Best teams for years.

[Tom Halsey]

Haha, yep.

 

[marc71178]

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.

What a load of twisting.

A side can play 3 series in 4 years and be the best side in the world, yet another team has to play about 10-12 series to get the same accolade.

 

[C_C]

A side can play 3 series in 4 years and be the best side in the world, yet another team has to play about 10-12 series to get the same accolade.

Yes because time is far bigger judge than matches on form.
People have their ups and downs. The more you play, the more matches you will have in your uppers and downer periods, thus giving a distended image.
Like i said - and i used to be a juniors tennis player who for a brief period of time considered turning pro - it is FAR easier to run into a red hot streak and reel off several wins in a row than play intermittently and win the same # over a larger timeframe.

In anycase, any claims to quality (or the lack of it) comes predominantly from timeframe, not just matches won/lost.

 

[marc71178]

In that case from 1965 through to 1996, South Africa didn't lose a Test series, so therefore they were the best side for that 31 year period.

 

[C_C]

In that case from 1965 through to 1996, South Africa didn't lose a Test series, so therefore they were the best side for that 31 year period.

Right, smartarse.
You actually have to play to be unbeaten.

 

[social]

Looking at their playing talent, SA were by far the best team in the world during the early 70s.

Unfortunately, they were banned from international cricket in 1970.

Of the rest, India beat Eng in '71 having been slaughtered by Aus in 69-70 and didnt really play much at all in the period.

Eng were on the way down as were WI.

Aus thrashed India but were annihilated by SA and then followed a draw with Eng by victories over NZ, Pakistan and WI.

All in all, it was SA were so far ahead of everyone else until the return of Lillee and ascendency of Thommo that the rest were irrelevant.

 

[Swervy]

Looking at their playing talent, SA were by far the best team in the world during the early 70s.

Unfortunately, they were banned from international cricket in 1970.

Of the rest, India beat Eng in '71 having been slaughtered by Aus in 69-70 and didnt really play much at all in the period.

Eng were on the way down as were WI.

Aus thrashed India but were annihilated by SA and then followed a draw with Eng by victories over NZ, Pakistan and WI.

All in all, it was SA were so far ahead of everyone else until the return of Lillee and ascendency of Thommo that the rest were irrelevant.

but SA werent a test playing team in the period we are talking about, so they couldnt be considered to be the top team

 

[social]

but SA werent a test playing team in the period we are talking about, so they couldnt be considered to be the top team

Then it was Aus from 71

Couldnt be India - never avenged their thrashing by Aus

If one is being fair, had to be SA

 

[wpdavid]

Then it was Aus from 71

How come? I thought 0-2 in 1970/71 was a pretty persuasive argument against them.

Maybe from 1972 when they were unlucky not to win in England.

 

[Francis]

I think the Aussies felt hard done by after playing on the suspicious fusarium pitch that helped debutant Derek Underwood. Some feel that pitch was a means to counter-act Bob Massie. Also, the first test was seen as a massive failure for Australia because they hadn't won in about 10 tests (granted many of those tests were washed out) because they didn't have to chase a big total and yet they fell short again.

Ian Chappell felt that last test was the most important of his career to some extent because he wanted to go back to Australia and tell the press that Australia were the better team, but he couldn't do it if they lost the series 2-1.

So yeah, maybe Australia was the best in the world in 1972. To anybody who watched cricket back in those days though, Australia weren't there. They lost their first home series since bodyline after losing 4-0 in SA. That killed their reputation and Bill Lawry's career. When Australia went to England in 1972 they were dubbed "the worst Aussie team ever to tour." Granted it was a title given to the 1989 Aussie team as well. But the Aussies weren't held in high regard in 1972.

Maybe they were the best team in 1972, all I'm saying is nobody thought that.

 

[wpdavid]

I think the Aussies felt hard done by after playing on the suspicious fusarium pitch that helped debutant Derek Underwood. Some feel that pitch was a means to counter-act Bob Massie. Also, the first test was seen as a massive failure for Australia because they hadn't won in about 10 tests (granted many of those tests were washed out) because they didn't have to chase a big total and yet they fell short again.

Ian Chappell felt that last test was the most important of his career to some extent because he wanted to go back to Australia and tell the press that Australia were the better team, but he couldn't do it if they lost the series 2-1.

So yeah, maybe Australia was the best in the world in 1972. To anybody who watched cricket back in those days though, Australia weren't there. They lost their first home series since bodyline after losing 4-0 in SA. That killed their reputation and Bill Lawry's career. When Australia went to England in 1972 they were dubbed "the worst Aussie team ever to tour." Granted it was a title given to the 1989 Aussie team as well. But the Aussies weren't held in high regard in 1972.

Maybe they were the best team in 1972, all I'm saying is nobody thought that.

I'm sure you're right. But I do remember watching the series and thinking that Aus were the better side. As you say, they were very unhappy about the state of the wicket at Leeds, which was ideal for the conveniently recalled Underwood (he wasn't on debut - remember the Oval in 1968?) and were caught cold in the 1st test in conditions that were better suited to the winter olympics. Memories ....