Historical ICC Test Ranking Table- Teams That Would Have Been #1 Had ICC Ranking Existed Back Then

[PokerAce]

As most of us know (or perhaps don't), that the ICC Rankings Came into existence in June 2003 (as that is the last period from which ICC Rankings Start). ICC Rankings are a continuously running Championship. The International Cricket Council awards a trophy, the ICC Test Championship mace, to the team holding the highest rating. The mace is transferred whenever a new team moves to the top of the rating list.

So far the following teams have held the #1 Test Championship -

However there have been great teams before Jun 2003 too. So had the ICC Rankings existed, back then, which all sides would have held the ICC Test Ranking Top Spot and thereby the Test Championship and for how long.

This table I found looks back Jan 1952, and worked out a Table of all the past would be champions Test Cricket missed out on, simply because the ICC Rankings didn't exist. Had the Test Rankings existed back then, the following teams would have been #1, and it also mentions how long their reign at the top would have lasted -

I can ofcourse not say how accurate this table is or the guys calculations. However if we assume this to be true, it does present quite a picture.

If this is correct, in total to the present day, the following teams would have held the Test Championship for the following no. of months -

Australia - 321 months
West Indies - 235 months
England - 106 months
India - 45 months
South Africa - 42 months
Pakistan - 2 months

 

[T.J.Hooker]

Holding, Garner, Marshall, Roberts, with effectively no limit on bouncers. Big boundaries, thin 80s bats with smaller sweet spots. Then when it's your turn to bowl, you get bashed all over the place by Greenidge, Richards and Lloyd.

And that's not even mentioning a stack of brilliant players WI had available for selection in that era. Richardson, Haynes, Croft, Daniel, Walsh, Ambrose. Gus Logie catching pigeons at short leg. Dujon diving about behind the stumps.

Anyone fancy a game against that side?

No, me neither.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

*threads guaranteed to infuriate @War *

some surprising things I guess, interesting that during the 80s to early 90s, a period that's usually thought to be dominated completely by the west indies that pakistan briefly level pegged them for a bit. I guess that would have a lot to do with imran still a big threat and being partnered by a rapidly improving akram.

 

[Satan666]

*threads guaranteed to infuriate @War *

some surprising things I guess, interesting that during the 80s to early 90s, a period that's usually thought to be dominated completely by the west indies that pakistan briefly level pegged them for a bit. I guess that would have a lot to do with imran still a big threat and being partnered by a rapidly improving akram.

Read an article a couple ago and the meat of it was Pakistan offered the most resistance to the WI when they toured there, couldn't agree more Imran/Akram may have been responsible.

Sad and disgusting to see what WI has become now.....

 

[cricket_icon]

As most of us know (or perhaps don't), that the ICC Rankings Came into existence in June 2003 (as that is the last period from which ICC Rankings Start). ICC Rankings are a continuously running Championship. The International Cricket Council awards a trophy, the ICC Test Championship mace, to the team holding the highest rating. The mace is transferred whenever a new team moves to the top of the rating list.

So far the following teams have held the #1 Test Championship -

However there have been great teams before Jun 2003 too. So had the ICC Rankings existed, back then, which all sides would have held the ICC Test Ranking Top Spot and thereby the Test Championship and for how long.

This table I found looks back Jan 1952, and worked out a Table of all the past would be champions Test Cricket missed out on, simply because the ICC Rankings didn't exist. Had the Test Rankings existed back then, the following teams would have been #1, and it also mentions how long their reign at the top would have lasted -

I can ofcourse not say how accurate this table is or the guys calculations. However if we assume this to be true, it does present quite a picture.

If this is correct, in total to the present day, the following teams would have held the Test Championship for the following no. of months -

Australia - 321 months
West Indies - 235 months
England - 106 months
India - 45 months
South Africa - 42 months
Pakistan - 2 months

If this uses the same formula as ICC rankings then I call bullshit because that system is seriously flawed but it does show a trend. There's no doubt the two big cricketing powers for much of the 20th century were England and Australia. There's a gradual change to the Windies, with stop overs for Pakistan and India and then the resurgence of Australia and the rise of South Africa. It's weird that India have so many months as I can't imagine an Indian team pre-90s being a bigger threat or better than Australia, England, west Indies or Pakistan. Again, part of that feeds into the whole bullshit ICC formula.

There's also issues with the minimal test matches played per year, as there were likely two series a year for much of the 50s and 60s (someone may have to check that out lol), would that be comparable to teams like England and Australia playing 3 or more test series' a year, with some sort of limited overs tournament, ODI cricket and t20 cricket, thus condensing the recovery period for the top test players. Which may in turn dampen their performances?

But I digress, the general trend of Australia/England to West Indies and back to Australia/England and new boys SA is true to crickets power structure.

 

[PokerAce]

If this uses the same formula as ICC rankings then I call bullshit because that system is seriously flawed but it does show a trend.

Why do you call the system flawed.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

If I recall correctly, a looooong time ago, when I was doing cricket 07 mods, instead of doing modern kits and rosters I did some classic old fashioned kits and rosters, I seem to recall choosing india from around 1981 due to the batting lineup including Gavaskar, Viswanath, Vengsarkar and Kapil Dev at 6. that's probably not quite up there with the Tendulkar, Dravid, Laxman, Sehwag/Ganguly line ups, but it's close.

I think the interesting thing about india's 2 periods prior to 1990 is that the first, in 1974 would have been built on the back of their spin riches at the time, chandrasekhar, bedi, prasanna, venkat while by 1980 they had all gone, and india should have been in serious transition. Doshi was the spinner then and some way behind those 4 in terms of skill, but they found Dev, Binny (and vengsarkar and shastri) and briefly that lot must have put together a good run.

anyway, the 70s I think are quite iffy for a lot of teams, the windies would hit much higher heights in the 80s, england and pakistan were okish. only really australia lead by lillee would have been a properly great side. I think the generally accepted opinion is that the decade was south africa's to dominate had it not been for the ban.[DOUBLEPOST=1452941736][/DOUBLEPOST]why does the table only go back to 1952? I think that was when pakistan started playing test cricket perhaps? maybe not enough teams to do proper ratings before then but you'd have to say it wouldn't be that controversial to assume the 1948 australian side would have been an undisputed no.1.

 

[PokerAce]

If I recall correctly, a looooong time ago, when I was doing cricket 07 mods, instead of doing modern kits and rosters I did some classic old fashioned kits and rosters, I seem to recall choosing india from around 1981 due to the batting lineup including Gavaskar, Viswanath, Vengsarkar and Kapil Dev at 6. that's probably not quite up there with the Tendulkar, Dravid, Laxman, Sehwag/Ganguly line ups, but it's close.

I think the interesting thing about india's 2 periods prior to 1990 is that the first, in 1974 would have been built on the back of their spin riches at the time, chandrasekhar, bedi, prasanna, venkat while by 1980 they had all gone, and india should have been in serious transition. Doshi was the spinner then and some way behind those 4 in terms of skill, but they found Dev, Binny (and vengsarkar and shastri) and briefly that lot must have put together a good run.

anyway, the 70s I think are quite iffy for a lot of teams, the windies would hit much higher heights in the 80s, england and pakistan were okish. only really australia lead by lillee would have been a properly great side. I think the generally accepted opinion is that the decade was south africa's to dominate had it not been for the ban.[DOUBLEPOST=1452941736][/DOUBLEPOST]why does the table only go back to 1952? I think that was when pakistan started playing test cricket perhaps? maybe not enough teams to do proper ratings before then but you'd have to say it wouldn't be that controversial to assume the 1948 australian side would have been an undisputed no.1.

You are right. I was surprised to find India at the top in the 70s. I always believed that that was a period where India were very much among the strugglers in Int'l cricket. Winning a few tests here or there, but that they were ever consistant enough to be #1 was a surprise for me. So I looked up what series India played between '69 and '73 (the eligible period for the table in '73), and I was plesantly surprised. They did put up quite a run.

They started with drawing a 3 test series in NZ 1-1 and that was followed by a 3-1 home defeat to Australia. However subsequent to that India went and won a 5 test series, 1-0 away in the West Indies and followed that up with a 1-0 series win, in a three test series away in England. Finally they beat England 2-1 in India in a 5 test series. Now the way the table works if India beat WI and Eng (twice) and drew with NZ, all of whom must have been much higher rated sides, India's rating would have jumped astronomically helping their rise to the top. The defeat at the start of this run to, what would have been a much higher rated Australia would barely have affected the lower rated India's ratings much.

And you are right, the wickets were all taken by the spin quatret of Bedi, Prassna, Venkat and Chandra. Even on those away tours, where the pitches were unlikely to have had much for spinners, or perhaps they did, who knows, back in the era of uncovered pitches.

However they were the one taking all the wickets. Also I found an unsung batting hero in Dilip Sardesai who a crucial role to play in winning the two tests India won, in WI and Eng, both of which proved to be series clinching wins.