Periods of dominance.

Since Sri Lanka played their first Test in 1980 there has been 8 or more teams competing in test series. I have decided to have a look at the most successful teams during this period since and compared their results over periods where they had successful runs.

I took a run with no more than 2 series losses to see what was the longest runs where teams were successful. I also used 5 years as the minimum period and considered 15 test series as the minimum criteria.

Below the results, the first table is all about the series and test results, and the second table provides you with the period of dominance/success of each of these teams.

I am sure each of us will have different criteria for how we measure the best runs, for shear length of time, West Indies from 1980 - 1997 deserves special mention even though they didn't win 50% of their tests.

For me, Australia from 1999 to 2008 has no equal, even though it didn't last as long as the run of the West Indies.

TEST SERIES RESULTS:

PERIOD OF SUCCESS:

What is also very interesting is that apart from the early 80's no team (if you ignore Australia's incredible run from 1999-2008) really stood alone in their period of success, there was always someone looking over their shoulder.

What is really telling here, is that for the past 5 years there has been three teams, England, India and South Africa that had strong competition for the top rank.

Both Australia and South Africa has a BLIP year which interrupted a period of success that could have spanned much longer, in 1998 Australia lost a few series and South Africa had the same problematic period in 2004/5.

Which SA team do you rank better?

For sheer series wins, I think the 1998-2003 team was more devastating.

Pull it apart at your leasure.

Is your "Series results column correct, Biltong? The column says S.A. has lost only two since 2005, but we've lost
Australia (H & A) 2005/06
Sri Lanka (A) 2006
and Australia (H) 2009

Also lost the 2004/05 England series iirc? Or is this just away series'?

Yeah, mistake, but the problem is to fix the thing, I have to save the images again, it is actually from 2006.

Edit, fixed,

Billtong....A appreciablle effort to compile this and the criteria is a fairly good one
althouhg like all such excercises...can be debated a bit.
 
here are my comments viewing this excercise:
 
1) you are confirming statistically what we have known intuitively and subjectively.......that Llyod/ Richards Windies and Taylor/Waugh's Australia were really standout teams of their era...heads and shoulder's above the rest in that age.
 
2) Between the two I would pick the Windies as the stronger side.....purely observation / perception based subjective pick.
My rationale...quality of their bowling was fearsome......they not only won.....but steam-rolled their opponents often times invoking fear because of their revered and feared pace battery.
and they did not show the fraility to spin that waugh's Aussies did.
 
3) Between the 2 brief eras's of South African dominace i would pick the first one as the superior one......inspite of them being ranked clearer No.1 for longer in the 2nd era.
 
Rationale...coming from years of cold and isolation the earlier team had so much hunger and desire to win...like a man starved...and to showcase themselves as a force to the world.
 
the batting of that team was pretty medicore but bowling really strong...second as a threatening force only to the Windies of past.....and that coupled with their hunger / desire to dominate saw them surge to the top almost immediately.
 
In contrast Smith's team is a more normal team unlike Cronje's hunger / desire /passion led ruthless outfit.
 
4) Both South African teams though like the Windies team were led to supremacy by their fearsome pace bowlers.
 
4) The rise of Eng and India is a Neo-cricketing phenomenon.....driven more by use of their conditions and simultaneous purple patch of 4 or 5 of their players.
Rankings notwithsatnding neither teams has a dominating aura or depth in their cricket systems like the WI, Aus or even to a large extent SA have demonstrated.
and have understandbly shown a tendency to decline and collapse quicker based on form and alien conditions.

I must say, I agree with you Biltong. The Australian run has no equal, at all. But how much of that is due to the fact that, as South Africans, the mental scars instilled on us by that Windies period is minimal, at least in Test cricket? In contrast, waking up to find Australia giving us a beating formerly reserved for red-headed step children would stick in our minds, you know what I mean?

My sole issue with the Australia team is their ability to lose matches in spectacular fashion. Brian Lara's Herculean feat at Bridgetown. India's come from behind follow on victory in 2001. Windies chasing down 418. The 2 run Ashes test. Just seems to me they were great at getting teams down and staying on top, but maybe weren't too great at quelling rebellion.

Hi Biltong,

A very interesting and thorough statistical analysis.

I think most of us would remember West Indies' dominance as ending in 95, which would no doubt give them more impressive statistics.

Australia's real dominance started in 98-99 under Waugh if you ask me, when they moved their cricket to a new level, and then even further under Ponting (until their greats retired).

What is remarkable is the sheer volume of test match victories during that entire period, and this IMO places them in front of the great West Indian side. You may argue that this was a product of the time, but IMO that is misleading: it was Waugh's Australians who made attacking test cricket fashionable again, with fast run-rates, attacking fields to the point of ridiculousness (recall the 2002-03 ashes and starting to Trescothick with 5 slips and a short leg, and no mid-on), bowling first on flat pitches to give themselves the best chance of winnings, etc.

I am not convinced by KPF's argument that they were frail against spin either. They lost one exceptional series in India, where an astonishing partnership by Laxman and Dravid denied them what looked like a certain victory, and of course Harbajhan bowled exceptionally, but apart from that they won series in Sri Lanka and the UAE (both whitewashes) and eventually India. Let's not forget the West Indies would have lost a series in Pakistan had it not been for them disgracefully slowing down their over-rate in a time when a minimum number of overs wasn't required.

The sheer length of the West Indies dominance is awesome, but in terms of pure dominance (number of wins) Waugh and Ponting's sides are IMO unrivaled.

I am not that convinced by kingraf's argument either. You could quote an equal number of matches which they turned around in all probability. Just off the top of my head, chasing down 370 against Pakistan, the famous Adelaide turn-around after England scored 500, the Lords test after being rolled over for 190, a win in Sri Lanka after being bundled out for 100odd in their first innings, Adelaide (again) after England had gotten to 295-3 on the first day, a 300+ run chase in South Africa... I think the amount of exceptional games they were involved in is testament to the fact they always played to win which made for more exciting cricket, but also at times made them more vulnerable. For example the "Dravid-Laxman" test they should have saved, having reached tea just 2 wickets down, but one thing which was alien to them was playing for a draw (a similar occurrence happened in Sydney in 2003 when they were set 450 to win in just over a day, and went for the target).

Regarding South Africa I rate this current side as their best and most rounded since the late 60s; the side of the late 90s/early 00s had arguably a stronger seam bowling attack, but spin was every bit as much of an issue (possibly more) whilst their batting was undoubtedly weaker - apart from Kallis (who has since become an even better batsman anyway) not one player in that side would rank along Kallis, Amla, AB, even Smith (Kirsten and Cullinan would be the closest). Steyn of course is quite possibly their best bowler of all time (or would be thus viewed if he retired tomorrow), and we shall see how Philander finishes up.

Certainly South Africa are the dominant side around today. As KPF has rightly mentioned England and India had brief periods, but they have been just that. However SA have a long way to go to reach the levels of dominance that Aus and WI achieved. If you ask me it is doubtful they will get there.

Nice work Biltong  

For me the Windies dominance began to recede around 91-92 time, although they were still damn good. In fact England beat them in 91, which kinda proves my point.

kingraf wrote:My sole issue with the Australia team is their ability to lose matches in spectacular fashion.  Brian Lara's Herculean feat at Bridgetown. India's come from behind follow on victory in 2001.  Windies chasing down 418. The 2 run Ashes test. Just seems to me they were great at getting teams down and staying on top, but maybe weren't too great at quelling rebellion.

Of course, you could put this the other way, and say that this also states that it took something truly spectacular to beat that Australian side.

Anyway, excellent stats produced by Biltong. A few points I'd make, in no particular order.

- the WI higher draw rate is a product of the times: slower scoring rates, slower over rates (to which the WI contributed notably, of course) and generally less positive cricket. The Aussie team really challenged the thinking of Test cricket at the time, frequently bowling first on flat pitches, for instance, on the basis that you need 20 wickets to win a Test match, so you may as well start now.

- While I take KP-fan's point, I'm going to disagree. For me the Australians were a better team, more rounded, better balance. I'm not sure the WI team would have been as successful in the modern era with the generally flatter pitches, heavier bats, and increased protection. Some of the fear factor would have gone. Also, they would have had to get through their overs a bit quicker, which would probably have hindered them somewhat.

- The point of SA vs Eng vs India today is well made. India are a little behind the other two, but I was surprised at how similar the stats were for England and SA. SA are the better team for me, and I would have expected that to show up more in the statistics.

- I was intrigued by SA's performance in 98-03. Because Aus were so dominant at the time, I guess people forget the second best team, but SA have a very fine record there.

As to Bilt's question, the current team is better for me. The 98-03 had some tremendous players, but only really Donald and maybe Pollock will go down as greats (and Kallis, but he's accross both eras). Whereas from this bunch, Steyn, Amla, Smith, possibly De Villiers and even Philander (way too early to tell of course with him) will make the cut for me.

I see that Mike's nipped in while I was typing to post a lot of what I was saying...

I know this about Tests, but if you add in Australia's 3 World Cups in a row alongside their Test performances then it isn't even an argument for me that Aus 1999 - 2007 is the greatest period of dominance ever.

Would love to have seen our current S.A team vs Australia circa 2000ish. They would obviously have been favorites but if Steyn add Philander are up for it, we could do damage.

On paper the 2001 Aussie side were the best I've seen tour here, and in general they were a better all round side than the Windies, mainly thanks to Warne.

In the 80's, Pakistan were the only team who made the Windies work for their wins, thanks partly to rebel tours. Would have been nice to see a 1980's Saffa side play the windies.

VTR wrote:I know this about Tests, but if you add in Australia's 3 World Cups in a row alongside their Test performances then it isn't even an argument for me that Aus 1999 - 2007 is the greatest period of dominance ever.

If we add world cup wins and champions trophies then the equation does change....but that i believe should be a separate discussion....greatest and most dominating ODI teams

Re: Frailities against spin.....the Aussies lost or drew...the important point is significantly underperfomed compared to their overall dominating show..... ievery one of their series in lanka and India in their peak  period
 
--Lanka drew 2 out of 3 games vs. in 1993 in Lanka

--and the 1999 series lanka won 1 and drew 2.....that was a major feat in the Waugh era...to win a 3 test series 1-o by Lanka in Lanka.

--1997 Aus was walloped in India 2-1

--one off test somewehre in 1999 in Delhi that Aus lost by an innings margin.

--and the famous 2001 Kolkata reversal resulting in a 2-1 series loss

Cheers guys.

I do agree for me Australia and their dominance albeit not for as long a period as West Indies are and most likely will be unrivalled, the sheer percentage of test (76%) they won is phenominal.

I Agree that our bowling attack from 1998-2003 was likely stronger and our batting weaker than our current team, however I think considering that there are more teams being competitive for the last 5 years, the current team is more balanced and shades it for me.

South Africa in 1998-2003 was a very good team, but Australia was just a class above everyone else, in fact our two test series losses during that time was both against Australia. We simply couldn't hold a candle to them.

I must say I was surprised when I did the statistics to see how well Pakistan did from 1985 - 1995, I never would have thought that.

I also accept MFC's reasoning of the number of draws by West Indies during a time when run rates were slower.

We (England) beat you in 1998, Biltong.

Stella wrote:We (England) beat you in 1998, Biltong.

Yep, you did, in June, I took the run from after that series, the stats here run from November 1998 - July 2003.  

The 98 series was a blip anyway - for both teams!

Biltong wrote:

Stella wrote:We (England) beat you in 1998, Biltong.

Yep, you did, in June, I took the run from after that series, the stats here run from November 1998 - July 2003.  

Aaah, manipulated stats  

Must admit, I was surprised we did win. The 2003 team were good. Ntini bowled as well as anyone I've seen live, and Smith had a blinder.

Stella wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Stella wrote:We (England) beat you in 1998, Biltong.

Yep, you did, in June, I took the run from after that series, the stats here run from November 1998 - July 2003.  

Aaah, manipulated stats  

Must admit, I was surprised we did win. The 2003 team were good. Ntini bowled as well as anyone I've seen live, and Smith had a blinder.

 

I manipulated everyones stats to get the longest run with only two series defeats.

Off that 1998 series, Donald bowling to Atherton was the best bit of bowling I have ever witnessed.

Did we really have a better bowling team from 98-2003, though? Donald was of course still there, but he was no Steyn, in that period at the very least (probably equal to or superior earlier on). Did a statistical comparison.
Donald 1998-2003
Matches 36
Wickets 159
Average 21.15

I must be honest, those are mid-bendingly good statistics, better than I thought they would be, for sure.

Steyn 2006-2013
Matches 64
Wickets 332 (!)
average 21.95

Winner : Steyn, surely?

Shaun Pollock
matches: 64
wickets: 274
average: 20.22

It's difficult to create a 2006-2013 rival for Pollock, as there have been a few new ball partners for Steyn, including Pollock himself...
But nonetheless

Pollock (2003- retirement)
Matches: 12
wickets: 37
average: 30.62

Ntini (1998-2003
matches - 40
wickets - 144
average - 28.88

Ntini (2006- retirement)
matches - 40
wickets - 160
average - 28.25


Morkel (2006-2013)
matches 51
wickets 177
average 30.23

Philander (2011-)
matches 18
wickets 95
average 17.50

Now for the spinner options

Paul Adams (1998 - 2003)
matches 32
wickets 95
average 31.81

Nicky boje (1998 - 2003)
Matches 21
Wickets 53
Average: 30.94

Paul Harris (2006 - retirement)
matches 37
wickets 103
average 37.87


Looking at it, it's incredibly difficult to pick a superior bowling era. Adams average hides the fact once he got figured out, it got ugly.

I still think the 98-03 attack shades it. Donald and Pollock slightly below Steyn (slightly better averages, but less "impact", i.e. SR or wickets/match), but it's incredibly fine margins. They are, however, on a different level to all of Steyn's new-ball partners, excluding for the moment Philander (back to that in a minute). Then they're backed up by the ever-reliable Ntini, who's as good as anyone who has partnered Steyn in the current team really.

To summarise, the 98-03 attack had two great bowlers, and one very good bowler. The current team has generally had one great (exceptional) bowler, and two very good ones.

Spin-wise, it's much of a muchness really, neither had a particularly good spinner, but have had the odd guy who could do a job.

Also, the 98-03 version of Kallis was a far more threatening bowler than the current one (though maybe not than Kallis in say 06-08 or so).

Of course, Philander if he carries on at his current rate, could well end up being to Steyn a bit like Pollock was to Donald, in which case the bowling attacks would be of a very similar level.

Mike pointed out that the current batting line-up is far better, which I would agree with. Cullinan and Kirsten were fine players in their own right, but not on the same level as Smith, ABDV or Amla. Kallis 06-13 is a better batsman than the 98-03 version too.

I think we had more options then, if Philander played more than 50% of the tests in this era I would say the bowling is on par with 1998-2003, but he has only been around for a short period.

Kallis was a better bowler back then as well.

The thing is, while the case study period is from 2006, the fact is its only been post 2010 where we have consistently been the best team in the world. I mean how do you argue against a team which has bowled three teams out for less than 50 (none of them being Bangladesh/Zimbabwe)?

Well it supports the fact that for the past 2 years we have been dominant, but our streak started to take shape at the end of 2006.

I think if you take 06-13 then yes the 98-03 attack shades it (and Stella is quite right to point out that Kallis back then was a very fine bowler, capable of hitting 90 mph, sharp bouncer, and swung it at times both ways).

If you take the last couple of years then it is much closer, because both sides have 2 world class bowlers and more than capable support act (I would rate Morkel sof the last couple of years slightly higher than Ntini was when he started his career, but not sure what the stats say there). The current side then has the advantage of having a true all-time great in their side, whereas the 90s/00s side had a more dangerous 4th seamer in Kallis.

Both sides have relatively poor spin options; I agree entirely with kingraf when he says Adams wasn't really as good a bowler as his figures suggest.

As to Australia's troubles against spin, all those series apart from the amazing one in India happened during the Taylor/Waugh transition, rather than their real period of dominance which I would say started with their summer wash against India and Pakistan in I think 99/00. After that, the only two series they lost (pretty much the only two series they looked in trouble in) were in India, and the 05 ashes. Both extraordinary series it has to be said.