What's new

A historical review of the highest Test rankings for ALL teams

T

Tusker

First Class Captain
Joined
Jun 11, 2013
Runs
4,773
I just happened to run into this link which provides historical Test Rankings for All teams calculated retroactively using the current formula but based on past results since 1952 ( 64 yrs !! )

The results are pretty surprising

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICC_Test_Championship#Historical_rankings

Code: 
             Months  Highest Rating
 Australia	321	143
 West Indies	235	135
 England	106	125
 South Africa	48	135
 India	        46	130
 Pakistan	2	110


I cannot believe that Pakistan was No.1 for only a period of 2 months (Aug-Sep 1988 ) and SAF only 2 months more than India (Despite the 20 year absence)
 
Not surprised, we are historically a better team than Pakistan.Pakistan had a golden period from 1986 to 2000, otherwise they were always in our shadows
 
carrom_ball said:
Not surprised, we are historically a better team than Pakistan.Pakistan had a golden period from 1986 to 2000, otherwise they were always in our shadows
Click to expand...

Naah ... this is not entirely true ( i.e Ind > Pak historically) . Although we were always strong at home.

Here is the overall stats ... Pak has won same no.of Tests as India despite playing 76 less tests (Since 1952)

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...1952;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team

The only explanation is that the calculation is pretty complicated and that it doesnt go purely by number of wins and losses.
 
Tusker said:
Naah ... this is not entirely true ( i.e Ind > Pak historically) . Although we were always strong at home.

Here is the overall stats ... Pak has won same no.of Tests as India despite playing 76 less tests (Since 1952)

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...1952;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team

The only explanation is that the calculation is pretty complicated and that it doesnt go purely by number of wins and losses.
Click to expand...

But if you remove Pak's golden period from 1986 to 2000 then we are pretty even in tests and comfortably ahead in odis

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...span;spanval2=span;template=results;type=team
 
Tusker said:
Naah ... this is not entirely true ( i.e Ind > Pak historically) . Although we were always strong at home.

Here is the overall stats ... Pak has won same no.of Tests as India despite playing 76 less tests (Since 1952)

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...1952;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team

The only explanation is that the calculation is pretty complicated and that it doesnt go purely by number of wins and losses.
Click to expand...

Relative point assignment based on ranking of the opposition.

It means you can't make it to the no.1 by bashing lower ranked teams.
 
carrom_ball said:
Not surprised, we are historically a better team than Pakistan.Pakistan had a golden period from 1986 to 2000, otherwise they were always in our shadows
Click to expand...




Totally incorrect, it took India some 26 years (I think) to win their first game outside India and that too against NZ...while Pak won a game against India, Australia, England, and WI in their very first series against them. Considering all that, I doubt if Indian test team was that good for a while.

Indian team ranking is better only from 2001 onwards, up until then I think Pakistan was mostly a better theam than India
 
carrom_ball said:
But if you remove Pak's golden period from 1986 to 2000 then we are pretty even in tests and comfortably ahead in odis

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...span;spanval2=span;template=results;type=team
Click to expand...

The win/loss is still in favor of pakistan.

JattMaula said:
Relative point assignment based on ranking of the opposition.

It means you can't make it to the no.1 by bashing lower ranked teams.
Click to expand...

Yep but I can't believe that Pak kept beating lower ranked teams all the time as opposed to India.
 
miandadrules said:
I know! It's hilarious.

And they only dislodged probably the greatest team in sports history to achieve it.
Click to expand...




Yep, during that time India was getting pretty much getting owned by them (1975 through the 2000's I would say) except for that one Packer impacted series in 1978 I think in India
 
Tusker said:
The win/loss is still in favor of pakistan.



Yep but I can't believe that Pak kept beating lower ranked teams all the time as opposed to India.
Click to expand...

It probably means Pakistan team didn't have peak period for long enough time to reach no.1.
 
Monsee said:
Totally incorrect, it took India some 26 years (I think) to win their first game outside India and that too against NZ...while Pak won a game against India, Australia, England, and WI in their very first series against them. Considering all that, I doubt if Indian test team was that good for a while.

Indian team ranking is better only from 2001 onwards, up until then I think Pakistan was mostly a better theam than India
Click to expand...

This is not true either ... India was ranked No.1 from between April 73 to June 1974 ( 15 months ) and between Sep 1980 to Feb 1981 (6 months).
 
Pakistan barely able to maintain rank 1 for any period is due to the best period for Pakistan coinciding with the best period of WI.

Now outside of that period, Pakistan was not strong enough to be even number 2 for any extended period. If you can occupy rank 2 for long time then rank 1 team can give you chance by having few bad series. Jumping from 3-4 to rank 1 and then occupying it for a longer period is very difficult.

Having said all this, I am surprised by Pakistan's peak rating being so low. In the last 10 years, I have seen that Pakistan maintains a rating of around 100 and simply goes up or down based on what other teams do. It looks like , Pakistan never really hit a good long stretch of wins otherwise 110 peak rating is too low.
 
LOL @ indians thinking they are historically a better team than us. Didn't you guys win just 1 match overseas throughout the 90s....
 
Somebody please explain to me how we stayed on to the no.1 ranking for 15 months in the 70s lol..
 
Buffet said:
Pakistan barely able to maintain rank 1 for any period is due to the best period for Pakistan coinciding with the best period of WI.

Now outside of that period, Pakistan was not strong enough to be even number 2 for any extended period. If you can occupy rank 2 for long time then rank 1 team can give you chance by having few bad series. Jumping from 3-4 to rank 1 and then occupying it for a longer period is very difficult.

Having said all this, I am surprised by Pakistan's peak rating being so low. In the last 10 years, I have seen that Pakistan maintains a rating of around 100 and simply goes up or down based on what other teams do. It looks like , Pakistan never really hit a good long stretch of wins otherwise 110 peak rating is too low.
Click to expand...

Good observations. India had the same issue in the Early 2000s.

But that peak rating of 130 for ind vs 110 for Pak is another surprise.
 
Rankings will never tell the real story. How can that Windies team not be considered the best of all time?!

Another example... during India's run at #1 in 2008 did they win any series in South Africa or Australia? So why claim number one if you just won all your home games and then won two or three away series which for 70 odd years you've NEVER done Indians LMAO.

I'm more disappointed though that at 200 million people Pakistan are still well behind aussie windies saffers.

Also why is the golden period for Pakistan being removed during the comparison with India?? lol aren't we talking all time?
 
Tusker said:
Good observations. India had the same issue in the Early 2000s.

But that peak rating of 130 for ind vs 110 for Pak is another surprise.
Click to expand...

I am not surprised by you getting to 130 to be honest. At home, you won pretty much everything and then outside you either drew or won before getting to that rating. I am only surprised by Pakistan not having higher peak rating.

About SA comment, we didn't have that gun in our entire history despite having a gun team before the ban period.

I also think that peak rating is one thing but how long you have spent time above 120 rating points tells a bigger story. I am not discounting India here but but making a general point. Last SA team did maintain 120+ rating point for a very long period.

Probably 115-120+ rating point and time spent on that range will provide a different angle.
 
Last edited:
Buffet said:
I am not surprised by you getting to 130 to be honest. At home you won pretty much everything and then outside you either drew or won before getting to that rating. I am only surprised by Pakistan not having higher peak rating.

About SA comment, we didn't have that gun in our entire history despite having a gun team before ban period.

I also think that peak rating is one thing but how long you have spent time above 120 rating points tells a bigger story. I am not discounting India here but but making a general point. Last SA team did maintain 120+ rating point for a very long period.

Probably 115-120+ rating point and time spent on that range will provide a different angle.
Click to expand...

South Africa has been a top team since 1992, only behind australia
 
Balthazar said:
That's a heartbreaking stuff for some delusional fans here. Two months? :)))
Click to expand...

Pakistans peak is good. India's long spell came after decline of Aussies and before rise of South Africa so they didn't have any great (let alone ATG) side challenging them

When we were #1 for a while and #2 for a long time we were competing with probably the greatest side ever assembled in the history of the game

Our rating is pretty good and so is our win loss ratio.
 
To all those were interested, Historical ranking link has been removed from website.
They are also called RETROSPECTIVE RANKINGS

The formula used to create the Reliance ICC Team Rankings has been applied retrospectively by David Kendix, the ICC's official statistician, to allow fans to see where their favourite teams were ranked in the past, before the team rankings were officially introduced.

The table only begins from 1951 for Test cricket and from 1981 for ODI cricket as prior to this date, as there is not enough data available due to the infrequency of matches and the small number of competing teams in the earlier periods.

To all those were interested, while Historical ranking link has been removed from website.

However before this link was removed luckily one site managed to take snapshot of this link and it can be accessed through it.
http://web.archive.org/web/20121107...cricket.com/match_zone/historical_ranking.php

Below link shows where Pakistan dethrones West Indies for few months to reach No.1 ranking
http://web.archive.org/web/20130320...ket.com/match_zone/test_ranking.php?year=1988

Below link shows when India first reached No.1 ranking
http://web.archive.org/web/20130320...ket.com/match_zone/test_ranking.php?year=1973
 
Last edited:
dethroning the greatest team in test cricket in their prime even if for 2 months and for a rating of 110 means more than the nominal value of 110.

Furthermore India is near unbeatable at home, yet Pakistan's W-L record in India with not too many tests in our "golden period" being played there is great.

Also all time W-L% record is better against India and overall against all teams. So the rankings are rubbished.
 
jeetu said:
To all those were interested, Historical ranking link has been removed from website.
They are also called RETROSPECTIVE RANKINGS

The formula used to create the Reliance ICC Team Rankings has been applied retrospectively by David Kendix, the ICC's official statistician, to allow fans to see where their favourite teams were ranked in the past, before the team rankings were officially introduced.

The table only begins from 1951 for Test cricket and from 1981 for ODI cricket as prior to this date, as there is not enough data available due to the infrequency of matches and the small number of competing teams in the earlier periods.

To all those were interested, while Historical ranking link has been removed from website.

However before this link was removed luckily one site managed to take snapshot of this link and it can be accessed through it.
http://web.archive.org/web/20121107...cricket.com/match_zone/historical_ranking.php

Below link shows where Pakistan dethrones West Indies for few months to reach No.1 ranking
http://web.archive.org/web/20130320...ket.com/match_zone/test_ranking.php?year=1988

Below link shows when India first reached No.1 ranking
http://web.archive.org/web/20130320...ket.com/match_zone/test_ranking.php?year=1973
Click to expand...

So when Pakistan was no. 1 for 2 months, India was no. 3 just behind west Indies, interesting :srini
 
Slog said:
Pakistans peak is good. India's long spell came after decline of Aussies and before rise of South Africa so they didn't have any great (let alone ATG) side challenging them
Click to expand...

That only accounts for 21 months ... the rest of it is from 70s and 1995. Also look at peak rating as Buffet pointed out and remember the rules are the same for everyone.
 
^^@carrom_ball just read this delusional guy [MENTION=138463]Slog[/MENTION]'s post.Pakistan's so called "peak" :srt came before rise of Aus and SA teams and he has conviniently left that out but look how he is whining about India becoming No.1 after x became weak and before y became strong :yk.Sadly he doesn't know India has a much superior record vs Aus and SA than 2 month wonder Pakistan.Plus we have won 3 times in WI while they have :afridi times.
 
jeetu said:
To all those were interested, Historical ranking link has been removed from website.
They are also called RETROSPECTIVE RANKINGS

The formula used to create the Reliance ICC Team Rankings has been applied retrospectively by David Kendix, the ICC's official statistician, to allow fans to see where their favourite teams were ranked in the past, before the team rankings were officially introduced.

The table only begins from 1951 for Test cricket and from 1981 for ODI cricket as prior to this date, as there is not enough data available due to the infrequency of matches and the small number of competing teams in the earlier periods.

To all those were interested, while Historical ranking link has been removed from website.

However before this link was removed luckily one site managed to take snapshot of this link and it can be accessed through it.
http://web.archive.org/web/20121107...cricket.com/match_zone/historical_ranking.php

Below link shows where Pakistan dethrones West Indies for few months to reach No.1 ranking
http://web.archive.org/web/20130320...ket.com/match_zone/test_ranking.php?year=1988

Below link shows when India first reached No.1 ranking
http://web.archive.org/web/20130320...ket.com/match_zone/test_ranking.php?year=1973
Click to expand...

lol australia reeling at no. 5 below nz, I haven't seen australia so low in the rankings ever, wish to see this in the future :srini
 
street cricketer said:
Somebody please explain to me how we stayed on to the no.1 ranking for 15 months in the 70s lol..
Click to expand...
We were a pretty good team in early to mid 70s.Gavaskar and co. Plus 4 spinners.

Its a travesty that whenever India has good team we cant play Pakistan.India didnt play Pakistan from 1963-64 to 1978 during this time India had a very good test team.Again we have not played from 2007 till now when were no.1 team in the world for 18 months.

And the bigger travesty is when we played Pakistan regularly from 1978 to 1987 Pakistan was undoubtedly a great team and we didnt even have a good spinner.

Again we played Pakistan regularly in 90s in ODIs when Pakistan was a great team now when we are very good LOI team we are not playing.
 
carrom_ball said:
So when Pakistan was no. 1 for 2 months, India was no. 3 just behind west Indies, interesting :srini
Click to expand...
During that era India beat England and had drawn Home-Away series with Australia. So that would have helped.
 
carrom_ball said:
lol australia reeling at no. 5 below nz, I haven't seen australia so low in the rankings ever, wish to see this in the future :srini
Click to expand...
By 1988 Australia were reeling at 6 just above Sri Lanka. Although one must remember that they were World Champions at that time. They won 87 WC. That team still had quality batting talent in Waugh , Border.
 
cricketjoshila said:
We were a pretty good team in early to mid 70s.Gavaskar and co. Plus 4 spinners.

Its a travesty that whenever India has good team we cant play Pakistan.India didnt play Pakistan from 1963-64 to 1978 during this time India had a very good test team.Again we have not played from 2007 till now when were no.1 team in the world for 18 months.

And the bigger travesty is when we played Pakistan regularly from 1978 to 1987 Pakistan was undoubtedly a great team and we didnt even have a good spinner.

Again we played Pakistan regularly in 90s in ODIs when Pakistan was a great team now when we are very good LOI team we are not playing.
Click to expand...

Good post. 1989 series being an exception. When Ind were expected to be whitewashed.
 
[MENTION=53377]jeetu[/MENTION] thanks for the webarchive link ... that was exactly what i was looking for
 
carrom_ball said:
Not surprised, we are historically a better team than Pakistan.Pakistan had a golden period from 1986 to 2000, otherwise they were always in our shadows
Click to expand...

Well historically we won more test and Odis against you, you can claim that recently you have done better then us

So we were never in your big shadows
 
carrom_ball said:
Not surprised, we are historically a better team than Pakistan.Pakistan had a golden period from 1986 to 2000, otherwise they were always in our shadows
Click to expand...

Calm down dude...

Don't mean to tarnish your achievements but this another fine example of facts without context...

India was number 1 for that period of time because they were only good at one thing and that was producing sub-standard rank turners.

Any SC team could win matches like that but even Pakistan doesn't stoop this low...

Anyway best way to judge teams is on comparing the ATGs and legends on each side.

India has produced more ATG and many legendary batsmen, but seriously lacking in quality of bowlers - none of the pace bowlers were legends except perhaps Kapil.

Besides Javed Miandad, Pakistan hasn't produced ATG batsmen but they produced several legends of them and the bowlers they produced do I need to say more?

Pakistan has definitely produced better players overall because in test matches our batsman are much better than your mediocre/borderline international bowlers.

The head to head test matches won and number of tests won overall by Pakistan speak for itself, especially given Pakistan started playing tests somewhat 20 years later than India and that's without doctoring pitches (in attempting to gain home advantage)... If anything Pakistan in 2012 prepared green tops for the england series in UAE... Slow turners are fine but rank turners of sub-standard quality should be clamped and banned like bowling actions...

Food for thought:

How many tests would India win without doctoring pitches?
 
Civil said:
dethroning the greatest team in test cricket in their prime even if for 2 months and for a rating of 110 means more than the nominal value of 110.

Furthermore India is near unbeatable at home, yet Pakistan's W-L record in India with not too many tests in our "golden period" being played there is great.

Also all time W-L% record is better against India and overall against all teams. So the rankings are rubbished.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Refer to my post above. Glad to know someone is on the same wavelength and has some ability to think objectively.
 
Tusker said:
I just happened to run into this link which provides historical Test Rankings for All teams calculated retroactively using the current formula but based on past results since 1952 ( 64 yrs !! )

The results are pretty surprising

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICC_Test_Championship#Historical_rankings

Code: 
             Months  Highest Rating
 Australia	321	143
 West Indies	235	135
 England	106	125
 South Africa	48	135
 India	        46	130
 Pakistan	2	110


I cannot believe that Pakistan was No.1 for only a period of 2 months (Aug-Sep 1988 ) and SAF only 2 months more than India (Despite the 20 year absence)
Click to expand...

Historically India is the 2nd worst Test team ever after New Zealand. Fact. :moyo
 
Tusker said:
[MENTION=53377]jeetu[/MENTION] thanks for the webarchive link ... that was exactly what i was looking for
Click to expand...
Welcome , took me long time to find that data. But it was worth it. I still can't can't understand why original link was removed , its not like it was taking too much space.
 
India have been historically awfully poor from 1947 to 2000.

The only thing that saved them even a more embarrassing record was having pitches at home to aid their spin attack.
 
jeetu said:
Welcome , took me long time to find that data. But it was worth it. I still can't can't understand why original link was removed , its not like it was taking too much space.
Click to expand...

perhaps it created a lot of controversy ... lol
 
Pakistan dont get to #1 position for long and never had a very good rating but still they were a better test team.

They dont win vs us in wc. They have very less ICC trophies than us. Also in ODIs they never had good rankings than us. Still they have had better ODI teams than us. How strange...
 
Ankit007 said:
Pakistan dont get to #1 position for long and never had a very good rating but still they were a better test team.
They dont win vs us in wc. They have very less ICC trophies than us. Also in ODIs they never had good rankings than us. Still they have had better ODI teams than us. How strange...
Click to expand...

Isn't it more strange to try to contextualize data that is the most simple to explain. I would understand these contextual debates for batting or bowling stats. but over that much a time period and just talking of overall team results isn't it simple just to ask the following:

Who has better tests winning % against all teams, Pak or Ind?
Who has more away test victories and better away %, Pak or Ind?
Who has better record vs. EACH OTHER.? and in each others home?

Indian fans know the answer to this, and no amount of ranking calculations and missed golden oppurtunities contextualization etc. can change it.

I would show the same for the ODI's but I actually can give Indians the World cup thing that one annoys me, but no matter how good our overall record is we need to win one there before we can claim we are the better over time.
 
The issue with Pakistan is that your golden era coincided with the golden era of the Windies and of Australia.
 
Monsee said:
Yep, during that time India was getting pretty much getting owned by them (1975 through the 2000's I would say) except for that one Packer impacted series in 1978 I think in India
Click to expand...

actually that series was not packer impacted. imran, zaheer, majid, asif iqbal. miandad all played in that series. asif iqbal was captain in that series.
 
Not sure what OP is trying to say and why is he surprised with the stats. Its a well known fact and even most Pakistanis acknowledge that India has been the most successful cricket team from Asia. You dont have to shout out to prove it, just the stats says it all. India has got most number of ICC events, been no.1 ranked test side for much longer period compared to other Asian teams. Infact India has been quiet a distance ahead compared to Pak & SL. Ofcourse India started playing cricket much earlier compared to its Asian counterparts and surely it has a part to play. As far as Pakistan is concerned, there has never been a consistent Pak cricket team. Not even in much hyped 90s and I have followed entire 90s of Pak cricket. Hence they never able to sustain the momentum and able to stay at top for long. Pakistan always was an unpredictable dangerous side because of the skillful players they had and to a great extent due to street smart captaincy of Imran. Ask any team and they would have hated to face Pakistan in knock outs because you dont know which Pakistan team will turn up. So they were indeed a very dangerous & unpredictable team but never systematic like India.

So from Asia, its in the below order

India
Pak
SL

Globally:

Aust
WI
Ind

India will go down in history as 3rd most successful cricket team.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
 
Slog said:
Pakistans peak is good. India's long spell came after decline of Aussies and before rise of South Africa so they didn't have any great (let alone ATG) side challenging them

When we were #1 for a while and #2 for a long time we were competing with probably the greatest side ever assembled in the history of the game

Our rating is pretty good and so is our win loss ratio.
Click to expand...

Where was Pakistan when India were ranked number 1 for two continuous years? The fact is your team was always in someone's shadow through out your Cricketing history. After 2000, they were pretty much nonexistent and were a joke of a team.
 
Yanna_Rascala said:
True! But you did get whitewashed while being a supposed number 1 team. Now that's an embarrassment and an accolade which cannot be unmatched :srt
Click to expand...

Far lesser embarassment then losing to Zimbabwe in Pakistan and then failing to beat a unranked ZIM side in a test series.
 
munda_khi said:
actually that series was not packer impacted. imran, zaheer, majid, asif iqbal. miandad all played in that series. asif iqbal was captain in that series.
Click to expand...


You need to first read the post well, I was referring to WI and their tour to India in 1978 or 1979 when they toured India with Fawad Bacchus as their captain; most WI great players had a spat with the board and they were not picked!
 
Balthazar said:
Where was Pakistan when India were ranked number 1 for two continuous years? The fact is your team was always in someone's shadow through out your Cricketing history. After 2000, they were pretty much nonexistent and were a joke of a team.
Click to expand...

If we were a joke of a team then how comes we still beat you enough times after 2000 ??

The truth is India has been a big joke for over 50 years in cricket.

If it wasn't for Packer and doctored pitches Indias record would be that of San Marino in Football.
 
Balthazar said:
Where was Pakistan when India were ranked number 1 for two continuous years? The fact is your team was always in someone's shadow through out your Cricketing history. After 2000, they were pretty much nonexistent and were a joke of a team.
Click to expand...



Says a team's fan that took 26 some years to win their first overseas match, could not win against Zimbabwe for ages, have worse record against NZ than probably most good teams...is that standard of greatness?

India have benefitted immensly from the clout they gained in last decade or two by having favorable conditions in most places, even when they tour in places like NZ, Australia, SA etc. Most of those host teams cannot afford to have the game over in 3-4 days if they play on bouncy and seaming pitches because now a days the time of Dravid and Co. is no more
 
Monsee said:
Says a team's fan that took 26 some years to win their first overseas match, could not win against Zimbabwe for ages, have worse record against NZ than probably most good teams...is that standard of greatness?

India have benefitted immensly from the clout they gained in last decade or two by having favorable conditions in most places, even when they tour in places like NZ, Australia, SA etc. Most of those host teams cannot afford to have the game over in 3-4 days if they play on bouncy and seaming pitches because now a days the time of Dravid and Co. is no more
Click to expand...

And plus they had the advantage in having a Billion population.
 
90MPH said:
If we were a joke of a team then how comes we still beat you enough times after 2000 ??

The truth is India has been a big joke for over 50 years in cricket.

If it wasn't for Packer and doctored pitches Indias record would be that of San Marino in Football.
Click to expand...




To add to that same non-existent team went to India and drew with them in 2005 under Inzi and handed them one of the worst defeats ever in Karachi in 06 after being 26-6; I mean that defeat should still haunt them for all their lives, it was so bad and demoralizing. As a fan you would quit watching your team, that is how much that should have hurt them seeing their demi gods on their knees and all, being bowled through gaps bigger than a house door
 
Monsee said:
To add to that same non-existent team went to India and drew with them in 2005 under Inzi and handed them one of the worst defeats ever in Karachi in 06 after being 26-6; I mean that defeat should still haunt them for all their lives, it was so bad and demoralizing. As a fan you would quit watching your team, that is how much that should have hurt them seeing their demi gods on their knees and all, being bowled through gaps bigger than a house door
Click to expand...

Nothing existed before 2000 for these delusional fans.
 
Australia has been so many times more dominant than both India and Pakistan combined, in both tests and odis. I wonder why. Cricket isn't even the biggest sport there, while it's pretty much the only sport in India and Pakistan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MenInG
ICC T20I Rankings : Australia have a chance to dethrone Pakistan as the Number One T20I team
Replies
9
Views
1K
Minnowbasher
M
H
Best batsmen of all time as a match-winner in Test cricket?
Replies
0
Views
1K
Harsh Thakor
H
A
The scariest Test England ever played: Terror at the hands of West Indies
Replies
0
Views
586
Abdullah719
A
Back
Top