Rank these Atg/great teams:

[Johan]

They don’t belong with the other teams at all.

Hm? are they really that much worse than 2010s India?

 

[Johan]

1932/33 England side vs 1963 West Indies would be fun.

 

[kyear2]

They don’t belong with the other teams at all.

Think Graveney in '87 had them 4th above Hutton's England and 70 SA.

Hunte
Carew
Kanhai
Butcher
Sobers
Solomon
Worrell
Murray
Hall
Griffith
Gibbs

That's not a bad lineup.

 

[kyear2]

Hm? are they really that much worse than 2010s India?

1932/33 England side vs 1963 West Indies would be fun.

Think those 3, '75 Australia, and '70 South Africa all in the same grouping.

 

[Coronis]

Think Graveney in '87 had them 4th above Hutton's England and 70 SA.

Hunte
Carew
Kanhai
Butcher
Sobers
Solomon
Worrell
Murray
Hall
Griffith
Gibbs

That's not a bad lineup.

Thought that was the year Worrell completely tanked and Hall began the progression from phenom to also ran

 

[kyear2]

Thought that was the year Worrell completely tanked and Hall began the progression from phenom to also ran

Was definitely Worrell's last year, but the rest of the team was definitely more than solid.

 

[Coronis]

Was definitely Worrell's last year, but the rest of the team was definitely more than solid.

I’m scared Seales and Shamar will end up like Hall

 

[Johan]

Seales has had a poor run with the ball outside Dukes so far.

In England and the West Indies, he has taken 84 wickets from 19 Tests at an average of 21.28, Rest he has taken 11 wickets from 7 games at an average of 60.90. Ofcourse, small sample size but still.

 

[kyear2]

I’m scared Seales and Shamar will end up like Hall

I'm struggling to remember who was the last west indies pacer that excited me since Bishop, and all I can come up with is Fidel briefly.

Shamar lost me after the accusations frankly.

 

[capt_Luffy]

View attachment 52900

I mean bro, there are matches were Yuvraj Singh has played as an Opener. As peterhrt pointed out, he opened in very few innings largely in an Ashes because Hutton wasn't too fond of Reg Simpson. Washbrook otoh, was a very good opener and a long time Hutton partner

 

[kyear2]

I mean bro, there are matches were Yuvraj Singh has played as an Opener. As peterhrt pointed out, he opened in very few innings largely in an Ashes because Hutton wasn't too fond of Reg Simpson. Washbrook otoh, was a very good opener and a long time Hutton partner

The thread was best teams, in both of the teams from the 50"s that i was considering he was the opener.

For the best lineups for those teams, he was opening.

 

[peterhrt]

Think Graveney in '87 had them 4th above Hutton's England and 70 SA.

West Indies 1963 were regarded as a great side. John Arlott wrote about them at the time.

"The England-West Indies rubber of 1963 was more than simply another Test series, it lifted English cricket back to a pinnacle of public esteem it had not known for years.

What of the West Indian playing strength? In the first place this was not only a strong team, but a magnificently balanced one. The bowling, the deciding factor in any Test series, demonstrated the fact that, properly handled, four bowlers are enough. Griffith was the match-winner. His action is not beyond query, but it passed some stern English umpires. He was a constant menace.

Hall, the fastest bowler in the world, bowled an amazingly fast spell at Old Trafford and, at Lord's, produced the finest spell of sustained fast bowling that anyone alive can possibly have seen. Sobers and Gibbs were also match-winners.

The close fielding of Gibbs, Sobers, Hunte and, at their elbows, Worrell, Kanhai and Carew, plus the wicket-keeping of Murray, meant that most of the close catches were held. Some of Hall's returns from the deep must have been as hard as any ever seen. The final comment on the West Indian out-cricket must be that of figures - no Englishman batsman scored a century in any Test.

Kanhai probably took more risks than all the other major batsmen of the two sides put together, but he was the only one of them all who effectively burst the bonds of the restrictive bowling which was the characteristic feature of the series.

There have been good West Indian sides before - if never one quite so well balanced in pace and spin - and some whose batting was as strong. But the 1963 team was the first to play in England with general resolution when the game was going against them."

 

[The Sean]

Think Graveney in '87 had them 4th above Hutton's England and 70 SA.

Hunte
Carew
Kanhai
Butcher
Sobers
Solomon
Worrell
Murray
Hall
Griffith
Gibbs

That's not a bad lineup.

I don't know about a 1987 ranking, but in his 1982 book of cricketing Top Tens, Graveney ranked the 1963 West Indies as the sixth greatest post-war Test team. The full top ten was:

1. Australia 1948
2. West Indies 1976
3. West Indies 1950
4. England 1953
5. South Africa 1969-70
6. West Indies 1963
7. Australia 1974-75
8. England 1956
9. Australia 1960-61
10. England 1970-71

England 54/55 possibly the most surprising omission, with Graveney choosing the two home Ashes-winning squads either side of it ahead of the team that went to Australia and won.

 

[peterhrt]

England 54/55 possibly the most surprising omission, with Graveney choosing the two home Ashes-winning squads either side of it ahead of the team that went to Australia and won.

It may be because he was picked for all five Tests in 1953, but only two in Australia. He also played two in 1956.

 

[kyear2]

West Indies 1963 were regarded as a great side. John Arlott wrote about them at the time.

"The England-West Indies rubber of 1963 was more than simply another Test series, it lifted English cricket back to a pinnacle of public esteems it had not known for years.

What of the West Indian playing strength? In the first place this was not only a strong team, but a magnificently balanced one. The bowling, the deciding factor in any Test series, demonstrated the fact that, properly handled, four bowlers are enough. Griffith was the match-winner. His action is not beyond query, but it passed some stern English umpires. He was a constant menace.

Hall, the fastest bowler in the world, bowled an amazingly fast spell at Old Trafford and, at Lord's, produced the finest spell of sustained fast bowling that anyone alive can possibly have seen. Sobers and Gibbs were also match-winners.

The close fielding of Gibbs, Sobers, Hunte and, at their elbows, Worrell, Kanhai and Carew, plus the wicket-keeping of Murray, meant that most of the close catches were held. Some of Hall's returns from the deep must have been as hard as any ever seen. The final comment on the West Indian out-cricket must be that of figures - no Englishman batsman scored a century in any Test.

Kanhai probably took more risks than all the other major batsmen of the two sides put together, but he was the only one of them all who effectively burst the bonds of the restrictive bowling which was the characteristic feature of the series.

There have been good West Indian sides before - if never one quite so well balanced in pace and spin - and some whose batting was as strong. But the 1963 team was the first to play in England with general resolution when the game was going against them."

The only part of that article I would even question is the part that 4 bowlers are enough. That only worked due to the unmatched versatility of Sobers who during that series did take on double duties at times.

 

[peterhrt]

The only part of that article I would even question is the part that 4 bowlers are enough. That only worked due to the unmatched versatility of Sobers who during that series did take on double duties at times.

All the talk at the time was about Hall and Griffith, in that order, with the others in support. The numbers are a bit misleading here, but Hall was considered the world's best bowler. The article more or less supports that. He had also taken 76 wickets in 17 matches for Queensland, averaging 216 deliveries per match and inspiring a young Lillee who tried to copy his run-up. For sustained high speed over long periods, Hall was unprecedented. During the early 1980s Cowdrey claimed that Hall was still the greatest West Indian fast bowler, for his capacity to bowl really fast for very long spells.

Another widely-held opinion the article supports is that Kanhai was the world's leading batsman. Benaud and others had been saying so for a while. Some current players back then thought his nearest rival was Hanif Mohammad.

 

[kyear2]

2002 Australia

Matthew Hayden
Justin Langer
Ricky Ponting
Mark Waugh
Steve Waugh
Damien Martyn
Adam Gilchrist
Shane Warne
Brett Lee
Jason Gilespie
Glenn McGrath


1984 West Indies

Gordon Greenidge
Desmond Haynes
Richie Richardson
Viv Richards
Larry Gomes
Clive Lloyd
Jeffrey Dujon
Malcolm Marshall
Michael Holding
Joel Garner
Courtney Walsh

1948 Australia

Sid Barnes
Arthur Morris
Don Bradman
Lindsay Hassett
Keith Miller
Bill Brown
Ian Johnson
Don Tallon
Ray Lindwall
Bill Johnston
Ernie Toshack

2008 South Africa

Graeme Smith
Neil McKenzie
Hashim Amla
Jacques Kallis
Ashwell Prince
A.B. de Villiers
Mark Boucher
Morne Morkel
Paul Harris
Dale Steyn
Makhaya Ntini

1954 England

Len Hutton
Bill Edrich
Peter May
Colin Cowdrey
Denis Compton
Trevor Bailey
Godfrey Evans
Johnny Wardle
Frank Tyson
Brian Statham
Bob Appleyard

And the remainder. I'm least confident about which pre war English team to use. Also difficult to pinpoint which was the best Indian team, just know that it had to include Bumrah.


28 England

Hobbs | Sutcliffe | Hammond | Jardine | Hendren | Chapman | Larwood | Geary | Tate | Duckworth | White

63 West Indies

Hunte | Carew | Kanhai | Sobers | Butcher | Solomon | Worrell | Murray | Hall | Griffith | Gibbs

70 South Africa

Richards | Goddard | Bacher | Pollock | Barlow | Irvine | Lance | Lindsay | Procter | Pollock | Traicos

75 Australia

McCosker | Turner | Chappell| Chappell | Redpath | Marsh | Gilmour | Walker | Lillee | Thompson | Mallett

18 India
Dharwan | Rahul | Pujara | Kohli | Rahane | Pant | Jadeja | Ashwin | Sharma | Shami | Bumrah