Selecting crickets greatest ever nation.

Watching this World t20 final, I came to the realisation that were the Windies to win this, they would be the World t20 Champions (obviously), taking into account the 1980-1995 unbeaten streak in test cricket, as well as the 1975 & '79 World cup victories, and to a lesser extent the 2004 champions trophy, would this be enough to regard the Windies as having taken over Australia for the title of the greatest cricketing nation? how would you rank the greatest nations? My opinion 1) WINDIES 2) Australia. 3) India I know India have won a t20, while Aus haven't but thats not enough to overtake years of dominance.

Cricket's greatest nation? England. England invented the game and no one can top that.

Lol... Guess England's also the greatest Rugby nation... & the greatest football nation.

Australia have won 4 world cups including 2 without losing a match. They also have the longest winning streak in tests (twice). Objectively you'd be hard pushed to argue that West Indies winning a T20 tournament (which is the worst global tournament I've ever seen in terms of standards), 2 world cups, and a lesser winning streak would put them above Australia.

It's tough because India were (relatively) poor until (relatively) recently, and in tests they've never dominated in the way which the Australians and West Indians did. England dominated for decent stretches but mostly only when a few teams played; their greatest ever sides also never had the chance to dominate all formats, because other formats weren't played at the time. South Africa have been very good since rejoining, without dominating anything, and were very good for a very short period of time in the late 60s (what if...?).

India have won 2 World Cups & a World T20. They definitely have number 3 on lock. One aspect you not looking at is West Indies being unbeaten in Test Series for 15 whole years. considering that Australia even at their greatest never reached. T20 is obviously the smallest brother of cricket. But it is still a very important part of cricket.

Just realised my last post was a ramble, sorry. Was watching something & I lost focus. Regardless, I think you get what I'm saying.

kingraf wrote:Lol... Guess England's also the greatest Rugby nation... & the greatest football nation.

Indeed. WI are probably the best ever nation to play cricket but that wouldn't be possible if England didn't invent the game in the first place.

The West Indies unbeaten record is great, but is it any better than Australia not losing a world cup match for 12 years, or winning 16 tests consecutively twice. The West Indies didn't dominate all formats of the game as comprehensively as the Australians IMO, but their domination lasted longer. Australia's real dominance was 99-2007, but during that period they essentially won everything.

As I say, England could well have won more world cups had the format been invented earlier - it's hard to see how their line-up during the 50s wouldn't have won one say. India were a (relatively) poor team until Ganguly took over, with the 83 WC a notable exception.

England have also dominated the women's game - India have as yet failed to make any significant mark on that.

get your point. But I still think the two World Cups>England for third place... In fact I'd go so far as to say Pakistan are closer to England for 4th place then, England are to India for 3rd. Especially considering England have hosted what, 4 of the CWC tournaments? 0 WC wins. They have not even looked like dominating the interim years, you know like New Zealand did with the rugby to give them a case. Its my opinion.

But we are talking about cricket as a whole. World Cups form but a very small part of cricketing history. England have I think reached more finals than India (3-2) so you are effectively basing India's case on winning 2 matches. Given the whole of cricketing history that seems rather selective to me.

I would have
1 Australia
2 West Indies
3 England

Those 3 countries for me are clearly the ones with the most historical pedigree. Of course some of this is down to the fact that for a long time England and Australia simply wouldn't accept any other countries (it is well know for example that Argentina tried to break into test cricket after roundly defeating an MCC touring side, and were refused, primarily because they were so much better than England at the time).

Then probably India because of their world cup wins, and then it is much of a muchness between Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, etc.

Mike Selig wrote:But we are talking about cricket as a whole. World Cups form but a very small part of cricketing history. England have I think reached more finals than India (3-2) so you are effectively basing India's case on winning 2 matches. Given the whole of cricketing history that seems rather selective to me.

I would have
1 Australia
2 West Indies
3 England

Those 3 countries for me are clearly the ones with the most historical pedigree. Of course some of this is down to the fact that for a long time England and Australia simply wouldn't accept any other countries (it is well know for example that Argentina tried to break into test cricket after roundly defeating an MCC touring side, and were refused, primarily because they were so much better than England at the time).

Then probably India because of their world cup wins, and then it is much of a muchness between Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, etc.

+1

With the correction that India of course reached the final in 2003 also, so that on finals it is 3-3.

The Aussies and West Indies stand out in the modern era. England's standing should not be forgotten, however.

Australia
West Indies
England


The rest

If you look at results in all 3 formats post WWII (allowing for Pakistan's inclusion in 1952) it looks like this:

Team:
Tests - Won - Lost - Tie - Draw - W/L
ODI
T20

Australia:
566 - 267 - 137 - 2 - 160 - 1.94
801 - 493 - 273 - 9 - 0 - 1.80
58 - 30 - 25 - 2 - 0 - 1.20

England:
675 - 225 - 192 - 0 - 255 - 1.18
587 - 286 - 274 - 7 - 0 - 1.04
53 - 27 - 23 - 0 - 0 - 1.17

West Indies:
464 - 152 - 150 - 1 - 161 - 1.01
677 - 351 - 296 - 6 - 0 - 1.18
45 - 19 - 22 - 3 - 0 - 0.86

South Africa:
279 - 116 - 79 - 0 - 84 - 1.46
475 - 296 - 161 - 5 - 0 - 1.83
52 - 32 - 19 - 0 - 0 - 1.68

Pakistan:
370 - 115 - 101 - 0 - 154 - 1.13
777 - 417 - 337 - 6 - 0 - 1.23
64 - 38 - 24 - 2 - 0 - 1.58

India:
454 - 114 - 141 - 1 - 198 - 0.80
809 - 401 - 367 - 6 - 0 - 1.09
41 - 22 - 17 - 1 - 0 - 1.29

An interesting but flawed observation.

From that we can quite clearly see that Australia have been the number one nation, and, given that that doesn't include the era of Bradman's Invincibles, their case for that is probably indisputable.

The West Indies stats are interesting. They show that they are only average in Tests (indicating the contrast between the era from approx. 1970-1995 and the eras either side of that), and only in the chasing pack in ODIs. But that of course fails to consider just how dominant they were in that successful period, and the impact which that team had on the game.

The stats show SA in a strong light, pipping Australia in ODIs and quite comfortably second in Tests. But again that fails to consider that they have never had a dominant team for a prolonged period or won a World Cup, and may be affected by their isolation preventing them from either having a dominant period or, like England, finding themselves on the end of some battering.

England are just average. Nothing more and nothing less.

India is perhaps the most underwhelming. The image is of a team that was good at home from the 70s onwards and amongst the strongest full stop in the last 20 years. That isn't borne out in those stats though, in either format (the impression that they are a much better ODI side historically than England, for examople, is also not evidenced). However, those stats forget that they've won 2 World Cups to the 1 of Pakistan and the 0 of the others.

Working on the assumption that NZ would come in at the bottom of the pile of the top 8 teams (sorry kiwi, but they would), we need to consider Sri Lanka. They have a World Cup, and have had a pretty good side albeit over a shorter period.

My conclusion would be:

1. Australia
2. South Africa
3. West Indies
4. England
5. India
6. Pakistan
7. Sri Lanka
8. New Zealand

But certainly subject to debate

Just trying to level the playing field a bit Shelsey.

Yes, it's flawed but if you go 'Overall' - Australia's record gets better along with England's.

Strong case for SA in 2nd spot. No disrespect to WI but I've always felt SA were right up there in the modern era (all formats) in particular and those biased stats of mine seem to support that.

The Invincibles of 1948 sneak in there - I used Mar 15 1947 as the starting point. So we're looking at the last 65 years.

Maybe should do an analysis starting in 1928 to include WI and NZ (you're right... unflattering) and also India (1932?) but that would also make them look worse.

Starting from June 23, 1928 (WI inclusion in Tests)

Australia:
616 - 294 - 151 - 2 - 169 - 0 - 1.94
801 - 493 - 273 - 9 - 0 - 26 - 1.80
58 - 30 - 25 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 1.20

England:
768 - 261 - 210 - 0 - 297 - 0 - 1.24
587 - 286 - 274 - 7 - 0 - 20 - 1.04
53 - 27 - 23 - 0 - 0 - 3 - 1.17

West Indies:
486 - 156 - 161 - 1 - 167 - 0 - 0.96
677 - 351 - 296 - 6 - 0 - 24 - 1.18
45 - 19 - 22 - 3 - 0 - 1 - 0.86

South Africa:
311 - 120 - 91 - 0 - 100 - 0 - 1.31
475 - 296 - 161 - 5 - 0 - 13 - 1.83
52 - 32 - 19 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 1.68

Pakistan:
370 - 115 - 101 - 0 - 154 - 0 - 1.13
777 - 417 - 337 - 6 - 0 - 17 - 1.23
64 - 38 - 24 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 1.58

India:
464 - 114 - 147 - 1 - 202 - 0 - 0.77
809 - 401 - 367 - 6 - 0 - 35 - 1.09
41 - 22 - 17 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 1.29

Sri Lanka:
215 - 64 - 76 - 0 - 75 - 0 - 0.84
672 - 313 - 328 - 4 - 0 - 27 - 0.95
48 - 28 - 19 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1.47

New Zealand:
375 - 71 - 153 - 0 - 151 - 0 - 0.46
625 - 269 - 319 - 5 - 0 - 32 - 0.84
58 - 26 - 27 - 5 - 0 - 0 - 0.96

So England a little better. Australia has exactly the same Test W/L of 1.94 including the Bradman era. Interesting.

WI, SA, India slightly worse off in the last 82 years.

Second last figure before Win/Loss ratio - "no result" is included in the above.

Linebreaker - interesting analysis.

I'm happy to regard it as sufficiently thorough where it appears to confirm some of my prejudices but too flawed where it doesn't.

As Mike touched on above, I've always regarded India as a very poor side until comparatively recent years. This is borne out by your research.

However, as Shelsey points out, your work fails to take account of the level of dominance - don't ask me for a mathematical formula (that's Mike's bag ) but I would suggest that thrashing Test opposition by an innings should count for more than scraping home by a couple of wickets. The West Indies of the 1970s and '80s, in particular, are done no favours here.

As far more international cricket is played now than in previous years, your stats are by their nature weighted in favour of those nations who are on top of their game at the current time. The Australian Invincibles won most of their games but they didn't have that many games to play and so their influence on the stats is lessened.

Following up another point made by Shelsey, by just concentrating upon results you fail to take fully into account impact on the game which to me is also a relevant factor in determining the greatest nation. I'm particularly thinking here of the West Indies four man pace attack and Shane Warne.

It should also be noted that in the early years of ODIs some nations (sorry, but I'm particularly thinking of India again) were so disinterested and poor at that side of the game that they chose not to play it. Understandably your stats don't cater for this.

On a more general point, I think choosing the greatest nation from many, many years ago (whatever starting point is chosen) to now (which is constantly evolving) is just too long a period to make a meaningful assessment. I would be more inclined to judge by decade or even quarter centuries.

Anyway, thanks for providing the meat to chew.

Guildford,

It was just a few minutes worth of plugging dates into 'statsguru' - but thanks for calling it analysis.

The dominance of the victories is a very valid point. The only possible way to get a more accurate picture would be for somebody to sit down and try and attribute weightings to the wins. That would be a fun task but I'm sure there would still be differences of opinion in any particular methodology chosen.

There is some retrospective Test rankings analysis (from 1887 - 2003) and from memory it put Australia with around 56 years of being on top, England about 47 years? then next best was WI in the low-mid teens from memory. Then SA with around 8 and then the rest. There's your 130+ years.

In my mind (as in Mike's and yours most likely) it's pretty clear cut who has been the dominant cricketing nation across all formats.

I feel exactly the same about India from the 80's - w.r.t. ODIs. They had the odd 'shock' win against Australia but besides that we always seemed to just sneak our wins against a steadily improving side even with some interesting (to say the least) player selections/experimentation. I often see replays of those games (recently in between 2012 T20 matches for instance) and there were some very close calls - as well as the odd loss.

Looking back in time (say from 1975-1995) I always had the feeling the Australia were so far behind WI it wasn't funny, a little in front of England - neck and neck on most occasions, had a fair bit of trouble with Pakistan during the Imran years and were probably lucky to have more positive results vs. NZ during the Hadlee era. We were either hopeless, just lucky enough... or a bit of both it seemed.

The FW Trophy win in '94 was a big turning point for us. After the batterings we had been receiving for nigh on 20 years it was only after that series win that it seemed our players had overcome the psychological boogie. Interesting that the loss to them the other day brought back similar memories - their top order made runs but instead of a 4-prong 'execution' it was done in 2012 style with Narine, Rampaul, Badree, etc. From my personal point of view - it seemed scarily familiar in a way.

Anyway, overall across all formats (more weight given to Tests) I'd go

1. Australia
2. England*
3. West Indies
4. South Africa
5. Pakistan
6. India
7. Sri Lanka
8. New Zealand

* food for thought. Maybe WI 2nd - just based on my nightmares...

Linebreaker - the one nation I'm most unsure about is South Africa.

I have a massive soft spot for them as I believed at the time and will always continue to do so that they were on the cusp of greatness when excluded from the Test arena in 1970 for so many years. Giants and near giants of the game (Richards, Barlow, the Pollock brothers, Lindsay, Procter, etc) denied a proper platform. Anyway, we all know that.

However, I freely confess that I know little about South African cricket pre their '69-'70 series against Australia. That really is a weakness in my knowledge of the world game and its history.

I would probably put them around 4th as you have done - although, in my case, that would be more a cop out than a true assessment.

I sort of feel the same, Guildford.

Like their rugby team, one could argue they are possibly 2nd even - but a spot of bad luck here and there and all the years in the wilderness really interrupted their flow.