Best teams for years.

[Francis]

Ranking's really didn't happen until around the 80s I think. Who was number one sort of came down the bragging rights from winning series. Anyway I thought I'd go as far back as I could... and later on I'll go back further.

1969: South Africa
Yep from 1969 until they were banned, they were the best test team in the world. Maybe even the best from 1966-1969... I'll do research.

1970 - 1972: England
Yep, once SA were banned, England were the best. Australia were having a horrid losing streak. You could argue this went further past the 1972 Ashes. Despite going in expected to lose, the Aussies drew that series 2-2. And even though that meant England retained the Ashes it was obvious it was a turning point for both teams. By his own admission, Tony Greig felt England's next series against the WI was played against a better team than his own. Australia went from strength to strength.

1973: The West Indies
Debatable... but Australia had no Lillee which made a difference people can't fathom. So for one year, the West Indies were there for me.

1974-1977: Australia
The Chappell era. I like hearing about this era. Lillee and Thompson absolutely crushed England and the West Indies in both series in Australia. Not even contests. World Series Cricket comes along and some time inbetween the transition, the West Indies are the best, because when it all ended, Australia didn't regain it for a while.

1977-1992: The West Indies
I personally felt Australia were the better team in 1992 despite losing to the West Indies. Maybe I should reconsider... but truth be told, if I gave it to the Windies in 1992, I'd give it to Australia in later 1993 or so. Just to obvious once Warne got great to wait until 1995 when it become "official."

1993-2006: Australia
Australia has reserved the right to be still number one since they've only lost two series since the turn of the century.


I'll go further back. Bodyline ignored, you could say Australia were the best from 1930-1948 when they had Bradman. England were dominant in the late 50s... I'd like to finish it off after the second war personally.

 

[C_C]

Err. from 1970-74 or so, the most successful team was India.

 

[marc71178]

A 19 Test period where they won 5 and lost 6 games?

 

[C_C]

In the early 70s, India had the most series successes if i remember correctly. They beat West Indies in West Indies, won against England in England and did fairly well at home.

 

[Armadillo]

Pakistan had a bit of a golden era from '90 to '92 with Imran, Wasim and Javed all firing.

 

[Slifer]

Ranking's really didn't happen until around the 80s I think. Who was number one sort of came down the bragging rights from winning series. Anyway I thought I'd go as far back as I could... and later on I'll go back further.

1969: South Africa
Yep from 1969 until they were banned, they were the best test team in the world. Maybe even the best from 1966-1969... I'll do research.

1970 - 1972: England
Yep, once SA were banned, England were the best. Australia were having a horrid losing streak. You could argue this went further past the 1972 Ashes. Despite going in expected to lose, the Aussies drew that series 2-2. And even though that meant England retained the Ashes it was obvious it was a turning point for both teams. By his own admission, Tony Greig felt England's next series against the WI was played against a better team than his own. Australia went from strength to strength.

1973: The West Indies
Debatable... but Australia had no Lillee which made a difference people can't fathom. So for one year, the West Indies were there for me.

1974-1977: Australia
The Chappell era. I like hearing about this era. Lillee and Thompson absolutely crushed England and the West Indies in both series in Australia. Not even contests. World Series Cricket comes along and some time inbetween the transition, the West Indies are the best, because when it all ended, Australia didn't regain it for a while.

1977-1992: The West Indies
I personally felt Australia were the better team in 1992 despite losing to the West Indies. Maybe I should reconsider... but truth be told, if I gave it to the Windies in 1992, I'd give it to Australia in later 1993 or so. Just to obvious once Warne got great to wait until 1995 when it become "official."

1993-2006: Australia
Australia has reserved the right to be still number one since they've only lost two series since the turn of the century.

Yes and 5 overall since 1993. WI lost 3 series from 1976 to 1995. So WI reserves the right to be called number one for this era!!


I'll go further back. Bodyline ignored, you could say Australia were the best from 1930-1948 when they had Bradman. England were dominant in the late 50s... I'd like to finish it off after the second war personally.

Yes Australia has lost 5 overall since 1993. WI lost 3 series from 1976 to 1995. So WI reserves the right to be called number one for this era. Obvious mistake on ur behalf for which u r excused.

 

[wpdavid]

Ranking's really didn't happen until around the 80s I think. Who was number one sort of came down the bragging rights from winning series. Anyway I thought I'd go as far back as I could... and later on I'll go back further.

1969: South Africa
Yep from 1969 until they were banned, they were the best test team in the world. Maybe even the best from 1966-1969... I'll do research. .

WI were outstanding in 1966, IIRC. But no arguments over SA being the best at the time they were kicked out.

1970 - 1972: England
Yep, once SA were banned, England were the best. Australia were having a horrid losing streak. You could argue this went further past the 1972 Ashes. Despite going in expected to lose, the Aussies drew that series 2-2. And even though that meant England retained the Ashes it was obvious it was a turning point for both teams. By his own admission, Tony Greig felt England's next series against the WI was played against a better team than his own. Australia went from strength to strength

England were certainly rated number 1 after they won in Aus in 1970/71. But, they did lose at home to India immediately afterwards, who had also won in WI. 1971 was probably the only time when India could legitimately claim to be number 1.

1973: The West Indies
Debatable... but Australia had no Lillee which made a difference people can't fathom. So for one year, the West Indies were there for me.

Didn't Aus win in WI around then?

1974-1977: Australia
The Chappell era. I like hearing about this era. Lillee and Thompson absolutely crushed England and the West Indies in both series in Australia. Not even contests. World Series Cricket comes along and some time inbetween the transition, the West Indies are the best, because when it all ended, Australia didn't regain it for a while.

I always view the 1979/80 series, when WI won in Aus with their four great pace bowlers, as being when the number 1 position changed hands. As you say, it's hard to say when it really happened due to WSC. Certainly the Aus Reserves defeat at the hands of the WI 1st XI in 1977/78 is irrelevant. However, thinking about it, you're probably right to date it when you did. Roberts & Holding had become great test bowlers by then, and I think Croft first appeared in 1977. They would have done for Aus, judging by how they struggled against Imran in 1976/7.

 

[Langeveldt]

2007+ India or Pakistan

 

[marc71178]

In the early 70s, India had the most series successes if i remember correctly. They beat West Indies in West Indies, won against England in England and did fairly well at home.

All those series wins but only 5 Test wins from 19?

 

[C_C]

All those series wins but only 5 Test wins from 19?

Series result is what counts - IIRC, India was unbeaten for 3-4 years in the early 70s.
That was the best record for any team in that timeframe.

 

[marc71178]

They had a whole 3 series without losing 1.

 

[C_C]

They didnt lose a series between 1970 and 1974 and were the only one not to lose a series in that timeframe. Therefore they were the best team in that span.
Whats so hard to understand about this ?
Back then they didnt play 3-4 series per year

 

[Swervy]

They didnt lose a series between 1970 and 1974 and were the only one not to lose a series in that timeframe. Therefore they were the best team in that span.
Whats so hard to understand about this ?
Back then they didnt play 3-4 series per year

yeah but I think probably everyone knows India were not the best team in the world at that time

 

[C_C]

yeah but I think probably everyone knows India were not the best team in the world at that time

That is how the media potrays it. Thats not how the facts pan out.
They were not a great team but they were the best of that 4 year period.

 

[wpdavid]

That is how the media potrays it. Thats not how the facts pan out.
They were not a great team but they were the best of that 4 year period.

Maybe around the end of 1971, but I'd rate WI above them after they started to improve again in 1973. And Aus once Lillee arrived in 1972.

 

[marc71178]

That is how the media potrays it. Thats not how the facts pan out.

These "facts":

Test results 1970-74

Australia - 12 wins, 11 draws, 9 losses
England - 13 wins, 24 draws, 10 losses
India - 4 wins, 8 draws, 6 losses
New Zealand - 1 win, 11 draws, 7 losses
Pakistan - 1 win, 10 draws, 4 losses
South Africa - 4 wins then banned
West Indies - 5 wins, 16 draws, 4 losses.

 

[C_C]

These "facts":

Test results 1970-74

Australia - 12 wins, 11 draws, 9 losses
England - 13 wins, 24 draws, 10 losses
India - 4 wins, 8 draws, 6 losses
New Zealand - 1 win, 11 draws, 7 losses
Pakistan - 1 win, 10 draws, 4 losses
South Africa - 4 wins then banned
West Indies - 5 wins, 16 draws, 4 losses.

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.

 

[Swervy]

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.

yeah maybe, but in terms of actual ability, India werent very good to be honest. They only played against two countries in that time...a not so brilliant WI team and then England in England(winning 1-0 after pretty much being outplayed in the first two tests), and then England in India, they only played 13 tests in that time...and 3 series over a 4 year period is not enough to assert that India was the best team in the world

I think after SA went out of the game, number one was probably England, which then moved over to Australia, who probably held onto that position until WSC kicked in.

 

[C_C]

I think after SA went out of the game, number one was probably England, which then moved over to Australia, who probably held onto that position until WSC kicked in.

Rank is determined by accomplishment.
The fact that ENG lost to IND in that period while IND were unbeaten lends zero credibility to who was the superior team in that period.
And i think IND also beat NZ in that timeframe.

The IND side back then wasnt a great one or the best one man for man. But they did have the best record in that frame and therefore, were the best team.

 

[Swervy]

Rank is determined by accomplishment.
The fact that ENG lost to IND in that period while IND were unbeaten lends zero credibility to who was the superior team in that period.
And i think IND also beat NZ in that timeframe.

The IND side back then wasnt a great one or the best one man for man. But they did have the best record in that frame and therefore, were the best team.

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