Best Test Team Ever?

[wpdavid]

The basic point is that, from Wesley Winfield Hall onwards, West Indies had a quite extraordinary succession of fast-bowlers: Holding, Garner, Roberts, Croft, Daniel, Marshall, Clarke, Bishop, Ambrose, Walsh, and were almost invariably able to field 4 of them in the same game from 1976 until sometime in the 1990s. Even in 1998 they still had Walsh, Ambrose, Bishop.

Not quite. They didn't regularly play 4 really good quicks until about 1978, as until then guys like Bernard Julien & Van burn Holder were still around. As has been said earlier, the era of four genuinely great quicks was from the very late 1970's to the early 1980's. Thereafter, even by 1984, we see Eldine Baptiste as the 4th quick, who really wasn't in the same class, and then people like the Benjamins who also weren't. Plus there was a gap of a few years between Hall & Griffith and Robert/Holding/Daniel.

All that being said, having even 3 was enough, of course.

 

[Richard]

I'm not sure how you'd come to that conclusion. They were certainly very good, and probably the best side in the world at that time. But the Aus side they thrashed was relatively weak, especially in the bowling department. If you take into account the standard of opponents they faced, you can't really argue that they were "certainly" the best.

FWIW I was watching a programme about Graeme Pollock the other day, which made a great deal about his test average of around 60. Fair enough up to a point, but who did he actually face? The Aus & English attacks he weren't that great, and he never played WI. The thought struck me that his exalted position is a bit like calling Andrew Strauss an all-time-great for averaging around 60 against NZ, WI & SA.

It's the same argument people use about Bradman: "he only played Eng and SA". You could say the same thing about the 1948 Australians; indeed, I have said (many times) about the 1999-2001 Australians - the standard of opposition is generally very poor.
I don't think it holds any water, TBH. Things were different back then, yes, but I think the standard was every bit as high as in the 1970s, 80s and 90s. I don't, though, think you can say the same about the early 2000s.

 

[Richard]

Not quite. They didn't regularly play 4 really good quicks until about 1978, as until then guys like Bernard Julien & Van burn Holder were still around. As has been said earlier, the era of four genuinely great quicks was from the very late 1970's to the early 1980's. Thereafter, even by 1984, we see Eldine Baptiste as the 4th quick, who really wasn't in the same class, and then people like the Benjamins who also weren't. Plus there was a gap of a few years between Hall & Griffith and Robert/Holding/Daniel.

All that being said, having even 3 was enough, of course.

The gist of it was they had something, in a relatively short period, the like of which has never been experienced in the rest of the game's history.
There have been pairs, sometimes even triplets, of deadly, and alike, bowlers - but never three or four who did the same thing session after session, day after day, with no real respite (even Baptiste couldn't have been that bad - they still won every Test in which he played - he'd have cost one or two if he really was a shocker).
Incidentally, Vanburn Holder couldn't have been too bad a bowler. Never heard of Bernard Julien before now - I'm presuming he must have been about fifty times better than an Australian with a similar name (not that that's difficult). And in 1976 they certainly had 4 - Holding, Garner, Roberts and Daniel, even though Daniel had his problems of times.

 

[wpdavid]

The gist of it was they had something, in a relatively short period, the like of which has never been experienced in the rest of the game's history.
There have been pairs, sometimes even triplets, of deadly, and alike, bowlers - but never three or four who did the same thing session after session, day after day, with no real respite (even Baptiste couldn't have been that bad - they still won every Test in which he played - he'd have cost one or two if he really was a shocker).
Incidentally, Vanburn Holder couldn't have been too bad a bowler. Never heard of Bernard Julien before now - I'm presuming he must have been about fifty times better than an Australian with a similar name (not that that's difficult). And in 1976 they certainly had 4 - Holding, Garner, Roberts and Daniel, even though Daniel had his problems of times.

Garner didn't play in 1976. I think he made his test debut a couple of years later, and the first time he played against us was in 1980. Holder wasn't a bad bowler, but he really wasn't nearly as good as guys like Roberts, Holding, et al. He was their main bowler, IIRC, when they failed to win a test in about 3 years during the early 1970's, and subsequently supported the young guns who followed. Baptiste was an allrounder who, again, wasn't bad, but not remotely in the same class as the others as a bowler. Suffice to say that he doesn't get too many mentions when people talk about the great allrounders in the mid1980's. The reason they got away with only three top class bowlers was the painfully slow over rate they managed. Plus, in 1984, England had a rotten side!

 

[wpdavid]

It's the same argument people use about Bradman: "he only played Eng and SA". You could say the same thing about the 1948 Australians; indeed, I have said (many times) about the 1999-2001 Australians - the standard of opposition is generally very poor.
I don't think it holds any water, TBH. Things were different back then, yes, but I think the standard was every bit as high as in the 1970s, 80s and 90s. I don't, though, think you can say the same about the early 2000s.

I do agree with you about the lack of quality opposition for the Aus side in recent years, but I'm afraid it isn't true to say that the sides SA beat were as good as what followed. At the very least, it makes it a huge leap of faith to label the 1969/70 SA side as "certainly the best ever" effectively based on one series against what could euphamistically described as a transitional Aus team. The point about the 1948 Australians is that most, if not all of that side also produced the goods against previous or subsequent more demanding opponents, so it isn't unreasonable to rank that collection of players up with the best. With 1969/70 SA, that just isn't possible. They *may* have gone on to be up there with the greats, especially when you think that guys like Proctor & Richards were just starting out, but it can't described as anything remotely close to "certain". Whilst 100% in favour of their expulsion, I'd have to say that a mid1970's series between them and Aus would have been something to behold. Ditto SA and WI, although, of course, the SA Gov't would never have allowed it to take place.

 

[Richard]

Garner didn't play in 1976. I think he made his test debut a couple of years later, and the first time he played against us was in 1980. Holder wasn't a bad bowler, but he really wasn't nearly as good as guys like Roberts, Holding, et al. He was their main bowler, IIRC, when they failed to win a test in about 3 years during the early 1970's, and subsequently supported the young guns who followed. Baptiste was an allrounder who, again, wasn't bad, but not remotely in the same class as the others as a bowler. Suffice to say that he doesn't get too many mentions when people talk about the great allrounders in the mid1980's. The reason they got away with only three top class bowlers was the painfully slow over rate they managed. Plus, in 1984, England had a rotten side!

Hmm... 3 top-class bowlers plus 1 decent one will generally do the trick regardless of over-rates.
The England side of '76 wasn't great shakes, either.
Yeah, you're right about Garner, don't know where I got him in '76 from - I just always tend to have him and Holding synonomous!
As for not getting much of a mention when you talk about the great all-rounders of the '80s - hardly surprising, really! I think Baptiste might have been considered a bit better were he not playing at the same time as Kapil, Hadlee, Botham and Imran. While obviously not close to all-time great material.

 

[Richard]

I do agree with you about the lack of quality opposition for the Aus side in recent years, but I'm afraid it isn't true to say that the sides SA beat were as good as what followed. At the very least, it makes it a huge leap of faith to label the 1969/70 SA side as "certainly the best ever" effectively based on one series against what could euphamistically described as a transitional Aus team. The point about the 1948 Australians is that most, if not all of that side also produced the goods against previous or subsequent more demanding opponents, so it isn't unreasonable to rank that collection of players up with the best. With 1969/70 SA, that just isn't possible. They *may* have gone on to be up there with the greats, especially when you think that guys like Proctor & Richards were just starting out, but it can't described as anything remotely close to "certain".

Hmm... from what I understand most of those players proved themselves at pretty reasonable level of competition (not always with any status - quite rightly). Of course, some, like the Pollocks and Barlow, had already proven themselves. Albeit the late '60s wasn't the greatest time for Test-cricket, but it certainly wasn't shabby, either - I don't see that it was significantly weaker than the late '40s or early '50s.
I always think people are too quick to base talk of that SAfrican team on the 1969\70 series - the Aussie side (while again not exactly shabby - including Lawry, Stackpole, Redpath, Ian Chappell and Walters) weren't the greatest, especially in the bowling. But there were plenty of players who'd proven themselves before and since, too - and who had extremely good First-Class records.

 

[wpdavid]

Hmm... from what I understand most of those players proved themselves at pretty reasonable level of competition (not always with any status - quite rightly). Of course, some, like the Pollocks and Barlow, had already proven themselves. Albeit the late '60s wasn't the greatest time for Test-cricket, but it certainly wasn't shabby, either - I don't see that it was significantly weaker than the late '40s or early '50s.
I always think people are too quick to base talk of that SAfrican team on the 1969\70 series - the Aussie side (while again not exactly shabby - including Lawry, Stackpole, Redpath, Ian Chappell and Walters) weren't the greatest, especially in the bowling. But there were plenty of players who'd proven themselves before and since, too - and who had extremely good First-Class records.

Sure - I wouldn't disagree with any of that, and you're dead right to extend any evaluation of the SA side beyond that one series. Where we part company here is your previous assertion that the SA side in the early 1970's was "certainly the best ever". I just don't think that sort of claim can be made for them, although they were a tremendous side.

 

[marc71178]

I thought he also said a West Indies side that never even won a game was one of the best 2 or 3 ever.

 

[wpdavid]

Hmm... 3 top-class bowlers plus 1 decent one will generally do the trick regardless of over-rates.
The England side of '76 wasn't great shakes, either.
Yeah, you're right about Garner, don't know where I got him in '76 from - I just always tend to have him and Holding synonomous!
As for not getting much of a mention when you talk about the great all-rounders of the '80s - hardly surprising, really! I think Baptiste might have been considered a bit better were he not playing at the same time as Kapil, Hadlee, Botham and Imran. While obviously not close to all-time great material.

Yup, on all counts. I don't disagree with the bigger picture you're painting - I just wanted to point out that the era when WI had 4 world class quicks in their side was actually a pretty short period of time: maybe about 5 years as opposed to the 20 years we sometimes read. As you rightly say, having 3 was plenty good enough most of the time.

FWIW that's why I agree with those who rate the 1979-1981 WI side ahead of the mid-80's sides who twice blackwashed us and had the 15 match winning run. The earlier side had the nastiest attack I've seen, plus a truly great batting lineup (Richards & Lloyd still near their peak, Kallicheran, Greenidge and an admittedly young Haynes). They also beat significantly better Aus & England sides than the later version.

 

[chaminda_00]

I presonally think that the Windies side of the 70s and 80s was the best side of all time. They dominated cricket for the longest, from the 75 WC to the 94/95 series loss to Australia. The current Australian Team has only dominated cricket form 10 years.

SA 1970s didn't play the Windies at there best, which they would have if they went dropped. Who knows they could have beat them, or maybe they would have got smashed like everyone else, we will never know. A 4 nil victory aganist a average Australian team in 1970 doesn't make them the best test side ever.

The Australia Team of 1948 was amazing side they did not only had Bradman, but also Miller, Lindwall, Hasset, Harvey, Morris and Tallon. Seven of the best players Australia ever produced and many that would walk into the current Australian team. But there only weakness was probably depth and lack of a spinner compared to the other teams. But if it wasn't for the WW2 then this side probably would have set more records then the ones they did and they also would have had O'Reiley in their bowling attack.

My opinion is:
1. West Indies 75 to 95
2. Australia 95 to present
3. Australia 1948
4. South Africa 1970s
I don't know much about the rest

 

[wpdavid]

I presonally think that the Windies side of the 70s and 80s was the best side of all time. They dominated cricket for the longest, from the 75 WC to the 94/95 series loss to Australia. The current Australian Team has only dominated cricket form 10 years.

SA 1970s didn't play the Windies at there best, which they would have if they went dropped. Who knows they could have beat them, or maybe they would have got smashed like everyone else, we will never know. A 4 nil victory aganist a average Australian team in 1970 doesn't make them the best test side ever.

The Australia Team of 1948 was amazing side they did not only had Bradman, but also Miller, Lindwall, Hasset, Harvey, Morris and Tallon. Seven of the best players Australia ever produced and many that would walk into the current Australian team. But there only weakness was probably depth and lack of a spinner compared to the other teams. But if it wasn't for the WW2 then this side probably would have set more records then the ones they did and they also would have had O'Reiley in their bowling attack.

My opinion is:
1. West Indies 75 to 95
2. Australia 95 to present
3. Australia 1948
4. South Africa 1970s
I don't know much about the rest

Don't forget that WI lost 5-1 to Aus in 1975/76. They didn't take over the number 1 spot until a few years later - probably when winning in Aus during 1979/80. As for SA, they wouldn't have played WI even if they hadn't been kicked out - the SA Governments had never allowed their side to play non-white sides ever since they first played test cricket.

 

[Richard]

I thought he also said a West Indies side that never even won a game was one of the best 2 or 3 ever.

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

 

[Richard]

Don't forget that WI lost 5-1 to Aus in 1975/76. They didn't take over the number 1 spot until a few years later - probably when winning in Aus during 1979/80. As for SA, they wouldn't have played WI even if they hadn't been kicked out - the SA Governments had never allowed their side to play non-white sides ever since they first played test cricket.

I thought Apartheid was only espoused in 1948 or something?

 

[Richard]

The Australia Team of 1948 was amazing side they did not only had Bradman, but also Miller, Lindwall, Hasset, Harvey, Morris and Tallon. Seven of the best players Australia ever produced and many that would walk into the current Australian team. But there only weakness was probably depth and lack of a spinner compared to the other teams. But if it wasn't for the WW2 then this side probably would have set more records then the ones they did and they also would have had O'Reiley in their bowling attack.

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!

 

[Richard]

FWIW that's why I agree with those who rate the 1979-1981 WI side ahead of the mid-80's sides who twice blackwashed us and had the 15 match winning run. The earlier side had the nastiest attack I've seen, plus a truly great batting lineup (Richards & Lloyd still near their peak, Kallicheran, Greenidge and an admittedly young Haynes). They also beat significantly better Aus & England sides than the later version.

I've always thought people are too quick to talk about sides that have had spectacular results - the SA4-0Aus, the WI 11-match run, the Aus 16-match run, the 1948 unbeaten tour.
Yet I've always thought, ever since I looked at the situation, that the side of the late '70s and early '80s was the best.
It really irks me sometimes how little attention Alvin Kallicherran gets; and when you've got Holding, Garner, Roberts and Marshall all available (not totally sure they ever played a series together) you just don't get better than that.

 

[wpdavid]

I thought Apartheid was only espoused in 1948 or something?

It became official policy in 1948, but the racial attitudes had always been there. Maybe it wasn't 100% accurate to blame the SA Government prior to 1948 instead of the SA cricket authorities, but, either way, they weren't interested in playing non-white countries until after their readmission in 1991/92. AFAICS, apart from Duleep's single test in 1929, SA only played tests against one player of non-white extraction before their exclusion. This week's prize goes to anyone who can name him.

 

[wpdavid]

I've always thought people are too quick to talk about sides that have had spectacular results - the SA4-0Aus, the WI 11-match run, the Aus 16-match run, the 1948 unbeaten tour.
Yet I've always thought, ever since I looked at the situation, that the side of the late '70s and early '80s was the best.
It really irks me sometimes how little attention Alvin Kallicherran gets; and when you've got Holding, Garner, Roberts and Marshall all available (not totally sure they ever played a series together) you just don't get better than that.

They probably played together against us in 1980, although maybe not for the whole series. Marshall effectively replaced Colin Croft around that time, so if you look up series from 1980 onwards in Cricinfo you'll quickly find if it ever happened. Mind you, Croft isn't to be under-estimated. He achieved extraordinary figures when he first played, against Pakistan IIRC, and was generally reckoned to be the nastiest of the lot. I wasn't impresed when he tried to justify Walsh attempting to maim Devon Malcolm a few years back, but he could bowl.

 

[wpdavid]

.. and when you've got Holding, Garner, Roberts and Marshall all available (not totally sure they ever played a series together) you just don't get better than that.

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.

 

[marc71178]

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

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

For a start they were beaten by another side!