Best Test Team Ever?

[aussie_beater]

Peter Kirsten did play in the 90s, as did Jimmy Cook and Clive Rice, but by that time they were all past it and only Kirsten could really command a semi-regular place in the side. But at least it allowed him to play in a World Cup (at a very high standard too, I might add) and score a Test century. He was almost 40 by the time he made his Test debut, but still retired with an average over 30.

From what I saw of Peter Kirsten in the 90s, he was an excellent batsman and probably would have been one of the top 5 batsman of the late 70s and 80s if he had played test cricket at his prime.

 

[DJ]

He was a beautiful batsman to watch. In terms of technique, the modern batsman most similar to him is probably Herschelle Gibbs, although Kirsten was slightly more compact and had superior application.

 

[Craig]

I've spent the last couple of days thinking about this one, and I've come to the conclusion that the 2000 Aussies get it.

As much as I wanted to vote for the '48 Aussie team, their bowling attack lacked options after Miller and Lindwall, in fact like all of the other teams they lacked a really good spin bowler like Warnie. Please feel free to inform me of any great spinners I'm neglecting here - like always I've only had a little poke around to see about the teams I wasn't overly familiar with.

Is not having a good spinner actually such a bad thing?

You only play one (or two) IMO if the match is in helpful conditions or is good enough.

If you were in the WI position and had four world class quicks, really the 4th quick makes up for not having a spinner.

 

[bennyr]

Is not having a good spinner actually such a bad thing?

You only play one (or two) IMO if the match is in helpful conditions or is good enough.

If you were in the WI position and had four world class quicks, really the 4th quick makes up for not having a spinner.

If the WI position the quality of the bowling did make up for the fact that there was no quality spinner to the extent that they dominated their era. But every other side on this list dominated their era, so IMO to pick the best you need to find weaknesses that teams were able to cover for.

In most cases the West Indies were able to cover for their lack of spin, but it did bring them unstuck on the odd occasion.

 

[SquidAU]

Without voting for the obvious choice in my lifetime (Aussies of 2000), I went with the 1970 South African's, simply because they demolished the Aussies 4-0 and although they did play test cricket after that, the players made enourmous runs and taken bags of wickets when they played for the counties/states etc. What could have been....:sigh:

 

[Armadillo]

I really have to go with the Bangladeshi team of 2004, such quality with the resources of Khaled Mahmud, Khaled Mashud AND Habibul Bashar.

 

[BlackCap_Fan]

West Indians of 1984.

Holding, Garner, Sir Richards, Clive Lloyd... Incredible.

 

[C_C]

Bumfluff- i think the RSA team from late 60s/early-mid 70s was better.....though Garth LeRoux had the potential to be an alltime great bowler and most probably might've been if it wasnt for the ban.

But i think the greatest team ever is the WI team of the late 70s/early 80s

Gordon Greenidge
Desmond Haynes
Ritchie Richardson
Viv Richards
Clive Lloyd
Larry Gomes
Jeff Dujon
Malcolm Marshall
Michael Holding
Andy Roberts
Joel Garner

that bowling corps ( fearsome foursome) would roll over any team more often than not.

 

[nookie_lk]

1996 Sri Lankan team

 

[Beleg]

It's a tie between South Africa and West Indies.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Bumfluff- i think the RSA team from late 60s/early-mid 70s was better.....though Garth LeRoux had the potential to be an alltime great bowler and most probably might've been if it wasnt for the ban.

But i think the greatest team ever is the WI team of the late 70s/early 80s

Gordon Greenidge
Desmond Haynes
Ritchie Richardson
Viv Richards
Clive Lloyd
Larry Gomes
Jeff Dujon
Malcolm Marshall
Michael Holding
Andy Roberts
Joel Garner

that bowling corps ( fearsome foursome) would roll over any team more often than not.

Could you, if you don't mind, tell me what series you are taking that side from?

edit: just to clarify, the reason I ask is that Richie Richardson made his test debut in Andy Roberts' last tour - India in 1983/84, and this side did not appear in any of the tests in that tour. So, unless you can provide a scorecard in which this team actually played, it's not a real test side and in fact a West Indies Greatest XI of rather limited scope. To give you a comparison, I think this side would be beaten by the Australian team that thrashed South Africa in 2001/02, minus Mark Waugh and Brett Lee and with Greg Chappell and Dennis Lillee in their place.

 

[Galactic_Soap]

I had to go for the West Indies of the late 70's early 80's, followed by the current Aussies, and my beloved South Africa, no bias here :P I truelly believe they deserve third spot.

Cheers
Soapy

 

[Swervy]

Could you, if you don't mind, tell me what series you are taking that side from?

edit: just to clarify, the reason I ask is that Richie Richardson made his test debut in Andy Roberts' last tour - India in 1983/84, and this side did not appear in any of the tests in that tour. So, unless you can provide a scorecard in which this team actually played, it's not a real test side and in fact a West Indies Greatest XI of rather limited scope. To give you a comparison, I think this side would be beaten by the Australian team that thrashed South Africa in 2001/02, minus Mark Waugh and Brett Lee and with Greg Chappell and Dennis Lillee in their place.

that was pretty much the question I asked of CC a while back in a similar thread..Richardson being in the team certainly didnt coincide with Roberts being at his peak..or for that matter Holding..and there may have been the possibilty that garners knees were knackered then as well. And when Garner was at his best, Marshall was still developing as a fast bowler, there were few who foresaw what he would become

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

that was pretty much the question I asked of CC a while back in a similar thread..Richardson being in the team certainly didnt coincide with Roberts being at his peak..or for that matter Holding..and there may have been the possibilty that garners knees were knackered then as well. And when Garner was at his best, Marshall was still developing as a fast bowler, there were few who foresaw what he would become

Yeah. Hence the remark about Chappell and Lillee in the 2001/02 Australian side.

 

[Richard]

that was pretty much the question I asked of CC a while back in a similar thread..Richardson being in the team certainly didnt coincide with ...

Personally I am simply astounded that Richardson could possibly be considered a better batsman than Alvin Kallicherran.
I mean, to forget him when you're talking of Richards, Lloyd et al is acceptible for the simple-minded - but to rate Richardson above him...

 

[Richard]

You're forgetting about pre-diuretic Warnie.

Pre-shoulder-op Warnie would be more to the point.

 

[Richard]

Yes unfortunetly I think people are voting for the best team they have seen, and most have only seen Australia. The first 3 teams have a combined total of under 10%, despite being brilliant. The most recent team has nearly half the vote, and they may have been an amazing size but the difference is not as stark as the voting suggests.

It's just typical most-recent-is-best-remembered syndrome.
Nonetheless it's heartening to see the amount of educated comment there was on the 1969\70 South Africans - who are certainly the best from everything I can tell.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Personally I am simply astounded that Richardson could possibly be considered a better batsman than Alvin Kallicherran.
I mean, to forget him when you're talking of Richards, Lloyd et al is acceptible for the simple-minded - but to rate Richardson above him...

C_C tried that once before, claiming the best team ever was the one he put here with Kallicharan instead of Richards. However, that team never actually played a test match together either.

 

[garage flower]

that was pretty much the question I asked of CC a while back in a similar thread..Richardson being in the team certainly didnt coincide with Roberts being at his peak..or for that matter Holding..and there may have been the possibilty that garners knees were knackered then as well. And when Garner was at his best, Marshall was still developing as a fast bowler, there were few who foresaw what he would become

Though (and admittedly I'm only looking at the scorecards here) Marshall, Holding and Garner were all successful in the 3-0 (probably would have been 5-0 but for the weather) series win at home to a - fairly mediocre - Australia in 83/84. Richardson was playing and the 4th bowler would have been either Wayne Daniel or Roger Harper.

 

[Swervy]

Personally I am simply astounded that Richardson could possibly be considered a better batsman than Alvin Kallicherran.
I mean, to forget him when you're talking of Richards, Lloyd et al is acceptible for the simple-minded - but to rate Richardson above him...

you should be directing that at CC