Best Test Team Ever?

[garage flower]

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.

Looking at the stats, I can't see that they had the bowling depth to qualify as "certainly the best". I'd give the Windies and Australia sides the edge.

 

[marc71178]

Richard doesn't look at stats as they're flawed, and it's only his view that isn't.

 

[Hit4Six]

has india ever been the best team in the world?

 

[marc71178]

I would have to say no.

They won the World Cup back in 83, but until they can win outside Asia, they'll never be serious challengers for the top spot.

 

[Swervy]

has india ever been the best team in the world?

most definatly not

 

[Black Thunder]

Too hard to call.

The South African's of the 70's had some unbeliavably classy players, but having never been tested at the top level really means you have to rule them out. Very unfortunate that, but you just can't give a group of guys the tag of best ever when they weren't tested at the top level.

The Aussies of the past 4-5 years, Aussies 48 and Windies early to mid 80's are all practically even.

Current Aussies have the best batting line-up ever assembled, with an extremely good bowling line-up.
Windies have the best bowling line-up ever assembled, with an extremely good batting line-up.
Aussies 48 have the performances on the board, with a group of awesome cricketers. PLUS they have Bradman to bat for them.

I reckon of those teams played each other 100 times (timeless games), you'd probably come out with around about 50 wins each.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

has india ever been the best team in the world?

Not really. The closest they have been would be either now or in the early 80s when they were around 3rd/4th with Australia, behind England and the West Indies.

 

[thierry henry]

The Windies dominated for probably the best part of 20 years, but I don't think any of the particular Windies line-ups were quite as good as Australia were before the Waughs retired. The problem is people tend to want to bring in players from different eras. e.g. Walsh, Marshall, Ambrose didn't really coincide with Holding, Garner, Roberts, etc. The recent Australian side on the other hand has been very settled and they have put out an 11 consisting entirely of world class players on many occasions.

 

[thierry henry]

When people talk about "the great West Indian bowling attack", which particular players and which era do you reckon they are referring to? imo you have to include Garner and Holding, and they were surely past their best by 1984?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

When people talk about "the great West Indian bowling attack", which particular players and which era do you reckon they are referring to? imo you have to include Garner and Holding, and they were surely past their best by 1984?

1984 or so was certainly a great attack, as Garner and Holding weren't completely past it and Marshall was at his peak. At that point though, there is no Andy Roberts and the 4th bowler spot was quite weak. If you head further back you hit the early stages of Marshall's career, but Roberts is still bowling, and Garner and Holding are at their best. Perhaps someone who watched them a bit more extensively than me could choose a series or two where they were at their best as a complete attack.

Certainly the idea that they all appeared and peaked at the exact same time for the strongest bowling lineup ever is something of a fallacy, a bit like the mythical test sides C_C keeps coming out with.

 

[garage flower]

1984 or so was certainly a great attack, as Garner and Holding weren't completely past it and Marshall was at his peak. At that point though, there is no Andy Roberts and the 4th bowler spot was quite weak. If you head further back you hit the early stages of Marshall's career, but Roberts is still bowling, and Garner and Holding are at their best. Perhaps someone who watched them a bit more extensively than me could choose a series or two where they were at their best as a complete attack.

Certainly the idea that they all appeared and peaked at the exact same time for the strongest bowling lineup ever is something of a fallacy, a bit like the mythical test sides C_C keeps coming out with.

Earlier in the thread, I mentioned the side that thrashed Australia in 83/84. The big 3 of Marshall, Garner and Holding all had good figures and Wayne Daniel or Roger Harper would have been the 4th bowler.

I'm not sure Daniel would accurately be described as "quite weak" and Harper though, as far as I can gather, only a containing off spinner, was a useful lower order batsman and incredible fielder.

The top 7 was: Greenidge, Haynes, Richardson, Richards, Lloyd, Logie, Dujon; though the Windies were so disdainful of a fairly ordinary Aussie line-up that Eldine Baptiste played some tests as a fifth bowler who could bat a bit.

 

[C_C]

1984 or so was certainly a great attack, as Garner and Holding weren't completely past it and Marshall was at his peak. At that point though, there is no Andy Roberts and the 4th bowler spot was quite weak. If you head further back you hit the early stages of Marshall's career, but Roberts is still bowling, and Garner and Holding are at their best. Perhaps someone who watched them a bit more extensively than me could choose a series or two where they were at their best as a complete attack.

Certainly the idea that they all appeared and peaked at the exact same time for the strongest bowling lineup ever is something of a fallacy, a bit like the mythical test sides C_C keeps coming out with.

except on rare occasions, WI never fielded a weak 4th bowler from 1975 till 1992-93
Who were their 'weak 4th bowlers' ?
bowlers like sylveyster clarke, who dominated the vaunted saffie lineup in rebel tours....bowlers like Walsh, Patterson, Croft etc.....any one of whom would break into any team's XI (well patterson excepted...he tailed off near the second half of his career).

As per who was at peak and who wasnt, its not like the aussie lineup has all XI players playing at their peak....Gillespie(until IND tour) had tailed off for the past couple of years....Warne was ordinary in the early 2000s....steve waugh was in decline for the last two years of his career....right now hayden is tailing off.....
remember the saying 'form is temporary, class is permanent' ?

If you compile the best team from the dominant eras of respective teams, the WI wins hands down.
However, if you want the best WI team fielded, its IMO in the late 70s when this team took the field:

Greeidge
Haynes
Kallicharan
Richards
Rowe
Lloyd
Murray
Roberts
Garner
Holding
Croft

 

[Swervy]

except on rare occasions, WI never fielded a weak 4th bowler from 1975 till 1992-93
Who were their 'weak 4th bowlers' ?
bowlers like sylveyster clarke, who dominated the vaunted saffie lineup in rebel tours....bowlers like Walsh, Patterson, Croft etc.....any one of whom would break into any team's XI (well patterson excepted...he tailed off near the second half of his career).

As per who was at peak and who wasnt, its not like the aussie lineup has all XI players playing at their peak....Gillespie(until IND tour) had tailed off for the past couple of years....Warne was ordinary in the early 2000s....steve waugh was in decline for the last two years of his career....right now hayden is tailing off.....
remember the saying 'form is temporary, class is permanent' ?

If you compile the best team from the dominant eras of respective teams, the WI wins hands down.
However, if you want the best WI team fielded, its IMO in the late 70s when this team took the field:

Greeidge
Haynes
Kallicharan
Richards
Rowe
Lloyd
Murray
Roberts
Garner
Holding
Croft

I would probably agree that that side (I would say thats must be the one that played in Australia in 79/80) is probably the best West Indian side...that was the first series I watched as a kid...it made a big impression on me

 

[Richard]

Looking at the stats, I can't see that they had the bowling depth to qualify as "certainly the best". I'd give the Windies and Australia sides the edge.

I'd say that in Peter Pollock, Procter, Trimborn, Chevalier, Barlow, Goddard and Lance there was plenty of depth there myself!
Not that Holding, Garner, Daniel, Roberts, Marshall, Croft was shabby, either, of course.

 

[Richard]

Richard doesn't look at stats as they're flawed, and it's only his view that isn't.

My view which is always backed-up by some stats or other
But of course there are stats that are flawed - I've shown countless stats that you've said are flawed.

 

[Richard]

Current Aussies have the best batting line-up ever assembled

I would very much dispute that, given the extreme weakness against spin of Langer, Ponting and Gilchrist and Mark Waugh's terrible failures in Sri Lanka. Not to mention Clarke and Hayden's fallibility against the swinging and seaming ball, and Martyn's and Langer's remarkable inconsistency.

 

[Richard]

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.

Goddard, Stollmeyer, Sobers, Worrell, Weekes, Walcott, Hall, Gibbs, Ramadhin and Valentine never played together either - but they came damn close.

 

[Richard]

you should be directing that at CC

Note that I didn't say "Swervy, how can you possibly rate Richardson better than Kallicherran".
It was directed at C_C, it just contained a quote from you.

 

[Richard]

The problem is people tend to want to bring in players from different eras. e.g. Walsh, Marshall, Ambrose didn't really coincide with Holding, Garner, Roberts, etc.

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.

 

[wpdavid]

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.

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.