Will any team ever dominate all three formats?

[GIMH]

I was watching some stuff and it featured the great Aussie side (the one humbled by England in 2005). You look at their one day side at that time and it feels like there was a lot more correlation between that and the Test side, almost as if it was just tweaked. and of course, they were world class players across formats.

With T20 leagues and all that, it’s a very different landscape but whereas things like split captaincy/coaches were once a rarity they’re now the norm. Players once badges as one day specialists were desperate to get into Test Cricket whereas these days the objectives seem very different. And the net result of course is very different Test, ODI and T20 sides. Where it used to be you’d play all formats on a tour, that’s a rarity, certainly when sides come here.

So anyway with three formats, and different points of focus and motivation, it feels to me much less likely we’ll see another Windies/Australia style dynasty dominating all formats of the game. Even the fact there’s an extra one you have to dominate makes it less likely.

Or am I talking rubbish and in the right environment one side could reign supreme?

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Cricket's triple crown. It can happen.

 

[SteveNZ]

If anyone, I'd think it should be India. Should have advantages in population and interest in the game, the best T20 league in the world, plenty of competition, I suppose it's dependent on whether they give a rat's about the Test game and whether the Ranji Trophy is a good enough breeding ground. But you'd think they have the player base to have enough talent for three formats, both in terms of players good enough to straddle all formats + specialists.

I can't see any other nation managing it. And actually I can't see anyone being 'dominant' for any period of time, given how changeable such a status can be.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah the other thing that came to my mind is how much less we’ve seen of dominance in even one format since that Australia team.

 

[SteveNZ]

Yeah the other thing that came to my mind is how much less we’ve seen of dominance in even one format since that Australia team.

T20 you'd think is never going to be a format 'dominated' by a team winning multiple tournaments or even series' in a row, ala Australia 2000.

That Australian team had the best competition by far in the Sheffield Shield, which bred a bunch of world class players and depth, which only made them stronger and stronger. Having said that, could you still call them dominant given they didn't win in India? I just can't see how any factor at the moment could make any team that dominant. And there's no secrets in cricket nowadays, no domestic comp is miles stronger, I just don't see the way forward to dominance. Only way as I said is pure population base and passion, although even then India can only pick 11 on any given day - it's not like the Chinese army throwing a billion people forward.

 

[Slifer]

Had 20/20 existed in the 80s, I feel confident in saying I think the WI wouldve been the best as they were in odis and tests. Ditto Australia of the late 90s .

 

[mr_mister]

T20 cricket is too much of a lottery for one team to dominate for a long period

 

[Line and Length]

One country might dominate all formats in the future but I think the composition of their teams will be quite varied.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Back in the 1990s and 2000s there wasn't as much difference in team make-up between Tests and ODIs. The Aus team you talked about had like 2 or 3 players different between sides, or even less at times. So if they had a great XI players it makes sense that they were the best at both formats.

It would be harder now (but not impossible) because, well for one it's 3 formats instead of 2, and also because personell differs more, in general, between formats. Most teams T20I teams are quite a lot different from the Test side. The reasons for that are various, and obvious, so I'm not going to go into it.

 

[Bolo.]

Had 20/20 existed in the 80s, I feel confident in saying I think the WI wouldve been the best as they were in odis and tests. Ditto Australia of the late 90s .

AUS didn't dominate ODIs in the late 90s. Their win loss ratio is 1.36. RSA was 3.56. AUS won a WC, but so did SL, with a win rate of 1.21.

Pretty dominant 2000 to 2007 though. 3.46 and both WCs. RSA next with 1.79.

 

[trundler]

Back in the 1990s and 2000s there wasn't as much difference in team make-up between Tests and ODIs. The Aus team you talked about had like 2 or 3 players different between sides, or even less at times. So if they had a great XI players it makes sense that they were the best at both formats.

It would be harder now (but not impossible) because, well for one it's 3 formats instead of 2, and also because personell differs more, in general, between formats. Most teams T20I teams are quite a lot different from the Test side. The reasons for that are various, and obvious, so I'm not going to go into it.

You just paraphrased the OP. This is like an AI generated response.

 

[TheJediBrah]

You just paraphrased the OP. This is like an AI generated response.

I didn't read the OP at all, I'll admit

 

[loterry1994]

I dont see it happening firstly because t20s there’s not much margin for errors and any team can beat anyone on a given day it’s like a lottery who wins the t20 World Cup and no one’s ever defended it before. Also the shorter formats I think most teams rest a lot of their best players between series and don’t get as serious with it until like a year before the World Cup

 

[Daemon]

The skillset required in the different formats has diverged greatly since back then (even though bazball has kinda narrowed the gap a little), so even if one country is a clear leader in all 3 formats I doubt their personnel will be largely the same.

 

[mackembhoy]

I was watching some stuff and it featured the great Aussie side (the one humbled by England in 2005). You look at their one day side at that time and it feels like there was a lot more correlation between that and the Test side, almost as if it was just tweaked. and of course, they were world class players across formats.

With T20 leagues and all that, it’s a very different landscape but whereas things like split captaincy/coaches were once a rarity they’re now the norm. Players once badges as one day specialists were desperate to get into Test Cricket whereas these days the objectives seem very different. And the net result of course is very different Test, ODI and T20 sides. Where it used to be you’d play all formats on a tour, that’s a rarity, certainly when sides come here.

So anyway with three formats, and different points of focus and motivation, it feels to me much less likely we’ll see another Windies/Australia style dynasty dominating all formats of the game. Even the fact there’s an extra one you have to dominate makes it less likely.

Or am I talking rubbish and in the right environment one side could reign supreme?

Is it not that ODI wasn't a million miles away from tests but now are. A good score back then was 300 and that's now par.

So players were able to be multi format in Test/ODI and so a superb cricket side like that Aussie team could really play both to the same standard.

Albeit they had some specialists scattered in amongst the best test players.

 

[Slifer]

AUS didn't dominate ODIs in the late 90s. Their win loss ratio is 1.36. RSA was 3.56. AUS won a WC, but so did SL, with a win rate of 1.21.

Pretty dominant 2000 to 2007 though. 3.46 and both WCs. RSA next with 1.79.

Mid 2000s Australia then.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

England are currently holders of the ODI WC, the T20 WC and the Moral Ashes.

Total format dominance.

 

[_00_deathscar]

If anyone, I'd think it should be India. Should have advantages in population and interest in the game, the best T20 league in the world, plenty of competition, I suppose it's dependent on whether they give a rat's about the Test game and whether the Ranji Trophy is a good enough breeding ground. But you'd think they have the player base to have enough talent for three formats, both in terms of players good enough to straddle all formats + specialists.

I can't see any other nation managing it. And actually I can't see anyone being 'dominant' for any period of time, given how changeable such a status can be.

The irony of that is the tests are where we’ve been closest to being the very best. The finals aside you could argue we’ve been the best team over both periods courtesy of our results, albeit propped up by insane home dominance.

 

[SteveNZ]

The irony of that is the tests are where we’ve been closest to being the very best. The finals aside you could argue we’ve been the best team over both periods courtesy of our results, albeit propped up by insane home dominance.

That wasn't a pop by me, incidentally - I wasn't at all suggesting India doesn't care about Tests right now. I just hope they continue to hold it as the pinnacle, when a generation comes through mostly raised on IPL. That generation isn't far off, given if they were young in 2008, they will start being those 20-something year olds.

 

[Ali TT]

T20 you'd think is never going to be a format 'dominated' by a team winning multiple tournaments or even series' in a row, ala Australia 2000.

That Australian team had the best competition by far in the Sheffield Shield, which bred a bunch of world class players and depth, which only made them stronger and stronger. Having said that, could you still call them dominant given they didn't win in India? I just can't see how any factor at the moment could make any team that dominant. And there's no secrets in cricket nowadays, no domestic comp is miles stronger, I just don't see the way forward to dominance. Only way as I said is pure population base and passion, although even then India can only pick 11 on any given day - it's not like the Chinese army throwing a billion people forward.

Australia won in India in 2004.

I don't think it's impossible that a side might hold all 3 titles in one go - in fact India have a good shot at it over the next few years. However, I'm not sure winning a world cup in any of the formats is the same as being a dominant side. I don't think either of the two WTC winners to date are "dominant sides", in fact the first winners fell from grace pretty quickly thereafter. And while England had been the best ODI side prior to 2019, the previous two winners were HTBs. T20I is a toss-up, where even mediocre sides can get on a run if the stars align, as 2021 showed. The only dominant T20 side we've seen is the Windies c2012-16 and even then they were more of a collection of individuals who, when they all chose to play together, were dominant.