Which 2 teams were the closest rivals for Test supremacy in a single era?

[qman]

None really stand out to me.
Not convinced Pakistan was ever that close to West Indies in the 80's. They had a good team but Windies were still clearly number one side in world. Second best was some distance in my opinion. Although that does not mean that a single series was lopsided but in the era itself I never felt any side close to West Indies then.

I think the closest rivalry I enjoyed as in teams quite evenly matched and probably top two in world at the time was after the mid 90's with Australia and South Africa.

The highest standard era for me was the late 70's which was my first introduction to cricket , which was World Series Cricket.
Watching West Indies, Australia and World Xi go at it for two seasons in a row was gold standard.

After that was over Australia probably had some good Tests versus West Indies in Australia but we could never beat them in a series as our batting just was too shallow. But Lillee was such a brilliant bowler you always felt you had a chance. Our openers were not great though so our batting was too vulnerable and our tail virtually started at 8. Against West Indies back then, that meant you were going to lose most times.

But if talking an era where clearly number one side felt like playing number two and not much difference, the closest for me in my time felt the late 90's with Australia and South Africa. It was fun when they had Allan Donald.

Agree 100%, not withstanding that one particular series, the Windies had zero challengers to their number one status until Australia from 89 onwards. Things may look different on paper but having lived through those days, the Windies were crickets version of Ali or Tyson.

 

[The Passenger]

Whiter than most afl fanbases

A product of the very regrettable times.

As said though I once read Peter Kirsten's thoughts on black cricketers at the time. I couldn't name specific names, but an obviously s**t situation all round.

I also remember reading an article from Peter Kirsten who said through this period there were a number of high quality black cricketers who played in their own leagues that were completely disregarding from selection in FC cricket, and certainly disregarded from test cricket selection before the ban.

 

[Heisenberg111]

Australia were much better team by 96/97. Poor wickets at MCG & Perth gave west indies result there. But series was 3-1 before final test.
In 1999 Lara's brilliant performance carried them to draw but aside from Ambrose & Walsh there wasn't much support.

Yes thats why (1992/93 to 1995) is the more appropriate time frame for that OZ/WI rivalry. In those 3 years, from 1992-1995, WI was no.1 and OZ was catching on to become no.2, so the two series in 1992/93 and 1995 were the battle between top 2 teams, fighting for the Test crown. By 1996/97, OZ were clear no.1, while WI weren't in the top 2. The 2nd spot belonged to SA by that time. Thats why the OZ/SA rivalry of that period was great.

 

[Heisenberg111]

Agree 100%, not withstanding that one particular series, the Windies had zero challengers to their number one status until Australia from 89 onwards. Things may look different on paper but having lived through those days, the Windies were crickets version of Ali or Tyson.

Pakistan did challenge WI in their prime and were the only team to match them home and away.

 

[Pippen94]

Yes thats why (1992/93 to 1995) is the more appropriate time frame for that OZ/WI rivalry. In those 3 years, from 1992-1995, WI was no.1 and OZ was catching on to become no.2, so the two series in 1992/93 and 1995 were the battle between top 2 teams, fighting for the Test crown. By 1996/97, OZ were clear no.1, while WI weren't in the top 2. The 2nd spot belonged to SA by that time. Thats why the OZ/SA rivalry of that period was great.

Saf weren't that close to Australia during that time frame.

 

[Heisenberg111]

Saf weren't that close to Australia during that time frame.

OZ won the away series in South Africa in 1997, but it was a closely fought series. Later in the same year in Australia, the series would have been drawn 1-1, OZ was lucky to win that series 1-0.

 

[Pippen94]

OZ won the away series in South Africa in 1997, but it was a closely fought series. Later in the same year in Australia, the series would have been drawn 1-1, OZ was lucky to win that series 1-0.

Australia beat them both home & away. Saf won only dead rubber in Saf. Adelaide match was simply to draw series.

 

[Heisenberg111]

Australia beat them both home & away. Saf won only dead rubber in Saf. Adelaide match was simply to draw series.

Yes, but the 2nd test of the away series in South Africa could have gone either way.

 

[Pippen94]

Yes, but the 2nd test of the away series in South Africa could have gone either way.

Saf clear no.2 at time. Felt that way at the time

 

[Heisenberg111]

Saf clear no.2 at time. Felt that way at the time

Yes, OZ, SA, Pak and WI in that order were the top 4 in the mid to late 90's.

 

[PhatBoy]

Australia beat them both home & away. Saf won only dead rubber in Saf. Adelaide match was simply to draw series.

So a very very close run draw, to avoid a series draw, is an example of something not being close.

 

[Pippen94]

So a very very close run draw, to avoid a series draw, is an example of something not being close.

Lots of tests are close. Both series were over before final test. If you're talking about closest top two it wasn't these two.

 

[PhatBoy]

Lots of tests are close. Both series were over before final test. If you're talking about closest top two it wasn't these two.

No it wasn’t but a series that can be drawn or lost going into the last test that is then drawn in close fashion is still a close series.

2005 wasn’t a non-close series just because Australia couldn’t win going into the Oval Test where Pietersen carted England to a draw

 

[Heisenberg111]

No it wasn’t but a series that can be drawn or lost going into the last test that is then drawn in close fashion is still a close series.

2005 wasn’t a non-close series just because Australia couldn’t win going into the Oval Test where Pietersen carted England to a draw

Yes a series can be alive till the final test, if one team only leads a series by a 1 test margin. Drawing a series is always better than losing a series, and drawn series away against top teams are always creditable.

 

[jle101]

For now even disregarding the guys to play test cricket elsewhere, the South African 70's and early 80's team would have been phenomenal (7 of which played in the 4-0 drubbing of Australia in 69-70). Would have gone along the lines of:

1. Ed Barlow (B: 1940, Test ave 45)
2. Barry Richards (B: 1945, Test ave 72 from 4 tests, FC ave 54)
3. Ali Bacher captain (B: 1942, Test ave 32, FC ave 39)
----- Jimmy Cook would have replaced either Barlow or Bacher as they aged in the mid 70's (B: 1953, FC ave 50)
----- Peter Kirsten would have replaced the other, or maybe Irvine (B: 1955, FC ave: 44, Test ave was 31 but he was 37yo when he debuted)
4. Graham Pollock (B: 1944, Test ave 60 from 23 tests, FC ave 54)
5. Lee Irvine (B: 1944, Test ave 50 from 4 tests, FC ave 40)
----- Ken McKewan another candidate to replace Irvine (B: 1952, FC ave: 41)
6. Clive Rice (B: 1949, no tests, FC ave 40 / 22)
7. Mike Proctor (B: 1946, Test ave 25 / 15 from 7 tests, FC ave 36 / 19)
8. Alan Kourie (B: 1951 FC ave 34 / 23)
9. Ray Jennings (B: 1954, FC ave 23, 621 dismissals @ 4/match)
10. Peter Pollock (B: 1941, Test ave 21 / 24 from 28 tests, FC ave 22 / 21)
---- Vince Van Der Bijl to take over from Pollock who retired from FC cricket in 1971* (B: 1948, FC ave 16)
---- Stephen Jeffries to take over from Van Der Bijl (B: 1959, FC ave: 25 / 27)
11. Garth Le Roux (B: 1955, no tests, FC ave 21)

In reserve as a quick bowler you've also got Rupert Hanley (B: 1952, FC ave: 20)

* Pollock may have stayed longer if test cricket was available to him.

The sweet spot would have been just as Le Roux arrived, whilst Graham Pollock, Barry Richards and Mike Proctor were still at their peak and before they would have started declining, so you're looking at ~1976 to 1979. Clive Rice would have still been well in his prime at this stage. As said if test cricket was still available Peter Pollock may have still be around, but looking at Van Der Bijl, Jeffries and Hanley's records and the way they are talked about I don't think the team is losing much in that role even if P Pollock was retired.

Then you factor in the guys that left to play test cricket elsewhere that likely would have stayed - Tony Greig, Allen Lamb, Kepler Wessels.

I also remember reading an article from Peter Kirsten who said through this period there were a number of high quality black cricketers who played in their own leagues that were completely disregarding from selection in FC cricket, and certainly disregarded from test cricket selection before the ban.

I've probably even overlooked one or two as well.

Great post. You could also probably include Denys Hobson & John Traicos in an extended squad if they were touring one of the SC nations. Henry Fotheringham was also a class top-order batsman.

I will always maintain that South Africa vs West Indies sometime in the late 70's was the greatest Test series we never saw.

 

[Heisenberg111]

Great post. You could also probably include Denys Hobson & John Traicos in an extended squad if they were touring one of the SC nations. Henry Fotheringham was also a class top-order batsman.

I will always maintain that South Africa vs West Indies sometime in the late 70's was the greatest Test series we never saw.

West Indies only peaked in the early 80's, but OZ were no.1 from 1971-76. So OZ/SA from 1971-76 was likely the great Test series we missed out on. WI was just too strong in the 80's and SA might have declined by then.

 

[Gough]

West Indies only peaked in the early 80's, but OZ were no.1 from 1971-76. So OZ/SA from 1971-76 was likely the great Test series we missed out on. WI was just too strong in the 80's and SA might have declined by then.

The cancelled 1970 tour between England and South Africa is potentially the great series that never happened. Under Illingworth England went on to beat Australia in Australia the winter after the cancelled tour and we saw how highly Australia rated England by their reaction to winning at the Oval in 1972. At the same time South Africa were starting to put together what might have been an all time great team, the winner of the 70 tour would have been able to rightfully claim to be the best in the world.

 

[Doss]

Far from convinced that Australia v South Africa from the late 1990s really belongs in this list, and even more so in Tests (as distinct from ODIs between the teams in that era, which were far more evenly matched).

South Africa threatened often enough but they'd always go to water once or twice.

 

[Gough]

Far from convinced that Australia v South Africa from the late 1990s really belongs in this list, and even more so in Tests (as distinct from ODIs between the teams in that era, which were far more evenly matched).

South Africa threatened often enough but they'd always go to water once or twice.

When it mattered that team fell apart every single time, once you play to lose once it can become a hard habit to break. Elevating Smith on the basis he never played with Cronje was the turning point for that side, thier quadrenial World Cup failures aside.

 

[BronCrow]

Is there any love for the South African sides of the early 90's?

 

[Heisenberg111]

Is there any love for the South African sides of the early 90's?

Well they did drew with Australia home and away in 1993/94 , but both OZ and SA weren't the top 2 teams of that time. The West Indies were still no.1 back then.

This thread is about top 2 teams battling for Test supremacy.

 

[BronCrow]

Well they did drew with Australia home and away in 1993/94 , but both OZ and SA weren't the top 2 teams of that time. The West Indies were still no.1 back then.

This thread is about top 2 teams battling for Test supremacy.

I would counter that if the Windies were number at that stage, and then it was only by a thread, both Australia and South Africa were both pretty hot on their tail?

Everyone was talking about South Africa in the late 90's, when I personally felt they were every bit as good if not better in the early 90's.

 

[Heisenberg111]

I would counter that if the Windies were number at that stage, and then it was only by a thread, both Australia and South Africa were both pretty hot on their tail?

Everyone was talking about South Africa in the late 90's, when I personally felt they were every bit as good if not better in the early 90's.

These are the retrospective ICC Test rankings from 1994.

International Cricket Council - Match Zone - Test Ranking

The International Cricket Council official website provides information on all major ICC cricket events, the Reliance ICC Rankings and live cricket scores from all levels of the game.

web.archive.org

Shows West Indies were no.1 by a clear margin. Pakistan were 2nd, OZ were 3rd and SA were 4th.

So both OZ and SA weren't in the top 2 in 1994 according to the ICC Test rankings.

 

[BronCrow]

These are the retrospective ICC Test rankings from 1994.

International Cricket Council - Match Zone - Test Ranking

The International Cricket Council official website provides information on all major ICC cricket events, the Reliance ICC Rankings and live cricket scores from all levels of the game.

web.archive.org

Shows West Indies were no.1 by a clear margin. Pakistan were 2nd, OZ were 3rd and SA were 4th.

So both OZ and SA weren't in the top 2 in 1994 according to the ICC Test rankings.

I wonder if Craig McDermott wasn't given out here in Adelaide in 92/93 whether the margin would have been as great?

 

[Heisenberg111]

I wonder if Craig McDermott wasn't given out here in Adelaide in 92/93 whether the margin would have been as great?

Would have been closer, but I think West Indies would still be no.1 in the rankings.

For comparison, look the the ICC Test rankings from 1997.

International Cricket Council - Match Zone - Test Ranking

The International Cricket Council official website provides information on all major ICC cricket events, the Reliance ICC Rankings and live cricket scores from all levels of the game.

web.archive.org

OZ were no.1 and SA were a close no.2 but ofcourse Australia still beat South Africa both home and away that year.