• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Greatest Test XI- eras of dominance

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
Which would you say is the greatest combo?

Here are some contenders:

Bradman's 1948 Invincibles

S. Barnes
A. Morris
D. Bradman
L. Hassett
K. Miller
N. Harvey
S. Loxton
R. Lindwall
D. Tallon
D. Ring
B. Johnston

Australia- Early 2000s

M. Hayden
J. Langer
R. Ponting
D. Martyn
S. Waugh
D. Lehmann
A. Gilchrist
S. Warne
B. Lee
J. Gillespie
G. McGrath

West Indies- Early '80s

G. Greenidge
D. Haynes
V. Richards
L Gomes
A. Kallicharan
C. Lloyd
J. Dujon
M. Marshall
M. Holding
A. Roberts
J. Garner
 
Last edited:

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
Bradman's side has a few key points in its favor imo:

Bradman (obviously)

Miller, an opening bowler who could bat anywhere from 3-6.

Lindwall, an opening bowler who could have batted at 5-6.

Tallon, one of the great keepers of all time.

Morris/Barnes, a brilliant L/R hand opening combo.

Harvey/Hassett/Bradman/Miller, perfectly balanced middle order.

The shame is that O'Reilly didn't make that tour (I'm not sure why). Having him in the team would have made it EASILY the best ever.
 

smash84

The Tiger King
I would go for the latter 2. The invincibles was more of a flash in the pan wasn't it? came together for a short period of time only. The other two were out there for a lot longer
 

BackFootPunch

International 12th Man
How are we judging this:

Which team's results in their era were the best/most dominant?
Or which team would come out on top if they played some sort of triangular series?

West Indies team either way though for mine.
 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
Any other contenders? What about England's greatest era?
 

Michaelf7777777

International Debutant
O'Reilly wasn't involved in 1948 from memory because he didn't think his body could handle bowling day long spells as he had done so pre war (although considering the great pace quartet of the invincibles and the fact that a new ball was due every 55 six ball overs, it would appear unlikely that he would be required to do so).

Also 1948 Australia would be strengthened by bringing in Toshack for either Loxton or Ring (although both Johnson and McCool were better spinners than Ring imo)
 
Last edited:

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
O'Reilly wasn't involved in 1948 from memory because he didn't think his body could handle bowling day long spells as he had done so pre war (although considering the great pace quartet of the invincibles and the fact that a new ball was due every 55 six ball overs, it would appear unlikely that he would be required to do so).

Also 1948 Australia would be strengthened by bringing in Toshack for either Loxton or Ring (although both Johnson and McCool were better spinners than Ring imo)
Fair enough. O'Reilly did play a test against NZ in 1948 (his last test). Shame he wasn't part of the Invincibles imo (just because it'd look good in history to have him in there)
 

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
The Australian side of:

Hayden | Langer | Ponting | Waugh | Waugh | Martyn | Gilchrist | Warne | Lee | Gillespie | McGrath

has to be up there. I'm not sure if they ever played a Test as that exact XI, but everyone in there is a world class player.

1955 England also looks strong on paper:
Hutton | Edrich/Graveney | May | Cowdrey | Compton | Bailey | Evans | Wardle | Tyson | Appleyard | Statham

1953 counterparts look similarly good:
Hutton | Edrich | May | Compton | Graveney | Bailey | Evans | Laker | Lock | Bedser | Trueman

The 1920/21 Hypothetical Australian side:
Bardsley | Collins | Macartney | Ryder | Armstrong | Pellew | Kellaway | Gregory | Oldfield | McDonald | Mailey

And, finally, South Africa in Isolation
Richards | Barlow | Goddard | Pollock | McEwan | Lindsay | Rice | Procter | Pollock | Le Roux | van der Bijl
 
Last edited:

watson

Banned
The England team from 1929 was pretty useful;

The MCC touring party was [1] :

Percy Chapman (Kent) (Captain)
Jack White (Somerset) (Deputy Captain)
Douglas Jardine (Surrey)
Jack Hobbs (Surrey)
Herbert Sutcliffe (Yorkshire)
Wally Hammond (Gloucestershire)
Patsy Hendren (Middlesex)
Ernest Tyldesley (Lancashire)
Phil Mead (Hampshire)
Maurice Leyland (Yorkshire)
Maurice Tate (Sussex)
George Geary (Leicestershire)
George Duckworth (Lancashire) (wicketkeeper)
Les Ames (Kent) (wicketkeeper)
Harold Larwood (Nottinghamshire)
"Tich" Freeman (Kent)
Sam Staples (Nottinghamshire)

And they won this classic Test match by 12 runs with JC White taking '8 for' in the second innings;

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/62565.html
 
Last edited:

kyear2

Cricketer Of The Year
The South Arrican team of the early 70's deserved to be on the list, damm good team. Additionally in the mid 80's when Walsh and Richardson replaced Roberts and Kallicharan respectively was probably the better team.
 

Valer

First Class Debutant
Who would you pick as the third seamer?
Clark, Rieffel, Fleming. Even 2 spinners with Miller or Macgill.

If I was going to be very harsh I'd suggest that we also lacked a touch in the batting beyond the top 3 & (steve) Waugh.
 
Last edited:

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
Clark, Rieffel, Fleming. Even 2 spinners with Miller or Macgill.
Clark debuted too late for consideration - he played right at the tail end of the McWarne dominance, and wasn't around in the Waugh days. Reiffel came and went by 1998, before the 16-Test streak.

Fleming and MacGill decent shouts, but I think Lee's sheer number of wickets counts for something.
 

watson

Banned
Seen in isolation I would have to agree with Valer that Brett Lee was overated.

However, bowlers don't act in isolation. They are part of a quartet.

In my opinion, Brett worked like a charm with McGrath because his pace contrasted the slower bowling of McGrath very nicely. McGrath 'worked' the batsman out, Lee 'bounced' them out.

Lee was also a very handy batsman and a good team man. The sum of his parts was always greater than his whole. Something obviously you don't necessarily see in raw stats.
 

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
If Lee pitched the ball up more, he would have been far more successful than he was. Steve Waugh just used him as a weapon of intimidation. He had a lethal inswinger, at good pace. If he wasn't instructed to bowl short all the time, he would have averaged a lot better than 30 IMO.

Look at his debut spell, bowling full and fast. Look at his time as attack leader, not the enforcer.

The ultra-modern equivalent is Stuart Broad. He's taken wickets for fun since he stopped with the whole "I'm the enforcer who bounces people out" thing, and pitched the ball up.
 

watson

Banned
If Lee pitched the ball up more, he would have been far more successful than he was. Steve Waugh just used him as a weapon of intimidation. He had a lethal inswinger, at good pace. If he wasn't instructed to bowl short all the time, he would have averaged a lot better than 30 IMO.

Look at his debut spell, bowling full and fast. Look at his time as attack leader, not the enforcer.

The ultra-modern equivalent is Stuart Broad. He's taken wickets for fun since he stopped with the whole "I'm the enforcer who bounces people out" thing, and pitched the ball up.
I don't think we're comparing apples with apples here. I might be wrong but Broad rarely exceeds 150 kph and has never been "fast". Lee was "fast" and had a couple of good series at home against India by intimidating their batsman with short-stuff - if I remember rightly. I'm a bit old and vague these days.
 

Top