Is it better for test cricket not to have a clear no.1?

[subshakerz]

Currently there is a tussle for the no.1 spot in cricket with no team much ahead of the rest. Is this a more compeititve way for cricket in general and healthier for the game?

Is having a cricket superpower like 80s WI or 2000s Australia better for test cricket standards as these teams set a new benchmark for quality even as they blast the opposition?

Does test cricket need a no.1 team as a standard bearer or is it better to have a continual battle at the top?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Other than 80s WI and 00s Aus there's never really been a clear, consistent no. 1

not counting when it was just the 2 sides

 

[Athlai]

Lots of Kiwi bias in this but the first Test Championship and years preceding it were incredibly interesting.
From 2016 to 2021 we had South Africa, India, Australia, Pakistan and New Zealand all hit #1. England were also often in the mix at the top end. 6 teams that almost always had a highly interesting series (and a few good Sri Lankan/WI/Bangers efforts and in that order).

It feels a bit like NZ is going to drift back into the pack again and we may end up with only a few competitive teams again though with SA and Pakistan seeming relatively cool too.

 

[Line and Length]

I see no harm in "having a cricket superpower like 80s WI or 2000s Australia." These 'super teams' set a standard for others to emulate. All sports have periods where one nation or one individual dominate and they a higher bar is set for others to work towards.

 

[SteveNZ]

I see no harm in "having a cricket superpower like 80s WI or 2000s Australia." These 'super teams' set a standard for others to emulate. All sports have periods where one nation or one individual dominate and they a higher bar is set for others to work towards.

Yeah, I agree with this. For a spectacle, yeah it's good to have a period like we've just had where a lot of teams jockeyed for position in terms of being No.1.

But equally, actually not equally but more so, the dominant Aussie 2000s side brought so much to the table in terms of setting standards for others to aspire to, and played some uncompromisingly great cricket. I was too young for the Windies in the 80s so I can't speak on that, but I'm sure it was the same.

 

[wpdavid]

Only my personal preference, but I especially enjoyed the mid 1990s, when there were several excellent teams.

 

[shortpitched713]

I think it's not so important whether or not there's a "clear no 1" team, but rather that there are enough teams that can play Test cricket competitively. The golden age of having the most competitive teams I think would be whenever both Sri Lanka and West Indies were at a high standard, so possibly sometime in the 90s?

Regardless there are more than enough teams even now, for multiple permutations of competitive Test series. We're in a much better place in that sense than any time before the mid 20th century, so I'm grateful for that.

 

[subshakerz]

I think it's not so important whether or not there's a "clear no 1" team, but rather that there are enough teams that can play Test cricket competitively. The golden age of having the most competitive teams I think would be whenever both Sri Lanka and West Indies were at a high standard, so possibly sometime in the 90s?

Regardless there are more than enough teams even now, for multiple permutations of competitive Test series. We're in a much better place in that sense than any time before the mid 20th century, so I'm grateful for that.

I also regard the mid-90s as a high quality period. Australia were no.1 but not so far ahead of the pack. SA, Pakistan, WI were quality sides.

However, I think in terms of sheer quality it is hard to get past the period just after WSC around 79-83. WI, Eng, Australia, Pakistan, NZ and India all with ATG players at their peak.

 

[subshakerz]

I think the problem of not having a clear no.1 is that it means no team is good enough to string together enough victories to secure a lead. That itself isnt a good sign for cricket. You need a team that can at least show winning formula.

In the phase since Australia's end of reign, you still had India (2009-2011 and 2016-2020) and SA (2012-2015) that were good enough to have fairly decently long runs at no.1.

 

[Chrish]

The more number of oppositions, the more competitive the game. Take Soccer for example. It’s impossible for just one team to keep dominating the others because top 10 countries all play the game at very high level.

 

[subshakerz]

The more number of oppositions, the more competitive the game. Take Soccer for example. It’s impossible for just one team to keep dominating the others because top 10 countries all play the game at very high level.

Then how could India be on top for five years?

 

[Chrish]

Then how could India be on top for five years?

Thats what I said. There aren’t enough quality oppositions in cricket like Soccer.

while india are number one, they haven’t been able to dominate like some other teams in the past.

I don’t mind current era of cricket. India, Aus, NZ, Eng all are capable of beating each other. Sa too when others are touring.

 

[subshakerz]

Thats what I said. There aren’t enough quality oppositions in cricket like Soccer.

while india are number one, they haven’t been able to dominate like some other teams in the past.

I don’t mind current era of cricket. India, Aus, NZ, Eng all are capable of beating each other. Sa too when others are touring.

India and NZ seem past their peak. SA is still raw. Eng under Stokes need to be tested away. Only Australia seems a quality strong home and touring team.

 

[Aritro]

Having a clear number 1 is good for relatively short periods of time, otherwise it gets boring af and makes all other cricket seem second rate.

 

[shortpitched713]

I'd throw Pakistan in the mix as a side that can compete with the other 5. I think it's really both Sri Lanka and even earlier the West Indies falling off that has hurt the diversity of competitive Test nations recently. West Indies of late I like their bowling, but the batting is below minimum Test standard, and the opposite being the case for Sri Lanka with their bowling being below minimum Test standard, even though they have pretty good batting.

 

[shortpitched713]

Having a clear number 1 is good for relatively short periods of time, otherwise it gets boring af and makes all other cricket seem second rate.

The Australian dominance was getting a bit tired, tbf.

 

[Xix2565]

India and NZ seem past their peak. SA is still raw. Eng under Stokes need to be tested away. Only Australia seems a quality strong home and touring team.

Do you watch Test cricket or what?

 

[subshakerz]

Do you watch Test cricket or what?

What did I say that you disagree with?

 

[Chrish]

India and NZ seem past their peak. SA is still raw. Eng under Stokes need to be tested away. Only Australia seems a quality strong home and touring team.

Wouldn’t call Australia quality away from home without proving themselves let them win a series or two against stronger opposition and we can talk. They certainly do have all the ingredients to become a number one team.

 

[subshakerz]

Wouldn’t call Australia quality away from home without proving themselves let them win a series or two against stronger opposition and we can talk. They certainly do have all the ingredients to become a number one team.

They won in Pakistan which is a pretty good start.