Most of the last 225 Tests have been played under the three World Test Championship cycles, starting with the first Ashes Test at Edgbaston in 2019. That leaves over 2350 Tests that haven't been in a league format, other than during brief experiments like the 1912 Triangular Tournament and the Asian Test Championship played around the turn of the millennium.

In this article, I look to provide a structured and objective Test Championship concept and apply it retrospectively to pick the best team of each era. This can also confirm or deny the dominance of teams like England, Australia and West Indies across the decades.

To work out my idea of a Test Championship League (TCL), I looked at:

• Splitting the 2352 Tests played between 1877 and July 2019 into seven logical eras. There is no automatic year- or decade- or event-based split. The eighth period covers the three WTC cycles, from July 2019 to January 2025, ending with the first Test between Sri Lanka and Australia in Galle.
  
• Assigning TCLI points (Test Championship League Index) to both teams for each Test. Explainers for these are hyperlinked below.
  
• Summarising and getting the percentage achievement. This is done by dividing a Team's Performance Index points by the number of matches played and then multiplying by ten).
  
• Applying a minimum number of Tests as a cut-off.
  
• Ranking the teams for the individual periods.

I think the existing WTC methodology is somewhat simplistic and inadequate. I have addressed the shortcomings, summarised below, in my calculations.

• Under the current WTC, home and away Testa are treated the same. Away performances should be given greater weight.
  
• All draws are treated the same. "England 17 for 0 and a washout", "Australia 456, India 557 for 8", and "South Africa 300, New Zealand 350, South Africa 320, New Zealand 260 for 9" are all treated similarly. I have good measures, used in this article, that differentiate these types of draws precisely.
  
• An innings-and-156-run win or a ten-wicket win are treated the same as a win by six runs or a one-wicket win. I will ensure that the win margins are recognised and get a reasonable weight. I will build in the margin factor, to the extent of a maximum of 10% of points allotted.
  
• The team that fought to the end, and lost, should get some credit, even if it is below 10%.
  
• The unequal number of matches played by each team in each cycle leads to an unbalanced allocation for the final percentages. Since I am analysing already completed matches, I can't do anything about this.
  
• The unfair points-deduction rule for poor over rates.

Team Strength is a key factor. However, I will not introduce it here since it will make the exercise too complex.

The article uses many analytical values that I have derived as part of my data analysis work. For those who would like to understand the metrics, do read through this support document and this explainer on the points allocation methodology.

This article is current up to the first Test between Sri Lanka and Australia which started at the end of last month. The figures might change due to the second Sri Lanka-Australia Test, but I can confirm that the team positions for this period will not.

Tests: 175
Results (win-loss): 138 (78.9%)
This five-decade period runs from the first Test, played in 1877, to the England-West Indies Test played at The Oval in August 1928. One could call it the Sydney Barnes-Jack Hobbs-Bert Sutcliffe era.

Four teams played during this period. Australia and England played over 100 Tests each. South Africa played 58, and West Indies a single series of three Tests. While creating the periods I have ignored any teams with fewer than 20 Tests in that period so as to not distort the analysis. And so the final total of Tests played may not match the sum of Tests played by each team.

This was a close period in terms of the performances of the top two teams. England just about edged Australia to the top spot: 49.2 to 48.3. Both teams won around 44% of the Tests they played. The contributions of the three giants mentioned earlier no doubt helped them. While Australia had great players like Victor Trumper, Charles Macartney and Fred Spofforth, England were the stronger team overall. South Africa were a distant third with an index of 25.6.

England also had another huge benefit in that they played the weaker South Africa and West Indies teams 47 times in this period, while Australia had only 14 such Tests. This had a significant bearing on their placements.

The result percentage was a healthy 79%, possibly because of uncovered pitches and timeless Tests.

In this first period, England and Australia played each other 114 times and Australia won 47 of these Tests, five more than England. However, this is only presented as additional insight. Once we lay down the rules for a league, we have to declare the top team the winner - as is done in top football leagues. The lack of equality in Tests played is a perennial problem.

One thing England did better in the matches against Australia is that they were slightly ahead on the average points secured in wins (9.30 vs 9.06), and had a slight edge in the drawn matches (3.33 vs 3.24). Hence they ended slightly ahead, and deservedly so.

Barnes, with 189 wickets at seven per Test (wpT), was instrumental in England edging ahead of Australia. George Lohmann (112 wickets at 6.2 wpT) also did his bit. Hobbs, with 4596 runs at 92 runs per Test (rpT), and Sutcliffe (2092 runs at 91 rpT) contributed with the bat for England.

Tests: 128
Results: 78 (60.9%)
This is the Don Bradman period. It starts with his debut Test, in Brisbane in November 1928 and ends with his farewell Test, at The Oval in August 1948.

Expectedly Australia steamrolled the others in this period with an index of 61.6, a full 15 points ahead of England. West Indies did reasonably well, with an index of 38.3. Australia won 58% of the matches they played, which led them to a three-fourth share of series wins. England won barely a third of their Tests. West Indies made their presence felt in this period, but New Zealand and India were largely cannon fodder.

Bradman (6996 runs at 135 rpT) was the chief architect of Australia's success. Only one other Australia batter scored over 2000 runs - Stan McCabe. George Headley did well for West Indies - 2171 runs at 109 rpT. Wally Hammond led England's batting with 6817 runs at 89 rpT.

Australia were well served on the bowling front by Clarrie Grimmett (192 wickets at 5.8 wpT) and Bill O'Reilly (144 wickets at 5.3 wpT), who were supported by Bert Ironmonger (74 wickets at 5.3 wpT) and Ray Lindwall (65 wickets at 4.3 wpT).

Australia and second-placed England played 39 Tests with nine draws among those matches. Australia were comfortably ahead with 17 wins against 13 by England.

Since timeless Tests were on the way out and pitches became better, the result percentage dropped to 61.

Tests: 366
Results: 215 (58.7%)
This tough period, when all the teams tended to play safe, falls between the India-West Indies Test in Delhi in November 1948 and the fifth Test between India and Australia in Madras in December 1969. It was the period of Garry Sobers, the 3Ws (Frank Worrell, Everton Weekes and Clyde Walcott), Neil Harvey and Len Hutton.

Not losing was every team's first priority. Only 59% of matches produced a win-loss result. During this period, India and Pakistan played out 13 consecutive draws.

However, Australia managed to stay ahead of England in the final standings 54.7 to 51.9 margin. Bradman had retired but Australia continued to be a powerful team with the likes of Lindsay Hassett, Arthur Morris, Neil Harvey, Keith Miller, Richie Benaud, Lindwall, and Bill Johnston in their ranks. England had Len Hutton, Peter May, and a devastating spin duo in Jim Laker and Tony Lock.

West Indies were close behind, showing signs that they were going to be a potent force in the years to come.

Australia and second-placed England played 50 Tests, with 23 draws among those. Australia were comfortably ahead with 16 wins to England's 11.

Weekes had excellent figures of 4162 runs at 95 rpT. Walcott and Hutton were quite close behind. India offspinner Erapalli Prasanna, somewhat surprisingly, had a great period, taking 5.1 wickets per Test in 22 Tests; Fred Trueman's entire Test career (307 wickets at 4.6 wpT) fell in this period. Australia were well served by fast bowler Graham McKenzie (238 wickets at 4.4 wpT).

Tests: 451
Results: 252 (55.9%)
Finally, West Indies showed their true fast-bowling muscle in this period, between January 1970 and May 1989 (starting with the Cape Town Test between South Africa and Australia and ending with the Jamaica Test between West Indies and India).

Armed with a quartet of pace bowlers, West Indies bowled around 75 devastating overs on a typical day and bulldozed their opposition into submission, employing a philosophy of "We win or you find a way to draw." Many teams did manage to draw these Tests. West Indies' Performance Index was well below 60 - only 55.6. They won 42% of their matches and drew a lot, but they won many series and were unbeaten for a decade and a half.

It was the first time that neither England nor Australia finished first or second.

Pakistan were second, with 43.7. They were tough to beat at home. West Indies and Pakistan played 17 matches against each other, with nine draws. West Indies edged out Pakistan 5-3 in the remaining matches.

Viv Richards topped the West Indies batters' list, with 7849 runs at 72.7 rpT, and Gordon Greenidge followed with figures of 6826 runs at 71.1 rpT, but it was clear that it was a bowlers' win. Malcolm Marshall led the way for the Caribbean with figures of 326 wickets at 4.9 wpT. He had real support from Joel Garner (259 wickets at 4.5 wpT). All the top West Indies bowlers took over four wickets per Test.

The overall trend of Tests not producing outright results continued in this period and the figure of win-loss results dropped to 56%.

South Africa, before being banned for their government's apartheid policies, played only four Tests during this period and won all four.

Tests: 462
Results: 306 (66.2%)
Australia came back strongly from an indifferent 1980s period. New match-winners, led by Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath, emerged and Australia moved to the top place in this period between the first Ashes Test in 1989 and the New Year's Test between Australia and South Africa in 2002. They won 54% of their matches and secured a Performance Index of 60.4. Led by Mark Taylor and Steve Waugh, Australia won with ease, home and away. Included in their stellar period was their first famous 16-win run.

South Africa, now settled as a top-level team, and with a strong domestic scene supporting the Test environment, finished second, with a Performance Index of 54.4. They won nearly half their matches. In their head-to-head contests of 15 matches, Australia won eight, South Africa three, and four were drawn.

Brian Lara was the anchor for West Indies, with 7221 runs at 87 rpT. Sachin Tendulkar was slightly lower at 7419 runs at 83.4 rpT. Warne (430 wickets at 4.4 wpT) and McGrath (377 wickets at 4.7 wpT) led the way for the bowlers.

The trend of more results continued, and two-thirds of the Tests were decisive.

Tests: 406
Results: 304 (75.0%)
This period runs from the Kandy Test between Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe in 2002 to the Cape Town Test between South Africa and India in 2011. The trends from the previous period continued. Australia maintained their all-round strengths through the first decade of the millennium. Warne and McGrath continued to be in rich form, and new match-winners came up. Australia began to place more of an emphasis on winning and they won 65% of their matches and secured a Results Index of 67.1. Led by Ricky Ponting, they continued winning home and away. This period included another streak of 16 consecutive wins for them. Three-fourths of the Tests overall were decisive.

South Africa maintained their overall quality and finished second, with a Performance Index of 54.3. They won nearly half their matches. In their head-to-head contests of 15 matches, Australia won ten, South Africa four, and only one match was drawn.

Lara led the batters with a haul of nearly 100 runs per Test. The next five batters also scored over 90 runs per Test: Mohammad Yousuf, Jacques Kallis, Ponting, Kumar Sangakkara and Younis Khan.

As for the bowlers, Muthiah Muralidaran had terrific figures of 418 wickets at 6.6 wpT, followed by Warne (278 wickets at 5.9 wpT), Shane Bond (73 wickets at 5.2 wpT) and Dale Steyn (238 wickets at 5.17 wpT).

Tests: 362
Results: 294 (81.2%)
This period runs from the Sydney Ashes Test in 2011 to the England-Ireland Test at Lord's in 2019, ending just before the WTC era. For once, Australia receded into the background. South Africa were deserving winners, winning more than half their matches and securing a Performance Index value of 55.8.

By now, India were also a force to reckon with. They started winning away Tests regularly. In this period, South Africa and India played nine Tests and India had the better of the exchanges - winning four, losing three, and drawing two.

In this period, after 80 years, there were batters who compiled over 100 runs per Test. Sangakkara had out-of-the-world figures of 4156 runs at 104 rpT. Steven Smith started his career with brilliant numbers (6012 at 100); Pakistan legspinner Yasir Shah had a great period, accumulating 203 wickets at 5.8 wpT; offspinners Saeed Ajmal (145 wickets at 5.6 wpT) and R Ashwin (342 wicket at 5.3 wpT) were superb, as was left-arm spinner Rangana Herath. It was almost totally a spinners' period.

With the DRS getting worldwide acceptance, teams found it difficult to draw matches. Over four-fifths of Tests in this period were decisive.

Tests: 227
Results: 198 (87.2%)
This is a period formed by combining the three WTC cycles: from the Edgbaston Ashes Test in 2019 to the recently concluded first Test between Sri Lanka and Australia starting in January 2025.

India had a good run and at the end of their home series against Bangladesh in 2024, went to the top of the table. Since their next outings were a relatively easy home series against New Zealand and an away tour of Australia, where they had done well on recent tours, I expected them to win this period. But instead they were whitewashed by New Zealand and lost 3-1 down under.

At the time of writing, though Australia are still to play their two-Test series in Sri Lanka, they cannot be knocked off my TCL table, or the WTC one, even if they lose both Tests. They are currently at 63.0, a fair bit ahead of India, who are on 56.5.

Australia and India played 14 Tests between them and barring three draws, Australia had the edge at 6-5, catching up in the most recent series.

Sri Lanka left-arm spinner Prabath Jayasuriya leads the bowling charts with nearly six wickets per Test. Ashwin (195 wickets at 4.8) continued to be in great form. Kane Williamson and Harry Brook scored over 95 runs a Test, while Joe Root scored 6254 runs at 88 rpT.

Seven-eighths of the Test in this period were decisive.

The 2021 WTC final was played between India and New Zealand. Although Australia were placed second on WTC points, they lost out because of over-rate penalties. The 2023 final was between Australia and India, and the 2025 will be between Australia and South Africa. Looking at the above, we can deduce that Australia and India are the top two teams of the eighth period of the TCL.

Summary
Australia won five of the TCL periods. This shows their overall strength through the years and the quality of their domestic structure. Barring the 1980s, Australia have always been the team to beat. They were very difficult to beat at home and generally travelled very well.

England won the first TCL period, West Indies won in the late 1980s, and South Africa showed their overall quality by winning the 2011-2019 period. All are well-deserved wins. India would have had a great chance in the current cycle if they hadn't messed up their last two series.

The WTC, as implemented by the ICC, has a final between the top two teams. I have provided a summary of the matches between the top two TCL teams in each cycle in this article. Only in one period - the first - did the second-placed team have better overall results. One can thus conclude that the TCL indeed provides a clear and correct pointer of the top team of the concerned period.

Tests: 2579
Results: 1786 (69.2%)
Australia, as expected, finish way ahead of the rest with an overall Performance Index of 54.4 in the TCL. They won nearly half their matches.

The second position was fiercely contested. In 2024, South Africa sneaked past England, winning the last Test they played, against Pakistan. If that Test had been drawn, England would have been second overall. Alternatively, if England had not lost their latter two Tests against Pakistan in October 2024, they would have been second. England are followed by Pakistan and India.

Afghanistan played 11 Tests and won four. Ireland played nine and won two. The ICC World XI lost the only Test they played. These three teams are not included in this exercose.

Well over two-thirds of all the Tests played were decisive.

Talking Cricket Group
Any reader who wishes to join my general-purpose cricket-ideas-exchange group of this name can email me a request for inclusion, providing their name, place of residence, and what they do.

Email me your comments and I will respond. This email id is to be used only for sending in comments. Please note that readers whose emails are derogatory to the author or any player will be permanently blocked from sending in any feedback in future.

Anantha Narayanan has written for ESPNcricinfo and CastrolCricket and worked with a number of companies on their cricket performance ratings-related systems

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

 

RELATED ARTICLES