Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[kban1]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2094-2535280,00.html

Simon Wilde’s top 10 Test teams
 
 

1 Clive Lloyd’s West Indies (1983-85)

It was brutal, simple and overwhelmingly effective: four fast bowlers on rota, using short-pitched bowling physically to intimidate opponents and stifl e their run-scoring. But the strategy wasn’t as crude as its critics claimed. It wouldn’t have worked so well had not the likes of Malcolm Marshall, Joel Garner and Andy Roberts been such sophisticated operators. The batting was awesome, too: has there been a better top three than Gordon Greenidge, Desmond Haynes and Viv Richards? Then came Richie Richardson, Gus Logie, Clive Lloyd and Jeff Dujon, a fine wicketkeeper-batsman

West Indies under Lloyd
Tests P74 W36 D26 L12 Win% 49
Series P18 W14 D2 L2 Win% 78
Record v England P18 W11 D7 L0

Whitewashes: 5-0 England 1984

Key men: Bat: Gordon Greenidge Tests: 108 Average: 44.7, Viv Richards Tests: 121 Av: 50.2, Clive Lloyd Tests: 110 Av: 46.7

Ball: Michael Holding Tests: 60 Av: 23.7, Joel Garner Tests: 58 Av: 21, Malcolm Marshall Tests: 81 Av: 20.9

 
 

2 Steve Waugh’s Australia (1999-2001)

Waugh was lucky to inherit some fine cricketers from Mark Taylor and find several more emerging on his watch. But, recognising their talent and having experienced the ruthlessness of Richards’s West Indians, he pushed them to ever higher levels of achievement. Trying to win every match was a given. With the Waugh twins, Shane Warne, Glenn McGrath and Adam Gilchrist, they won the World Cup in 1999 and a record 16 Tests in a row

Australia under Waugh
Tests P57 W41 D7 L9 Win% 72
Series P18 W13 D3 L2 Win% 72
Record v England P9 W8 D0 L1

Whitewashes: 5-0 West Indies 2000-01, 3-0 New Zealand 1999-2000, 3-0 India 1999-2000, 3-0 Pakistan 1999-2000, 3-0 South Africa 2001-02, 3-0 Pakistan 2002-03

Key men: Bat: Matthew Hayden Tests: 89 Average: 53, Mark Waugh Tests: 128 Av: 41.8, Steve Waugh Tests: 168 Av: 50.1

Ball: Shane Warne Tests: 145 Av: 25.4, Glenn McGrath Tests: 124 Av: 21.6, Jason Gillespie Tests: 71 Av: 26.1


3 Don Bradman’s Australia (1948)

Australians are short on cultural history, which may partly explain the deification of the Invincibles led by Bradman on his final tour of England. They went unbeaten in all matches and crushed England 4-0. As in 1921, England were relying on old players after a world war but, again, Australia were exceptional. The batting was led by Bradman, Arthur Morris and Sid Barnes and a fearsome pace trio of Ray Lindwall, Keith Miller and the underrated Bill Johnston gave England no respite. Even so, England should have won at Leeds, where Australia chased down 404 for victory

Australia under Bradman
Tests P24 W15 D6 L3 Win% 62
Series P5 W4 D1 L0 Win% 80
Record v England P19 W11 D5 L3

Whitewashes: none

Key men: Bat: Don Bradman Tests: 52 Average: 99.9, Arthur Morris Tests: 46 Av: 46.5, Neil Harvey Tests: 79 Av: 48.4

Ball: Ray Lindwall Tests: 61 Av: 23, Bill Johnston Tests 40 Av 23.9, Keith Miller Tests: 55 Av: 23


4 Len Hutton’s England (1955)

Hutton was perhaps the toughest captain England have had and he needed to be to win in Australia. Frank Tyson was the ace in his pack but he only came good after Hutton revised his plans after a heavy defeat in the fi rst Test in Brisbane. Tyson’s sensational pace was supported by Brian Statham, fast himself and also accurate, and Bob Appleyard, whose short career belied his quality. The batting was of the highest quality: Hutton, a young Colin Cowdrey and Peter May, who afterwards took over the reins and developed the side further, but failed to win Down Under

England under Hutton
Tests P23 W11 D8 L4 Win% 48
Series P6 W4 D2 L0 Win% 67

Whitewashes: none

Key men: Bat: Len Hutton Tests: 79 Average: 56.7, Peter May Tests: 66 Av: 46.8, Colin Cowdrey Tests: 114 Av: 44.1

Ball: Frank Tyson Tests: 17 Av: 18.6, Brian Statham Tests: 70 Av: 24.8, Jim Laker Tests: 46 Av: 21.2



5 Viv Richards’s West Indies (1986-91)

If Richards’s side wasn’t quite as unbeatable as Lloyd’s earlier vintage, it was perhaps because the opposition had improved, and grown accustomed to the all-pace tactics. But the West Indian machine remained formidably strong and well versed in the art of winning. Richards never lost a series as captain. Marshall remained king of the quicks and he was supported by two giants-in-the-making in Curtly Ambrose and Courtney Walsh. Greenidge, Haynes, Richards and Richie Richardson remained

West Indies under Richards
Tests P50 W27 D15 L8 Win% 54
Series P14 W9 D5 L0 Win% 64
Record v England P19 W13 D3 L3

Whitewashes: 5-0 England 1985-86

Key men: Bat: Viv Richards Tests: 121 Average: 50.2, Desmond Haynes Tests: 116 Av: 42.3, Richie Richardson Tests: 86 Av: 44.4

Ball: Malcolm Marshall Tests: 81 Av: 20.9, Curtly Ambrose Tests: 98 Av: 21, Courtney Walsh Tests: 132 Av: 24.4

6 Imran Khan’s Pakistan (1987-91)

Imran Khan was one of the game’s fi nest fast bowling allrounders, who led by example but more besides. Under him, Pakistan If Richards’s side wasn’t quite as unbeatable as Lloyd’s earlier vintage, it was perhaps because the opposition had improved, and grown accustomed to the all-pace tactics. But the West Indian machine remained formidably strong and well versed in the art of winning. Richards never lost a series as captain. Marshall remained king of the quicks and he was supported by two giants-in-the-making in Curtly Ambrose and Courtney Walsh. Greenidge, Haynes, Richards and Richie Richardson remained leading spinner, while Wasim Akram and Saleem Malik were emerging as two rare talents

Pakistan under Imran
Tests P48 W14 D26 L8 Win% 29
Series P14 W5 D6 L3 Win% 36
Record v England: P8 W2 D4 L2

Whitewashes: none

Key men: Bat: Javed Miandad Tests: 124 Average: 52.6, Saleem Malik Tests: 103 Av: 43.7, Imran Khan Tests: 88 Av: 37.7

Ball: Imran Khan Tests: 88 Av: 22.8, Abdul Qadir Tests: 67 Av: 32.8, Wasim Akram Tests: 104 Av: 23.6


7 Ricky Ponting’s Australia (2005-07)

Like Richards after Lloyd, Ponting inherited a team from Steve Waugh that was full of outstanding cricketers, each of whom was ingrained in a winning culture. Replacing Waugh was the toughest problem and the gifted young Michael Clarke was the obvious answer. Complacency cost them dear when they lost to a well-drilled England team in 2005, but the disciplined response has been impressive: 16 wins in 17 Tests since

Australia under Ponting
Tests P35 W27 D5 L3 Win% 77
Series P13 W12 D0 L1 Win% 92
Record v England: P10 W6 D2 L2

Whitewashes:5-0 England 2006-07, 3-0 Sri Lanka 2003-04, 3-0 Pakistan 2004-05, 2-0 South Africa 2005-06

Key men: Bat: Ricky Ponting Tests: 110 Average: 59.3, Mike Hussey Tests: 16 Av: 79.9, Michael Clarke Tests: 27 Av: 42

Ball: Shane Warne Tests: 145 Av: 25.4, Brett Lee Tests: 59 Av: 31.6, Stuart Clark Tests: 9 Av: 17.8

8 Ali Bacher’s South Africa (early 1970s)
The antiapartheid sports boycott that started in 1970 probably deprived an exceptional group of white South Africans of the chance to dominate world cricket in the early 1970s. Before that happened, they twice crushed Australia at home. Bacher wasn’t a great player but he was a fine captain. Under him, he had Barry Richards, Graeme Pollock and Mike Procter, each of them an all-time great player, plus Eddie Barlow, Peter Pollock and a formidable wicketkeeper-batsman in Denis Lindsay

South Africa under Bacher
Tests P4 W4 D0 L0 Win% 100
Series P1 W1 D0 L0 Win% 100
Record v England n/a

Whitewashes: 4-0 Australia 1969-70

Key men: Bat: Barry Richards Tests: 4 Average: 72.6, Graeme Pollock Tests: 23 Av: 61, Eddie Barlow Tests: 30 Av: 45.7

Ball: Peter Pollock Tests: 28 Av: 24.2, Eddie Barlow Tests: 30 Av: 34.1, Mike Procter Tests: 7 Av: 15

9 Michael Vaughan’s England (2004-05)

They may never work as a unit again, but briefl y Andrew Flintoff, Steve Harmison, Simon Jones and Matthew Hoggard formed as fine a fast bowling attack as England have possessed. They helped England win in two of the toughest arenas – in South Africa and against Australia – and, overall, Vaughan’s team won six successive series between March 2004 and September 2005. Apart from Flintoff and 2005’s new arrival, Kevin Pietersen, there were few superstars but from openers Andrew Strauss and Marcus Trescothick down, everybody contributed, with Vaughan supervising some masterly tactical campaigns

England under Vaughan
Tests P33 W19 D8 L6 Win% 58
Series P10 W7 D1 L2 Win% 70

Whitewashes: 4-0 West Indies 2004, 3-0 New Zealand 2004

Key men: Bat: Michael Vaughan Tests: 64 Average: 42.9, Marcus Trescothick Tests: 76 Av: 43.8, Andrew Strauss Tests: 36 Av: 43.1

Ball: Steve Harmison Tests: 50 Av: 30.5, Andrew Flintoff Tests: 67 Av: 32, Matthew Hoggard Tests: 62 Av: 30.2

10 Warwick Armstrong’s Australia (1920-21)

The only team previously to have achieved a 5-0 Ashes whitewash had advantages not enjoyed by Ponting’s side: they were playing an aged England soon after the fi rst world war and all Tests were played to a fi nish. Even so, this was an exceptional side, led by a ruthless captain, armed with great fast bowlers in Jack Gregory and Ted McDonald, a fi ne leggie in Arthur Mailey and the batting genius Charlie Macartney

Australia under Armstrong
Tests P10 W8 D2 L0 Win% 80
Series P2 W2 D0 L0 Win% 100
Record v England: P10 W8 D2 L0

Whitewashes: 5-0 England 1920-21

Key men: Bat: Jack Gregory Tests: 24 Average: 37, Warwick Armstrong Tests: 50 Av: 38.7, Charlie Macartney Tests: 35 Av: 41.8

Ball: Arthur Mailey Tests: 21 Av: 33.9 Jack Gregory Tests: 24 Av: 31.2, Ted McDonald Tests: 11 Av: 33.3

[LosingNow]

Michael Vaughn's England ... puke!!
--
I would put MA's India and/or SG's India ahead of MV's England

[dextrous]

Michael Vaughn's England ... puke!!
--
I would put MA's India and/or SG's India ahead of MV's England

and its obv a british writer...love that one line about australia being short on cultural history...what snobs!

[toney]

When its a British writer, there are two test teams involved, Eng and Aus. Then of course, WI get a couple of berths for proximity's sake. I still can't understand how Imran managed a spot. Perhaps, his education got him that honour.

I don't think SG's India deserves to be in the top ten just as Vaughan's team doesn't. Both teams played unbelievable cricket, one mainly due to its batsmen being in great form for a brief period and the other mainly due to its bowlers being in good form for a series or two.
One of the great indications of a great team is when they perform in spite of a couple of key performers being out due to injury. By that count, Eng and India have no chance.
Of course, it could very well be possible that the writer lacked more options.

[keep-it-cool]

Pak with 29% win ratio is higher than Aus with c80% win ratio??

[Cernunnos]

SG's India did not lose outright to 6 out of 7 countries
against whom they played a home and an away series.

Eng: won at home, drew away. Series Result 1-0
Aus: won at home, drew away. Series Result 1-0
Pak: drew at home, won away. Series Result 1-0
Zim: won at home, drew away. Series Result 1-0
SA:  won at home, lost away. Series Result 1-1
WI: won at home, lost away. Series Result 1-1
 
This is a huge achievement. Possibly only been emulated by the
great WI,  Cronje's RSA and Waugh/Ponting's Aus.

[keep-it-cool]

SG's India did not lose outright to 6 out of 7 countries
against whom they played a home and an away series.

Eng: won at home, drew away. Series Result 1-0
Aus: won at home, drew away. Series Result 1-0
Pak: drew at home, won away. Series Result 1-0
Zim: won at home, drew away. Series Result 1-0
SA:  won at home, lost away. Series Result 1-1
WI: won at home, lost away. Series Result 1-1
 
This is a huge achievement. Possibly only been emulated by the
great WI,  Cronje's RSA and Waugh/Ponting's Aus.

Any team that does not win away does not deserve to be in the top 10, in my view.

And, where is NZ here? Didnt we lose away and draw at home against them too?

And SL? We lost away to them too ... not sure what happened at home.

[Cernunnos]

SG's India did not lose outright to 6 out of 7 countries
against whom they played a home and an away series.

Eng: won at home, drew away. Series Result 1-0
Aus: won at home, drew away. Series Result 1-0
Pak: drew at home, won away. Series Result 1-0
Zim: won at home, drew away. Series Result 1-0
SA:  won at home, lost away. Series Result 1-1
WI: won at home, lost away. Series Result 1-1
 
This is a huge achievement. Possibly only been emulated by the
great WI,  Cronje's RSA and Waugh/Ponting's Aus.

Any team that does not win away does not deserve to be in the top 10, in my view.

And, where is NZ here? Didnt we lose away and draw at home against them too?

And SL? We lost away to them too ... not sure what happened at home.

Yes, that's why I said 6 out of 7 countries. NZ is the team against whom
SG's India could not rescue their honor (thanks due to their unsporting pitches).

Against SL, SG did not play a return series as captain.

Who cares about winning a series abroad, as long we can keep our honor intact?
 
A similar break-up for Cronje's team would be.

Pak: won at home, won away. Series Result 2-0
Zim: won at home, won away. Series Result 2-0
Eng: won at home, lost away. Series Result 1-1
Ind:  won at home, lost away. Series Result 1-1
Aus: lost at home, lost away. Series Result 0-2

They lost their honor to Aus. Won outright against only 1 good team.
We won outright against 3 of the best teams: Aus, England and Pakistan.

In fact I would rate SG's India > Cronje's RSA.

I'd like to see others come up with analyses for teams under other captains.

[keep-it-cool]

Dont understand two things
1) why should a series not be considered just because there is no return series? a loss or win in a series is important, whether there is a return leg or not
2) how can wins not matter? only those teams classify to be great in my view who can win against different opposition at different points

And, I remember SA's team beating India at home. 2-0 was the score, if i remember it right. Not sure why you say Cronje's team lost away to India.

[Cernunnos]

Dont understand two things
1) why should a series not be considered just because there is no return series? a loss or win in a series is important, whether there is a return leg or not

Because until two teams have met each other in each others' dens, one cannot make a
fair commment on whether one team has dominated the other.

2) how can wins not matter? only those teams classify to be great in my view who can win against different opposition at different points

I consider maintaining one's honor the most important. If I can win at home against team X and draw
against them away, that's good enough for me. I've won the battle against team X.

And, I remember SA's team beating India at home. 2-0 was the score, if i remember it right. Not sure why you say Cronje's team lost away to India.

Cronje lost in 1996 to India, and won the return 1997 tour. Therefore 1-1 for that pair.

Cronje won in 2000, but their was no return series after that for him.

[Cernunnos]

Imran Khan is a name I forgot. He always kept his team's honor intact.

Ind:  won at home, won away. Series Result 2-0
SL:  won at home, drew away. Series result 1-0
Eng: won at home, lost away. Series Result 1-1
Aus: won at home, lost away. Series Result 1-1
WI: drew at home, drew away. Series Result 0-0

However he never won the battle against the best team of his times: WI.
Whereas SG's India won the battle against Aus, Eng, Pak.

[keep-it-cool]

Dont understand two things
1) why should a series not be considered just because there is no return series? a loss or win in a series is important, whether there is a return leg or not

Because until two teams have met each other in each others' dens, one cannot make a
fair commment on whether one team has dominated the other.

Well in that case there is no point in comparing any teams across time zones. And, when one calibrates that much, shouldnt one also check whether the quality of opposition was similar etc etc etc?

2) how can wins not matter? only those teams classify to be great in my view who can win against different opposition at different points

I consider maintaining one's honor the most important. If I can win at home against team X and draw
against them away, that's good enough for me. I've won the battle against team X.

I do not agree. But that is only a matter of what standards or parameters each of us choose to apply. No real scope for much debate beyond this point.

And, I remember SA's team beating India at home. 2-0 was the score, if i remember it right. Not sure why you say Cronje's team lost away to India.

Cronje lost in 1996 to India, and won the return 1997 tour. Therefore 1-1 for that pair.

Cronje won in 2000, but their was no return series after that for him.

Oh! So, the more recent result does not matter? How convenient. Especially when one considers that the 1996 series was won with SRT (and not SG) as captain. Maybe SG had a remote control. Anyways, who cares about these small details?

[keep-it-cool]

Whereas SG's India won the battle against Aus, Eng, Pak.

Another small detail .. SG's India lost to Aus the last time they played each other at home.

[jaat69]

Whereas SG's India won the battle against Aus, Eng, Pak.

Another small detail .. SG's India lost to Aus the last time they played each other at home.

Don't fight over small details kic........this list is only Simon ...what's his name...Wilde's personal choice.......................we can avoid the blood-shed over someone else's marraige!

[atticus]

Whereas SG's India won the battle against Aus, Eng, Pak.

Another small detail .. SG's India lost to Aus the last time they played each other at home.

But he did not get a return series to regain his honor I hope we drop RD as captain and get back SG as captain for the upcoming Aus tour to get revenge.

[keep-it-cool]

Whereas SG's India won the battle against Aus, Eng, Pak.

Another small detail .. SG's India lost to Aus the last time they played each other at home.

Don't fight over small details kic........this list is only Simon ...what's his name...Wilde's personal choice.......................we can avoid the blood-shed over someone else's marraige!

the list under discussion is Cern's own. Not Wilde ...

[jaat69]

Whereas SG's India won the battle against Aus, Eng, Pak.

Another small detail .. SG's India lost to Aus the last time they played each other at home.

But he did not get a return series to regain his honor I hope we drop RD as captain and get back SG as captain for the upcoming Aus tour to get revenge.

Don't worry!..Your wish may well come true!

[keep-it-cool]

Whereas SG's India won the battle against Aus, Eng, Pak.

Another small detail .. SG's India lost to Aus the last time they played each other at home.

But he did not get a return series to regain his honor I hope we drop RD as captain and get back SG as captain for the upcoming Aus tour to get revenge.

Hmmm ... Aussies ne SG ka izzat cheen liya (maybe that's why he went limping off with groin trouble) ... badle ki bhavna seene me hain

[jaat69]

Whereas SG's India won the battle against Aus, Eng, Pak.

Another small detail .. SG's India lost to Aus the last time they played each other at home.

But he did not get a return series to regain his honor I hope we drop RD as captain and get back SG as captain for the upcoming Aus tour to get revenge.

Hmmm ... Aussies ne SG ka izzat cheen liya (maybe that's why he went limping off with groin trouble) ... badle ki bhavna seene me hain

It was more of India's izzat than SG's..............or was he playing alone against the Aussies?!

[keep-it-cool]

Whereas SG's India won the battle against Aus, Eng, Pak.

Another small detail .. SG's India lost to Aus the last time they played each other at home.

But he did not get a return series to regain his honor I hope we drop RD as captain and get back SG as captain for the upcoming Aus tour to get revenge.

Hmmm ... Aussies ne SG ka izzat cheen liya (maybe that's why he went limping off with groin trouble) ... badle ki bhavna seene me hain

It was more of India's izzat than SG's..............or was he playing alone against the Aussies?!

guess cern should be the judge of that ... izzat ki baat to usne hi shuru ki

[Libran]

Now...in our eagerness to pull down or prop up SG, we will lose the big picture...India did well in that period which incidentally happened to be captained by SG..period...THE TEAM DID WELL...is that clear??

Or should I also say "BY TOUTATIS" and swing a wild Boar to reiterate...THE TEAM DID WELL

[keep-it-cool]

Now...in our eagerness to pull down or prop up SG, we will lose the big picture...India did well in that period which incidentally happened to be captained by SG..period...THE TEAM DID WELL...is that clear??

Or should I also say "BY TOUTATIS" and swing a wild Boar to reiterate...THE TEAM DID WELL

Irrespective .. that team comes nowhere close to being in a list of top test teams across all time.

[jaat69]

Now...in our eagerness to pull down or prop up SG, we will lose the big picture...India did well in that period which incidentally happened to be captained by SG..period...THE TEAM DID WELL...is that clear??

Or should I also say "BY TOUTATIS" and swing a wild Boar to reiterate...THE TEAM DID WELL

Irrespective .. that team comes nowhere close to being in a list of top test teams across all time.

Can't be sure of that..........haven't seen all teams across all time.

[jaat69]

I believe, even the 1983-85 Indian team and the 1971 Indian team ( under Wadekar) were quite good. They too deserve a mention along with any other Indian teams.

[keep-it-cool]

Let us draw up a list of top 100 test teams ... we'll mention everyone ... no one's sentiments will be hurt. Everyone, except J&J, will be happy.