Current Eng team ranked amongst the 5 greatest test teams in history

http://www.espncricinfo.com/greatestteams/content/story/538999.html


by CI experts

Even as an England fan I wouldn't agree with that.

George Dobell (who), has picked his five top test teams of all time. The other four are contenders, but England!!, far too early to say. I would say that Dobell is putting this article out there, just to be noticed, fully aware that it will cause controversy.

I Wonder, who else does that

i think we are very close to be honest, but maybe not the finished article yet.

I agree with skye. England were slipped in at the end in order to get people talking and to get the more sensitive among us all hot under the collar.

We're well on our way for sure, but a little too early yet. Let's discuss it again in 24 months time, then we can make a real judgement.

.George Dobell (who), has picked his five top test teams of all time.

Dobell may be a relative anonymous....but CI is not.
The joke is on CI.

I agree they are a top contemporary side.......some distance to go to prove themselves a unanimous, undisputed best of the generation......and a lot more distance to go before becoming an all time great side

Wouldn't agree with Eng or SA in there. Eng may turn out to be but still a long way to go. SA may have been but never played enough.

i honestly think we are close, but we cant class ourselves in that top bracket just yet

Galted wrote:Wouldn't agree with Eng or SA in there. Eng may turn out to be but still a long way to go. SA may have been but never played enough.

True...SA never played in the subcontinent, in that era.
Dunno if they even played WI

A very interesting article.

Like others, I think George Dobell is too quick off the mark to give the current England side a top 5 place although he makes his case well. In my view, we have to wait and see.

I do agree with Dobell's other four selections. In particular, I think other posters here are wrong to doubt his choice of the 1969 South Africans. A side containing such all time greats as Barry Richards, the Pollock brothers, Denis Lindsay, Mike Procter, Eddie Barlow and, even though his shining star was dimming by then, Trevor Goddard. Such strength in so many areas as evidenced by their 4 - 0 thrashing of Australia. A cricketing tragedy that such players and others were denied further test matches but right that their talent and ability be recognised by Dobell.

By the way, I think George Dobell is a better cricket journalist than to seek a name for himself by deliberately throwing a dodgy choice into the mix. He is certainly well regarded in parts of the Midlands where he covered cricket at all levels. [Hoggy_Bear - if you're reading, have you come across him?]

@ anu_d - never played WI either, only played Aus, Eng & NZ due to the politics of the time

Galted wrote:@ anu_d - never played WI either, only played Aus, Eng & NZ due to the politics of the time

thx for confirmation....maybe they were really great...but not having played one half of the cricketing world in foreign conditons leaves a question mark looming over their greatness.

yes there was politics then.....i remember having read about the very poltical Basil D'olivera affair

anu_d wrote:
thx for confirmation....maybe they were really great...but not having played one half of the cricketing world in foreign conditons leaves a question mark looming over their greatness.

From one who saw South Africa's 1969 -70 players, they ''were really great'' and merit a top 5 place. The lack of tests played is why they are only at number 4 in my (and George Dobell's) list.

Good discussion - of course you can argue either way with the S A side. Undoubtedly they were a side with massive potential - and especially with the likes of Richards, G Pollock, Procter and Barlow they had an aura about them - which I can still remember now. I think it very probable they would have gone on to dominate for some years.

Won't argue too much Guildford, was lucky enough myself to watch Pollock batting & the likes of vd Bijl & later le Roux bowling.

Must admit I reckon South Africa would have seriously challenged the WIndies for top spot during the 70s and 80s.
The likes of Barry Richards, the Pollock's, Barlow, Proctor, Lindsay, Le Roux, Van der Bijl, Rice, Jimmy Cook, Peter Kirsten, Anton Ferreira, Kepler Wessels and, possibly, Allan Lamb, Robin Smith and even Tony Greig plus a number of others, would have given the Saffers a depth of talent possibly even greater than that of the WIndies.

Some interesting names thrown up there Hoggy, can add to them McKenzie (sr), McKewan, Jennings, Jefferies &, oddly for SA, a legspinner in Hobson - the list of players is being stretched into the 80s though.

Some cracking names from Hoggy and Galted.

Van der Bijl sure was quick. Cook was a tremendous batsman who deserves far more recognition on these types of boards than he gets.

Yogi Ferreira never quite did it enough at Warks for me but I'm happy to trust Hoggy's judgment.

Interesting to think of all the ''what might have happened'' scenarios if the likes of Lamb, Smith and Greig had played for South Africa instead of England ....

Galted wrote:was lucky enough myself to watch Pollock batting

I only ever "saw" Pollock batting on the radio - the commentators used to drool over his classic style.....

@ Corporal - was reaching the end of his career when I was discovering cricket so saw about 5 years of him in provincial games & rebel tours - was great to watch & worshipped by the crowds even in his late 30s/early 40s. My hero at the time though was Jimmy Cook - being right-handed he was easier to imitate & had an imperious moustache in an era when every month was Movember.

Galted wrote: My hero at the time though was Jimmy Cook - being right-handed he was easier to imitate & had an imperious moustache in an era when every month was Movember.

Frightening thought Galted

That is a very interesting debate in itself, regarding the Saffers in their exile.

What a cracking contest against the Windies that side would have served up, and I daren't even begin to pick a winner.

Agree with general sentiment that England don't belong to that list there, although they may end up there eventually. No issues with SA on it.

WI should be on there twice, you can't really count 78-95 as one team can you?

I also disagree slightly with the order, but reserve this for tomorrow as am absolutely conked and don't feel like getting into a debate at this time...

Watching SA side of 1970s is defnitely a dream for those who romance with cricket.

Sad loss for the game owing to politics.

That said the force with which SA returned after more than two decades of isolation.....and almost instantly became a top side.......is a testimony to the strength they had in their system before they were cut off....and a system that sustained even those isolation years.

Some would say the SA system is so strong that they are feeding two top sides currently

Can I just throw something out there (as I threatened to do last night): clearly the Australian side of 99-2007 was the best of all time (lights blue torch paper and walks away, or maybe not). Let me explain:

- Statistically in terms of games won, they are far ahead of any other side.
- IMO they were a lot further ahead of their contempories than the Windies sides.
- They changed the way cricket is played (aggressive batting from the top, very aggressive field placings, Gillchrist at 7, fielding and athleticism)
- They dominated the one-day era comprehesively also (3 WCs in a row, 2 of which unbeaten, 1 of which they won every game comfortably)
- Shane Warne. IMO in a potential match-off, he would have proved to be the difference.

when you look at what SA have achieved since their re-admission it has been quite impressive really.

since 1990.

Their win/loss ratio in tests and ODI'sare second to only Australia, and we all have to admit Australia has been formidable in the modern era.

forget the fact that for some reason the Proteas choke when it comes to ICC tournaments, they have been constant for some time. If I rememeber correctly there was a dip in performance inthe early 2000's.

Both test and ODI win ratio's are above 1.8 wins per loss. they are clear second best in terms of consistency in both formats, just a shame they have no trophies in the shortened formats.

Mike Selig wrote:Can I just throw something out there (as I threatened to do last night): clearly the Australian side of 99-2007 was the best of all time (lights blue torch paper and walks away, or maybe not). Let me explain:

- Statistically in terms of games won, they are far ahead of any other side.
- IMO they were a lot further ahead of their contempories than the Windies sides.
- They changed the way cricket is played (aggressive batting from the top, very aggressive field placings, Gillchrist at 7, fielding and athleticism)
- They dominated the one-day era comprehesively also (3 WCs in a row, 2 of which unbeaten, 1 of which they won every game comfortably)
- Shane Warne. IMO in a potential match-off, he would have proved to be the difference.

Mike - the one word I totally disagree with in your post is ''clearly'' in the opening line. I suspect that doesn't surprise you as it helps the blue torch paper burn more freely.

Although I still would't buy it, I would allow you the words ''just possibly'' instead.

For me, it's still the Windies side always with four world class (or near world class) quicks, one of the greatest ever pairs of opening batsmen, the magnificent Richards, in Lloyd a highly skilled and unifying captain on and off the pitch and various talented and too often overlooked support acts (eg, Larry Gomes - the straightman to the batting entertainers who dug in when a surprise accident looked about to happen; eg, a keeper and host of slip fielders who rarely spilled a chance).

Keep trying though ....

Guildford - some very good points there. Also, if I recall correctly, the batsmen had much less protection, to some extent in terms of high class equipment available but even more so re any restrictions on short pitched bowling. So the 4 fast bowlers were absolutely relentless. Quite simply, there was no respite.

Thanks, Corporal.

Your comments ''absolutely relentless'' and ''no respite'' are spot on.

Guildford,

Sorry, been busy this week, only just saw your response. Am slightly disappointed not more people took the bait.

You are right of course in that "clearly" was meant purely to rile up those like your good self who hold opposite views.

The thing is, nearly all the attributes you've given to the West Indian side were also present in the Aus side.

Great opening pair: Langer and Hayden set up a great many wins for Aus.
Great fast bowlers: WI win this one, but Aus had McGrath, Gillespie (great when at his peak), Lee, Bichel.
Great captain: S. Waugh was a great ambassador of the pitch also (see work done in India), and introduced a new outlook on the field (bowl first as then you get 10 wickets out of the way was one of his mottos).
Often overlooked players: Martyn has a remarkable record yet is barely ever mentioned. Bichel and the aforementioned Gillespie were genuinely world class.

The point is, the WI side wins the fast bowling, but IMO nothing else. The Aus side isn't that far behind on fast bowling, but also has the 'X-factor' (sorry!) of Shane Warne.

Of course, the fact I grew up watching the Aus side no doubt colours my judgement. But a lot of the things we take for granted nowadays when we watch cricket is down to them.

This was a very balanced England team; wasn't it?

http://www.howstat.com.au/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard.asp?MatchCode=0376

This SA team has to be one of the greatest ever:

http://www.howstat.com.au/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard.asp?MatchCode=0672

Mike - you make a very good point:

''Of course, the fact I grew up watching the Aus side no doubt colours my judgement.''

Leff - certainly two very fine and well balanced sides as posted by you this morning. A tragedy - in cricketing terms - that those South African cricketers were denied further opportunities at test level.

guildfordbat wrote:Leff - certainly two very fine and well balanced sides as posted by you this morning. A tragedy - in cricketing terms - that those South African cricketers were denied further opportunities at test level.

i agree completely. That south africa side was full of class players, and shame politics got in the way.

Well, three out of five is OK, I guess. It's far too early to say that the England side, who have done really well against poor opposition over a short period, is a great team.
Similiarly, the South African side of 69/70 - wonderfully strong as it was - only had a short time together. Yes, I think they would have GONE ON to be a great side but we are judging the five greatest of all time and, frankly, they cannot be included.
So who could be included ? There's an argument for England of 1952-58. Some of the best bowling attacks of all time, with people like Trueman, Lock and Laker not even getting into some of the sides. Also great batsmen in the form of Hutton (for a while) Compton, May, Cowdrey and Graveney.
Another Windies team might make it, as well - the side of 1963-66 with a phalanx of great batsmen (Hunte, Kanhai, Nurse, Butcher), a battery of fast bowlers, Lance Gibbs and a three-in-one genius in Sobers.

On paper and by reputation (my parents were barely born then!) there is a very good case for the England side of 52-58 to be included in a top 5. I actually believe that this current England team will end up being better than that, and pobably force their way into the top 5 of all time, but it is surely far too early to tell.

I still think the West Indies one should be split up into two different sides...

West Indies went without losing a test series at home or on tour between March 1980 and March 1995 - that is 15 years of domination. There were quite good between '76 and '80 as well although they lost a series in India and one unusual loss to NZ before their 15-year reign began.

During the 15-year reign, their teams were led by Lloyd, Richards and Richardson, and one or two other briefly. Mostly Lloyd and Richards. Their main strength was the perennial flow of new fast bowling talent - Roberts, Holding, Garner, Bishop, Marshall, Croft, Walsh, and Ambrose. Whoever captained the side had an army of highly lethal fast bowlers. I am not sure if we can say the WI team of 80-95 was the best ever. Many players came in and left, but the character of the team remained the same. Spin bowling was never a necessary tool when you had such high quality quickies and there was a continuous supply of attacking batsmen.

sirfredperry wrote:
Another Windies team might make it, as well - the side of 1963-66 with a phalanx of great batsmen (Hunte, Kanhai, Nurse, Butcher), a battery of fast bowlers, Lance Gibbs and a three-in-one genius in Sobers.

Sir Fred - agree that was an enormously strong team - containing Hall and Griffiths as immensely hostile fast bowlers, Gibbs (one of the greatest ever spinners), Sobers (enough said), Kanhai and Butcher. I recall they did, however, struggle a bit with the opening partnership - Hunte was a constant - strong but rather inconsistent - and I have a feeling he had several different opening partners maybe Carew was one?...

I saw Willie Rodrigues open with Hunte at the famous Test at the Oval in 63 when we all came on to the pitch at the end and Kanhai hit four, six and OUT in a cavalier 70-odd. Yes, they did struggle with an opening partner for Hunte. Carew and Easton McMorris were both tried.
That series was really Fred Trueman's swansong for England although he played on for a couple of years. He took 34 wickets in the series. In all my years of watching Fred was the most charismatic England bowler I saw.
Agree about the Windies teams of the 80s to mid 90s all being rolled into one. To think England actually went 16 years without winning a SINGLE TEST against them. Windies also went undefeated in countless numbers of series.

No way should the Windies from 80 to 95 be considered as a single team, especially as the 1980 team really came together in the 5 years preceeding then. I'd say that the first incarnation (Greenidge, Haynes, Richards, Lloyd, Holding, Roberts, Garner and Croft / Marshall) was stronger (i.e more strength in depth) than the latter line-up with the likes of Richardson, Walsh, Ambrose, Bishop. The earlier team was clearly one of the two best in history (between them and the Aussies of the later 90s and 00s - a worthy debate above).

Definitely too early for the current England team to be listed as being in the top 5 - we might make it, but need to keep winning consistently for a few years to prove the greatness that we hope is there. At present though it is reasonable to say that this tean hasn't yet matched the England sides of the 50s or Illingworth's side of around 1970.

The inclusion of the South Africans of the immediate pre-boycott era is interesting, and is perhaps more a case of judging on talent and potential rather than results over a period. Based on both their limited Test records and how they subsequently performed in first class cricket, there was obvioulys abundant taklent in that side, and it was circumstances beyond their immediate control that limited their opportunities.

sirfredperry wrote:I saw Willie Rodrigues open with Hunte at the famous Test at the Oval in 63 when we all came on to the pitch at the end and Kanhai hit four, six and OUT in a cavalier 70-odd. Yes, they did struggle with an opening partner for Hunte. Carew and Easton McMorris were both tried.
That series was really Fred Trueman's swansong for England although he played on for a couple of years. He took 34 wickets in the series. In all my years of watching Fred was the most charismatic England bowler I saw.
Agree about the Windies teams of the 80s to mid 90s all being rolled into one. To think England actually went 16 years without winning a SINGLE TEST against them. Windies also went undefeated in countless numbers of series.

Sir Fred - wonderful names, wonderful memories, wonderful post!

You wouldn't have cine film of any of that series, would you?

If I have cherry pick the best WI team among those teams that managed not to lose a series, I say the one in the early eighties. There was a run of 35 test matches when they lost just one match, and that was the last test of the series after they had already won the series easily against Aus.

The most vivid, and rather painful memory for me was the first test match that I watched from the stands as a schoolboy, and that horrendous series:

http://www.howstat.com.au/cricket/Statistics/Series/SeriesStats.asp?SeriesCode=0258

That was total domination and they gave us 'their special brutal treatment'.

Hi Leff - tremendous West Indies time that you highlight in the link to the 1984 whitewash of England.

I've been banging on recently on this thread and others about Larry Gomes. Not a world great but still a very fine support act to call upon when necessary. His stats in this series back that up.

To me, a very slight weak link in their side from this series was the surprising inclusion of Eldine Baptiste in all five tests.

I had forgotten about Milton Small who played his second and last test match in this series at the age of just 20. Following injury problems and poor form, he gave up the game altogether only a few years later.

Larry Gomes had an outstanding record in Australia (avg 70) and England (avg 50), but less than 40 everywhere else including at home. Considering Australia was then the second best team (with Lillee and Thommo), that was an incredible record. He lacked the flair and strokes of Greenidge, Richards and Lloyd, but did well in high-pressure situations with sheer discipline. A career avg of just under 40 doesn't reflect how valuable his contributions were during times WI star batsmen lacked discipline. He played a good number of test matches, perhaps because Rowe's career ended rather abruptly.

To me, a very slight weak link in their side from this series was the surprising inclusion of Eldine Baptiste in all five tests.

---------------------------

Didn't Winston Davis play in one test? I'm sure it was him who broke Paul Terry's arm.
Courtney Walsh toured in 84 but was a tad young.

Leff wrote:Larry Gomes had an outstanding record in Australia (avg 70) and England (avg 50), but less than 40 everywhere else including at home. Considering Australia was then the second best team (with Lillee and Thommo), that was an incredible record. He lacked the flair and strokes of Greenidge, Richards and Lloyd, but did well in high-pressure situations with sheer discipline. A career avg of just under 40 doesn't reflect how valuable his contributions were during times WI star batsmen lacked discipline. He played a good number of test matches, perhaps because Rowe's career ended rather abruptly.

Leff - fascinating and highly appropriate summary of Gomes' career. Bizarre in some ways that his average was so much higher in England and Australia than elsewhere including at home. But, there again, perhaps not. Gomes delivered best when the pressure was on and that would most likely be in Australia and England. Not a truly great player but an immensely valuable player to a truly great team.

Very interesting stuff about Gomes. Where did Gomes bat for the West Indies? About 4/5? Perhaps the reason his average is so low against the "lesser" nations is quite simply that it didn't have to be high! With Greenidge, Haynes, Richardson and Richards cashing in, his turgid game would have looked quite "dull" and maybe he would feel compelled to try and play a bit more exuberantly, and score quicker with flashier strokes to try and match the other players and this wasn't his game but if he got out cheaply it didn't matter against those attacks? It is just a theory, I must admit I have never seen him play.

And then when it came to playing against Eng and Aus, with early wickets down, perhaps he was required more. That was his time to shine and he enjoyed, similarly to Trott now, just batting. Just stay out there for as long as possible. The more pressure the better, a man who relished the pressure that being 20-2 brought with it. Those players who thrive under that sort of situation are even rarer than the flashy strokemakers you see playing the game! Watching someone come in at 300-3 and score a pretty hundred is one thing, all very nice, but seeing someone come in at 40-3 on a semaing pitch against the pace of Lillee and Thomson and dig out a gritty 80, now that is Test cricket. That is an innings I would pay to see. A real battle between bat and ball.

Whatever the story behind the disparity in averages of Larry Gomes, one thing is for sure... An average of 70 against Lillee and Thomson is ridiculous! Truly sublime.

JD, Gomes mostly batted at #3 and #4.

Here were his impressive performances:

http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard.asp?MatchCode=0822

http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard.asp?MatchCode=0824

http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard.asp?MatchCode=0919

http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard.asp?MatchCode=0920

http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard.asp?MatchCode=0997

http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard.asp?MatchCode=0999

http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard.asp?MatchCode=0990

http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard.asp?MatchCode=0991

http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard.asp?MatchCode=0950

In the most bottom scorecard, you can see a remarkable performance by a gutsy player called Amarnath. He was the kind of player for whom stats never did justice. Look at the bowlers he faced and how he played so differently from his teammates that included Gavaskar.

I like these kind of players. They don't play to compile like Tendulkar does or Bradman did. They get their kicks from high pressure situations.

For me, just like it is for the two of you, it's nice to say a few words about them to recognise their achievements that stats are not revealing.