Yup, in modern times, obvious Australia in the 2000s & the Windies in the 80sYeah obviously I was (semi) joking but look at the players that would be considered in all-time XI or squad and that's another way. The Aussie team of the 00s has to be up there on that basis, sadly
WI clearly ahead of Pak and Ind over cricket history for mine - they would make up the top 3 with Australia and England.I thinking more of a ranking for all time, Aus would be an obvious candidate for top and Bangers on the bottom but how would you fill the rest, or all if you rank Aus and Bangers different.
I really couldent separate WI, Pak and Ind for overall lifetime ranking, NZ and SL are very close also IMO. I'm leaning towards SA as number two but it gets fuzzy after that.
IMHO Tests greatly outweigh anything else particularly if you're looking at comparing across eras.How would you go about deciding which team is the greatest from the start of cricket. Would you look at total win/loss ratio, winning the most ICC events, years at the top of the rankings or something else. Would you combine tests and ODI's or have them seperate.
Yup, overall seems about right, with the possibility of SA being above England if all forms of the game are being considered, then again due to England's rich history & strength in the early days, probably fair enough.australia
does it sound right?
Alltime Xi vs. Alltime XI I'd back ours most of the time. Our top order > theres, their middle order = ours, our seam attack >>>>>> theres, there Murali >>>>> ours.Nah, SL > NZ overall, they're reached greater heights in both forms of the game than NZ with the exception being not beating Australia away