of tests played. India played 3 series in that timeframe, it won 2 and drew 1. Timeframe is an accurate guage of how well the team has gelled and what the class of the team is. It is infinitely more difficult to win 3-4 series in 4 years(just a hypothetical example) than run into a hot streak ala England and win 3-4 series in a year. Simply because the longer you stretch the timeline, the skill factor becomes heavier and the 'form' factor becomes smaller.

The team with the best record over a given span is the best team for that span.
70-74 it was India. 74-76 or so was OZ. 76-90/91 was WI and 90/91-current is OZ.

 

[Tom Halsey]

India were the best team between 1970 and 74- yes!

70-73 maybe. But they didn't win a Test in 74, and lost 5.

 

[Pratters]

Winning in England, who had been the best in the world given the absence of SA. I don't buy the argument that India were especially lucky in England in 1971: England may have been on top at the close of the drawn tests in that series, but they were far from convincing. Ultimately India took their chance to win and good luck to them. Beyond that, I don't think the state of the Aus & WI attacks would have hugely troubled them even if they had played them more often around that time. At the risk of damning with faint praise, standards weren't high at the end of 1971, and India had more of a claim to the top spot than the others.

Thereafter, as I mentioned earlier, I think the 1972 emergent Aus side with Lillee in full flow would probably have been too strong for them, and ditto the revitalised WI side in 1973 with Boyce & Julien on song.

Thank you David. I thought that was a very good analysis which looked not only at stats.

 

[C_C]

70-73 maybe. But they didn't win a Test in 74, and lost 5.

Argh.
thats semantics.
Period starting from 1st Jan 1970 to 1st Jan 1974. Happy now ?