Best Test Team Ever?

[wpdavid]

has india ever been the best team in the world?

Probably not, but the best claim they had was around 1971. They won in England, who had just won in Aus, and, IIRC, they beat WI as well. SA had just been excluded by then.

 

[garage flower]

I'd say that in Peter Pollock, Procter, Trimborn, Chevalier, Barlow, Goddard and Lance there was plenty of depth there myself!
Not that Holding, Garner, Daniel, Roberts, Marshall, Croft was shabby, either, of course.

To be more specific, I'm talking about the depth of quality strike bowlers. Judging by the stats and CricInfo overviews I'm not sure many of the above (South Africans) qualify.

 

[SJS]

I am really surprised that there is not a single vote for England in the mid fifties

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

They were certainly a great side. Beating Australia in the Ashes 3-1 in the year in question was a major achievement, considering that the Australian team was a rather intimidating one that contained the likes of Neil Harvey, Richie Benaud, Arthur Morris, Keith Miller, Ray Lindwall and a young Alan Davidson. They also went undefeated for what was until recently the second longest stretch of 14 series between 51 and 58.

However, there are a few things that reduce them as a side in hindsight a bit, including the rather spectacular way their run ended when they were thrashed 4-0 in the Ashes, and went on to lose to Australia again in the next Ashes contest after winning a few series against the other international sides of the time. Because of this they really only dominated test cricket for a few years, and during that stretch they were seriously challenged on several occasions. Fair to call them a great test side, but when you stack them up against the Invincibles, the West Indies of the 70s and Australia in the post-2000 period, could you really call them the greatest of all?

 

[Swervy]

Plenty would argue that Sid Barnes was a better batsman than Morris and Hassett.
Certainly I'd argue that Sam Loxton was at the absolute least the equal of Neil Harvey.
If you have Lindwall, Johnstone and Miller you don't need a decent spinner!

are you joking about Loxton and harvey..Harvey widely acknowledged as one of the great batsman of all time, Loxton in the team until something better came along

 

[Swervy]

Given that I don't just judge a side on results (especially in an incredibly short period of time), yes.

eh???

Isnt the result the whole point of the game?

it is infact the ONLY way to judge a team

 

[Swervy]

Having done a bit of homework, I reckon the only time they played close to a series together was at home to India in 1982/83. One of them was injured for one of the games, but in the other 4 tests, India faced all four of them. Actually, India did pretty well, only going down 2-0.

Roberts was way past his peak by that point though

 

[tooextracool]

eh???

Isnt the result the whole point of the game?

it is infact the ONLY way to judge a team

not really,england winning 10 games out of a 11 didnt make them an all time great team did it? you have to look at results in context of the opposition that it came against, the conditions played in and the relative talent on either side.

 

[a massive zebra]

eh???

Isnt the result the whole point of the game?

it is infact the ONLY way to judge a team

That is like saying averages are the ONLY way to judge a batsman.

Alan Border was better than Viv Richards.

 

[Swervy]

That is like saying averages are the ONLY way to judge a batsman.

Alan Border was better than Viv Richards.

its nothing like using averages to judge players.These days, a team is measured on the successes it has, and those successes are due to results.

Averages of players have alsorts of intangibles involved which make them only useful in judging a player, but the fact that a team wins games/series means that they have done exactly what has been asked of them, by themselves and the public,and that can be the only way to measure the standard of a team.It is worthless having a team of batsman averaging 50 plus and bowlers averaging better than 25 if they cant win a game or series.

Thats why, i would say, marc was questioning how a team that loses a series 3-0 (WI vs Eng in the late 50's) can be considered a great TEAM. (Of course that WI's team was full of great players, but England did what was needed to beat them..although the methods employed werent entirely savoury, the huge use of pad play completely negated WI's spin threats,and thankfully we wont see play like that again)

 

[Swervy]

not really,england winning 10 games out of a 11 didnt make them an all time great team did it? you have to look at results in context of the opposition that it came against, the conditions played in and the relative talent on either side.

I agree 100%...

 

[a massive zebra]

These days, a team is measured on the successes it has, and those successes are due to results.

And a batsman is measured on the successes he has, and those successes are measured in runs scored.

Averages of players have alsorts of intangibles involved which make them only useful in judging a player

And the results of a team have all sorts of intangibles involved (such as the toss, condition of the pitch, umpiring decisions and injuries) which make them only useful in judging a team.

 

[Swervy]

And a batsman is measured on the successes he has, and those successes are measured in runs scored.




And the results of a team have all sorts of intangibles involved (such as the toss, condition of the pitch, umpiring decisions and injuries) which make them only useful in judging a team.

yes but ultimatly,its the result that matters, irrespective of all those things you have listed.A great team adapts to conditions presented to them,and converts its play into victory. Anything short of that cannot be considered a success

 

[marc71178]

not really,england winning 10 games out of a 11 didnt make them an all time great team did it? you have to look at results in context of the opposition that it came against, the conditions played in and the relative talent on either side.

Yes, but if a team doesn't even win a game, how can they be one of the best ever?

 

[marc71178]

And a batsman is measured on the successes he has, and those successes are measured in runs scored.

Yes, but the point is here that it's not a good record being used, it's a team that didn't win a game (so it's the same as saying someone who averaged what, 25-30, is the best ever)

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, but if a team doesn't even win a game, how can they be one of the best ever?

and i havent said that.....
all of those things have to be looked at combined, not just the end result.

 

[chaminda_00]

Plenty would argue that Sid Barnes was a better batsman than Morris and Hassett.
Certainly I'd argue that Sam Loxton was at the absolute least the equal of Neil Harvey.
If you have Lindwall, Johnstone and Miller you don't need a decent spinner!

Sid barnes is as good as the other, i just forget to put him down. Sam Loxton had a brillant tour but i think Harvey's overall record is better, also Harvey was selected in the Australian Team of the century and he also is in the Australia Hall of Fame. You always need a decent spinner but aganist that English side they didn't. They would of had a great spinner if it wasn't for the War, Bill O'Reiley.

 

[Richard]

How can a side that never won a game be the best?

For a start they were beaten by another side!

Because they played maybe 2 or 3 games together (if that - all I know is that they were all part of a squad).
I'm not saying they were the most successful side ever, just one of the best collection of players ever - and that only very, very briefly.

 

[Richard]

are you joking about Loxton and harvey..Harvey widely acknowledged as one of the great batsman of all time, Loxton in the team until something better came along

Sorry, got mixed-up with Loxton and McCool.
Meant McCool - an all-rounder too often forgotten in the shadow of Miller - is hardly ever mentioned alongside Harvey.
I certainly don't think Loxton was shabby, though - not as good as Harvey, obviously - but certainly more than "only in the team until something better came along".

 

[Richard]

yes but ultimatly,its the result that matters, irrespective of all those things you have listed.A great team adapts to conditions presented to them,and converts its play into victory. Anything short of that cannot be considered a success

And ultimately it's the average that matters, irrespective of anything else. There's no such thing as a good batsman with a poor average. Of course, things like averages always have to be taken in context. As, of course, do results.
I don't think anyone would say Australia weren't a good side because they couldn't adapt to the conditions at Mumbai last year; or because they couldn't cope in Sri Lanka (1999\2000) or India (2000\01).
With regards great teams, you can only adapt if you're given things to adapt to - the team I'm referring to played a handful of games at most together.