To get back on topic.
Been reading through quite a bit of
@peterhrt posts, and a common theme seems to permeate with regards to team selections and observations.
For their 70th anniversary in 1991 the magazine asked their president, EW Swanton, to pick his World XI covering the period 1921-1991. He chose the following team, all of whom he had seen:
Hobbs, Gavaskar, Bradman*, Sobers, Headley, Miller, Davidson, Evans+, Marshall, O'Reilly, Gibbs. 12th man: Constantine.
Swanton's four certainties were Hobbs, Bradman, Sobers and O'Reilly. He wanted the left-handed Sobers at number four. He stressed he was looking for attacking potential, bowling variety and fielding prowess (with only O'Reilly under par in that regard).
Additionally
Copied from post last year:
In June 1975 five leading English cricket writers got together to select a current World XI for The Daily Telegraph Magazine. They were EW Swanton, John Woodcock, Ian Peebles, Michael Melford and Crawford White. In addition to the Telegraph, The Times, Sunday Times and Daily Express were represented. It is a snapshot of thinking at the time, at least in England.
Six names were agreed by all five judges: Barry Richards ("unanimously accepted finest opening batsman in the world"), Clive Lloyd, Greg Chappell, Knott, Lillee and Bedi.
Procter would have been another but was not fully fit. Sobers was also mentioned but not due to play any first-class cricket that summer. The judges still wanted an all-rounder and picked Greig.
Melford favoured Roberts over Thomson as he bowled a fuller length. Peebles, White and Swanton liked fast bowlers hunting in pairs and went for Thomson to partner Lillee. Rather than select all three, the writers preferred a wrist spinner for variety and chose Chandra as the best "on his day".
Boycott was deemed to have ruled himself out by opting out of Test cricket. Instead "Barlow's credentials as dangerous outswing bowler, high-class bat, excellent slipper, and, not least, highly pugnacious competitor, won him the place at Richards's side." The South Africans were still regarded as the equivalent of Test cricketers in the mid-1970s. Boycott wasn't, even though he had appeared much more recently.
Before deciding on the remaining batsman, the judges took a look at the fielding which was already well covered with Barlow, Chappell, Greig and Richards in close and Lloyd great anywhere. They considered Graeme Pollock, Walters, Asif Iqbal and Kallicharran. Also Fredericks and Redpath as possible openers with Barlow dropping down to number three. In the end they went for Kallicharran, helped by his left-handedness. Asif was twelfth man and substitute fielder. Lloyd was captain.
Despite Swanton's Kent connections, there was no mention of Underwood. Nor Gavaskar.
Team: Barry Richards, Barlow, Kallicharran, Greg Chappell, LLoyd*, Greig, Knott+, Lillee, Thomson, Bedi, Chandrasekhar. 12th man: Asif Iqbal.
And finally
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."
There's a consistent prioritizing among the teams referenced above with fielding in general and close catching specifically, and seem to be a cornerstone of success.
It is and has been a focus of teams and have been for some considerable time.
And even with the small sample size, of the other two.... Lower order batting doesnt seem to be a focus and isn't mentioned. Both teams constructed and the one referenced did have 5th bowlers however, though Worrell's role in that series was limited, and it was noted that when properly used, 4 is enough.
And though, while that was somewhat of a feature of the top two teams in history, it's best to have a 5th option to keep your bowlers fresh either on flatter decks or longer series.
And while there's been sufficient focus on the greatest teams of the past, it's probably instructional to inspect even the current test champions, and specifically the team that won said championship, and what the strengths of that team are...
They have a world class bowling attack, one of the two best in the world, but probably what's best described as an average batting line up. They have a handy no 8, but for the most part no one consistent performer behind him. They do have a 5th option which is arguably better than what the aforementioned two squads utilized, and is most often utilized as the 4th option. What they also have is probaly the best and most consistent cordon currently. This is particularly critical, as the amount of chances created that go behind the wicket.
I will repeat that a 5th bowling option is a must. His quality and volume being at least partially dictated by the surrounding members of the attack.
Lower order depth, while no doubt useful in a collapse, seems to have been historically a secondary (pun not intended) concern when trying to put together the best attack.
A strong cordon on the other hand has been a consistent feature and necessity of successful teams.
So.....
Is it possibly 3rd?
The most popular argument for lower order batting at 8 / 9 is, they can turn a total of 250 for 6 to 350 or more. Value indeed, but that's mitigated by not only how infrequently that happens, but when it does, it's often not predominantly the no. 8. That's paired to the fact that it's the most volatile and least consistent contributors of the three. That too is aligned with what has historically been teams leaning towards prioritizing choosing their best attack over batting depth, in their effort to take 20 wickets.
