Best of the best...

[aussie]

Best Oz team imo

Yea probably. Lee & the Waugh bro's being SLIGHT weaklinks ATT though.

 

[MrIncredible]

I would have probably replaced Lee with Fleming but not sure how often he actually played alongside the other 10 players

 

[aussie]

I would have probably replaced Lee with Fleming but not sure how often he actually played alongside the other 10 players

In that Jo'Burg 02 test, Fleming was already out of the AUS team by Ashes 01. The reason i say Lee was a weak link was because he was still a average test bowler in 2002. While the Waugh bros where in slight decline as well. Its just that the overall strenght of the other 8 guys was enough make up for them..

 

[Sir Alex]

On the premise - which exists these days - that a Test should be drawn only when a minimum of 444 overs have been bowled, I've worked-out that between 1976 and 1986 West Indies drew "conclusively" (ie a full 444-over+ game was played - or nearly played - and a result never looked that likely) 12 Tests out of 73 (that's how many their first-team played in that decade; their A side also contested 9 after Packer briefly intervened - obviously those matches are irrelevant). West Indies were denied by lost play any number of times (and yes, saved by it once or twice), and there were also a higher proportion of matches in those days which were totally ruined by rain (ie, 300 overs or less were bowled).

What's most astounding is that in those 73 Tests West Indies were beaten just 5 times (1 of which was a dead-rubber and another which is basically accepted as fixed by biased Umpiring; there were also 3 occasions where they might well have lost had play been made-up). They weren't called the invincibles for nothing. Taking so much as a single Test off them was a real achievement. The same is not true of Australia at any point between 1989 and 2006/07, even though the rules of their day and their style meant they actually won many more, percentage-wise.

Richard, I had posted in another thread asking you why you regard Australia above West Indies from 89 to 95. It is as absurd as a notion that can ever be. Australia were beaten thrice by West Indies in the said period alone. Twice in Australia and once in West Indies.

 

[chasingthedon]

By 91 i think Oz in particular had caught up to us by then. Wi did manage to dominate the odd series here and there but they were mostly at home. Away which is where i think one really needs to prove ones greatness WI were more vulnerable than in the 80s (Drawn series Eng, One run win in Oz etc)

Don't disagree, but I wouldn't say that clearly they weren't the best, probably around the same quality as Oz and Pakistan.

 

[Richard]

My god Richard why haven't you included any of our ENG 1950s XI?? National pride...

Possibly could argue that perhaps the 1954/55 Ashes side was worthy of consideration but I'm not fully familiar with it.

Of course the 1932/33 side has a fair case and could easily be England's finest XI Bodyline or no Bodyline.

On the windies 84 team. That team would have been soooo perfect if Sylvester Clarke of Croft weren't banned. You would have had all 11 players @ their best which for me would have been the best actual XI to play a test.

Clarke instead of Walsh would be about the only substitute but for Rebel tours. Croft going out for Rebel tours and Marshall coming in strengthened the side rather than weakened it.

For AUS after 99/00 you can/should also included.

Jo'Burg/SA 02: Langer, Hayden, Ponting, M Waugh, S Waugh, Martyn, Gilchrist, Warne, Lee, Gillespie, McGrath

or

SRI 04: Langer, Hayden, Ponting, Martyn, Lehmann, Katich, Gilchrist, Warne, Gillespie, Kasper, McGrath

or

Brisbane/Ashes 06: Langer, Hayden, Ponting, Martyn, Hussey, Clarke, Gilchrist, Warne, Lee, Clark, McGrath

The 2001/02 side looks the best to the casual eye but in reality there were four weak-links - the Waughs were past their best by then and Lee of course was rubbish. Gillespie too was in a little-noticed period of ineffectiveness at that point. I've said before that the team which faced Sri Lanka in 2004 was possibly the strongest but equally I've always been reluctant to give it to a side which did not feature a fully-firing Waugh twins. Same applies to the 2006/07 finale.

 

[Richard]

Richard, I had posted in another thread asking you why you regard Australia above West Indies from 89 to 95. It is as absurd as a notion that can ever be. Australia were beaten thrice by West Indies in the said period alone. Twice in Australia and once in West Indies.

No they weren't - they were beaten once in Australia (1992/93) which would have been 2-2 but for lost play in the opening Test and once in West Indies (1991). 1988/89 comes BEFORE 1989.

 

[aussie]

Possibly could argue that perhaps the 1954/55 Ashes side was worthy of consideration but I'm not fully familiar with it.

Of course the 1932/33 side has a fair case and could easily be England's finest XI Bodyline or no Bodyline.

1932/33 was nice. But i would rate the 50s side better given that ENG where the clear #1 in test given we went unbeaten from NZ 1950/51 before being thumped 4-0 in Ashes 58/59. Although some would like to diss our team by claiming the team was "boring" how dear them

Clarke instead of Walsh would be about the only substitute but for Rebel tours. Croft going out for Rebel tours and Marshall coming in strengthened the side rather than weakened it.

Yea if Clarke was in. For me that would have been the greatest team ever..

The 2001/02 side looks the best to the casual eye but in reality there were four weak-links - the Waughs were past their best by then and Lee of course was rubbish. Gillespie too was in a little-noticed period of ineffectiveness at that point. I've said before that the team which faced Sri Lanka in 2004 was possibly the strongest but equally I've always been reluctant to give it to a side which did not feature a fully-firing Waugh twins. Same applies to the 2006/07 finale.

Haa ye i hear that..

edit: BTW son whats your email i want to reason you on this thing about England test team circa 1996-2001

 

[slowfinger]

No they weren't - they were beaten once in Australia (1992/93) which would have been 2-2 but for lost play in the opening Test and once in West Indies (1991). 1988/89 comes BEFORE 1989.

Wow are you mad or something?

 

[Slifer]

No they weren't - they were beaten once in Australia (1992/93) which would have been 2-2 but for lost play in the opening Test and once in West Indies (1991). 1988/89 comes BEFORE 1989.

Yeah but equally Rich WI could have beaten Oz at home in 95 had it not been for THAT DROPPED catch (capitalise because i still hate C Browne so so much). I think the 2 teams were about on par, with a slight edge to the WI. I think the critical thing that gave Oz the edge in the end was the emergence of Mcgrath (as a top flight paceman) and the decline of Bishop as the 3rd paceman.

 

[Richard]

I agree completely. I've said that WI would more likely have won in 1995 but for Junior Murray falling ill (that useless gloveman Browne only played because Murray wasn't well enough to) many times. But equally, either side could've won that Fourth Test even if Stephen Waugh had been caught when he should've been; similarly either side could've won the Second Test which was heavily disrupted by rain. I've always said 1995 was a real contest of equals, as was 1992/93. It was only in 1996/97 that Australia showed themselves obviously superior to West Indies.

 

[Richard]

1932/33 was nice. But i would rate the 50s side better given that ENG where the clear #1 in test given we went unbeaten from NZ 1950/51 before being thumped 4-0 in Ashes 58/59. Although some would like to diss our team by claiming the team was "boring" how dear them

If the 1932/33 side had managed to stay together (it didn't, it rapidly broke-up) I reckon it could possibly have done similarly - and with an Australia side featuring so many superlative players that'd have been a real achievement. 1932/33 might well have been, for me, briefly better than anything in the mid-1950s; the latter spell simply lasted for longer.

Yea if Clarke was in. For me that would have been the greatest team ever..

Might still be. There is certainly no side which is obviously superior; there are merely several (including a couple of West Indies' own from just a few years earlier) which compete alongside them for said title.

edit: BTW son whats your email i want to reason you on this thing about England test team circa 1996-2001

RichDickinson@blueyonder.co.uk