Should Australia play for the draw?

[Athlai]

Play for the draw? What the heck, even if you select a team of XI batsman that doesn't mean you necessarily have a good team for the draw. Pitch could be a land mine, 200 plays 200 and you really want to throw away the attack against an England without a middle order?

ITSTL

[Son Of Coco]

No they shouldn't play for the draw. They should select a team they think will win the test and worry about a draw if it becomes obvious they can't win.

[pasag]

Originally Posted by andyc

[Jono]

This post an image culture of CW has been taken to new levels

[pup11]

Originally Posted by Burgey

Yep.

And tbf, given England will be chasing the game pretty hard, if there's good weather then we're likely to get a result imo.

Yeah...

The win at Headingley really eases the pressure of us in a big way, leading into the 4th test, it were the Aussies who were chasing in this series, and the English were sitting pretty on 1-0 lead, but now the tables have turned.

This lead-up to the 5th Ashes test kind of reminds me of the 4th test of the most recent Border-Gavaskar series, where India had 1-0 lead heading into the 4th test, and all they had to do was either draw or win the test in order to regain the trophy, but since Australia were chasing that test, despite not playing that badly they ended up losing that test.

Australia have a similar advantage, as we are on the right side of things this time around, heading into the 5th test all we need to do is play steady cricket, and since England need to force a result in their favor, they would have to take a few risks, and if we are good enough, we can capitalise on that.

[BoyBrumby]

With Australia's squad the only serious "playing for a draw" option would be Hughes for a seamer (Clark in all likelihood) with McDonald having gone home (although he might be back by the 5th test I assume) and North in the patented Cam White "Specialist spinner but we all know the deal" role at seven.

Never gonna happen.

[Bloody Hell]

Originally Posted by zaremba

To be fair to England their selections this summer have been bolder than Australia's in that they have consistently selected 5 bowlers.

I would have thought that with the constant selection of a second all-rounder in Broad this indicates the exact opposite. He only appears to be there in case the batting or bowling stuffs up bigtime somewhere. The only time he has really justified selection in this series is the last test where exactly this happened. Considering England have the longest batting lineup in International Cricket - Swann would have to be the best No. 9 in the world and I can't see Broad as England's No. 5 bowler he can only be considered as the most conservative selection of all!

As I alluded to in the first post the long Australian batting lineup came from a conversation about the inclusion of Hughes for the final test.

Would love to see him have a shot - see where he stands...could hardly do worse than Hussey. Watson is a good bat, but shouldn't be opening. Clarke should be batting 4, following the great tradition of Aussie No.4's - Chappell, Waugh, Martyn. North has proven to be the rock usually selected at 5. Watson the dasher at 6. Looks much more balanced IMHO.

Katich
Hughes
Ponting
Clarke
North
Watson

But why would Hussey get dropped? Long term, whether he fails or scores a hundred could only see Hughes inclusion as a positive.

[Bloody Hell]

Originally Posted by Adamc

Don't Australia need to win to keep the no. 1 Test ranking anyway? If they needed any further incentive to win that should be it.

Feels like trying to keep that No.1 ranking is like trying to keep back the tide. Eventually SA will take it.

[pasag]

Originally Posted by Jono

This post an image culture of CW has been taken to new levels

Was a Weeds gag, nvm

[GIMH]

Originally Posted by Bloody Hell

I would have thought that with the constant selection of a second all-rounder in Broad this indicates the exact opposite. He only appears to be there in case the batting or bowling stuffs up bigtime somewhere. The only time he has really justified selection in this series is the last test where exactly this happened. Considering England have the longest batting lineup in International Cricket - Swann would have to be the best No. 9 in the world and I can't see Broad as England's No. 5 bowler he can only be considered as the most conservative selection of all!

As I alluded to in the first post the long Australian batting lineup came from a conversation about the inclusion of Hughes for the final test.

Would love to see him have a shot - see where he stands...could hardly do worse than Hussey. Watson is a good bat, but shouldn't be opening. Clarke should be batting 4, following the great tradition of Aussie No.4's - Chappell, Waugh, Martyn. North has proven to be the rock usually selected at 5. Watson the dasher at 6. Looks much more balanced IMHO.

Katich
Hughes
Ponting
Clarke
North
Watson

But why would Hussey get dropped? Long term, whether he fails or scores a hundred could only see Hughes inclusion as a positive.

Disagree. As Brumby said elsewhere, who is he actually keeping out of the team? Sidebottom or Harmison perhaps, and he has outbowled both when they have played together this year. Broad is in on the basis of his bowling, even if that hasn't always been the case.

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by Bloody Hell

I would have thought that with the constant selection of a second all-rounder in Broad this indicates the exact opposite. He only appears to be there in case the batting or bowling stuffs up bigtime somewhere. The only time he has really justified selection in this series is the last test where exactly this happened. Considering England have the longest batting lineup in International Cricket - Swann would have to be the best No. 9 in the world and I can't see Broad as England's No. 5 bowler he can only be considered as the most conservative selection of all!

England has consistently picked 5 front-line bowlers. Maybe not very good ones, but that's beside the point. They've all bowled a similar number of overs. At Headingley they might have dropped Swann and played 4 quicks and an extra batsman like Australia did, but instead they played 5 bowlers.

Now, in your original post, to which I was responding, you suggested that Australia could play 3 bowlers plus a selection of part-timers (none of whom has bowled any significant amount of overs). If you reckon that England have shown any signs of being as conservative as that, I think you're barking up the wrong tree mate.

As for Broad, I'm sorry but I just don't get what you mean by saying "he's only there in case the batting or bowling stuffs up". He's bowled more overs than anyone bar Anderson. He, like everyone else in the team, gets a bat (and has duly contributed with the bat, not least in a potentially crucial half-century at Edgbaston). So I just don't understand what you're trying to say, sorry.

Besides which, to echo GIMH, it's not as though there is a queue of world-class fast bowlers that Broad's keeping out of the team. He's England's joint top wicket taker and second in the bowling averages.

[Matt79]

Saying that Watson is better suited to bat six rather than open makes me wonder how much of Watto you've actually seen. He's struggled at 6 in tests, and has done his best work in all cricket in the top 4. If we were desperate to get Hughes back in, which I don't think we need to be, I'd be looking at dropping Hussey and moving one of Watson or Katich to 4. As things stand, Watson is now the heir apparent to Ponting at 3.

[inbox24]

At the beginning of the series I'd say no way we drop Hussey, but given his performances I'd say to get the most of the batting we should. That's not to say I personally wouldn't give him a few more chances in the future (although if the selectors drop him from tests then it will probably be game over). We'd get more runs by having Hughes open with Katich and Watson at 4. In a perfect world with more juicy pitches and Hussey would still be in form, North would have failed and there would be reason to instate Watson at 6, Hussey to be retained at 4 and Hughes opening. However the next test is another flat pitch so expect the North to cash in again

[Matt79]

Originally Posted by pasag

Was a Weeds gag, nvm

Ah, that would be why I didn't get it.

[Uppercut]

A draw isn't as good as a win just because you retain the Ashes at the end of it. If they were 2-1 up then there may be a case for it.