Cricket Player Manager
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 44 of 44

Thread: Should Australia play for the draw?

  1. #31
    Englishman BoyBrumby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Gone too soon
    Posts
    45,404
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    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.
    Hard to articulate just how much I disagree with that. Won't be celebrating a 1-1 draw precisely because we don't regain the urn.

    Ashes more important than any spurious ICC test rankings IMHO.
    Cricket Web's 2013/14 Premier League Tipping Champion

    - As featured in The Independent.

    "I don't believe a word of Pietersen's book, but then I don't believe a word anyone else has said either."
    - Simon Barnes renders further comment on KP's autobiography superfluous in a sentence

  2. #32
    Virat Kohli (c) Jono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    55,718
    Nah I agree with Uppercut. If Australia draw this series they can have the urn, they still come out drawing a series against a pretty poor test cricket team.
    "I am very happy and it will allow me to have lot more rice."

    Eoin Morgan on being given a rice cooker for being Man of the Match in a Dhaka Premier Division game.

  3. #33
    International Regular
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,548
    That's ludicrous. We should pick our best team to win, but if we are in a sticky situation and get to a point where winning is very unlikely but we can still draw, then we can alter our plans a bit.

  4. #34
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    23,862
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyBrumby View Post
    Hard to articulate just how much I disagree with that. Won't be celebrating a 1-1 draw precisely because we don't regain the urn.

    Ashes more important than any spurious ICC test rankings IMHO.
    That's not what I mean at all. If the series is a draw, Australia might be the team that goes home with the little trophy, but everyone will know that it was a draw and neither team has asserted their superiority.

    The Ashes is the greatest prize in cricket. Winning them is more important than any World Cups, Champions Trophies, short-form cricket or spurious ranking system. Note that I said "winning" them. Merely retaining them is not the same thing, it's a pathetic achievement in comparison. It's the difference between telling your grandchildren "I was in the team that won the Ashes" as opposed to, "I was in the team that retained the Ashes with a 1-1 draw".
    Last edited by Uppercut; 13-08-2009 at 07:41 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by zaremba View Post
    The Filth have comfortably the better bowling. But the Gash have the batting. Might be quite good to watch.


  5. #35
    International Coach pup11's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    India
    Posts
    12,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    That's not what I mean at all. If the series is a draw, Australia might be the team that goes home with the little trophy, but everyone will know that it was a draw and neither team has asserted their superiority.

    The Ashes is the greatest prize in cricket. Winning them is more important than any World Cups, Champions Trophies, short-form cricket or spurious ranking system. Note that I said "winning" them. Merely retaining them is not the same thing, it's a pathetic achievement in comparison. It's the difference between telling your grandchildren "I was in the team that won the Ashes" as opposed to, "I was in the team that retained the Ashes with a 1-1 draw".
    Yeah, When Athers asked Ponting after the defeat at Lord's, whether he feels his side has a distinct advantage being the holders, Ricky was very clear in his reply, that he and his team would just be concentrating on winning the series, rather then trying to bank on an advantage like that.

    Though being the holders we obviously have the advantage of adapting to the different circumstances that could develop during the 5th test, but there is no doubt we would definitely be go into the 5th test trying to win the game.

  6. #36
    Englishman BoyBrumby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Gone too soon
    Posts
    45,404
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    That's not what I mean at all. If the series is a draw, Australia might be the team that goes home with the little trophy, but everyone will know that it was a draw and neither team has asserted their superiority.

    The Ashes is the greatest prize in cricket. Winning them is more important than any World Cups, Champions Trophies, short-form cricket or spurious ranking system. Note that I said "winning" them. Merely retaining them is not the same thing, it's a pathetic achievement in comparison. It's the difference between telling your grandchildren "I was in the team that won the Ashes" as opposed to, "I was in the team that retained the Ashes with a 1-1 draw".
    Just don't agree, sorry. No one thinks of the 60s as anything other than a period of Aussie dominance, because we didn't regain The Ashes, despite all the drawn series. &, had Oz won at The Oval in 2005, I don't think their celebrations would've been any less joyous because of a 2-2 draw.

  7. #37
    Cricketer Of The Year four_or_six's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    9,189
    I reckon it'd be a real shame if the Aussies are that happy with a draw. We should be happier with that scoreline than them, in a way. I know they 'retain the Ashes' but all that means is they drew with us but they keep them because they used to be a great team.

  8. #38
    School Boy/Girl Cricketer Bloody Hell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Abu Dhabi, UAE
    Posts
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt79 View Post
    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.
    Strange to use his past record at 6 as a reason for not batting him at 6 (which was a fair while ago), considering his record as an opener prior to this series.

    If he is playing as an all-rounder it makes much more sense to bat him down the order. If he is at the end of a long spell - then cleans up the tail he will have a 5 minute turnaround to be out batting. He appears to be having a bit of trouble with concentration as it is getting out just over 50 3 inning in succession.

    You're suggesting disrupting the batting order to accommodate Watson. There is a pecking order and Watson IMO is at the bottom...well maybe ahead of Hussey. What is best for him should be considered last (second last)Suggesting Watson or Katich at 4 is very odd - when there is this guy call Michael Clarke, who is getting runs and should be at 4 now..

    Agree with your sentiment re: batting No.3 in the future...would like to see either Watson or North there. But whoever takes it has to earn it. Clarke has been earmarked by the powers that be - but I think he is more suited to 4.

  9. #39
    School Boy/Girl Cricketer Bloody Hell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Abu Dhabi, UAE
    Posts
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero View Post
    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.
    I'm not saying he doesn't deserve his spot, or he hasn't played well - just that it is a conservative selection. I would have chosen either of the guys you mention ahead of Broad.

    He is a great one-day player, but lacks penetration as a bowler at test level. His figures for this series are overinflated because of the last test - where he happened to be bowling when Australia went the tonk.

    When Flintoff is gone and you have to pick a mere mortal all-rounder I hope he has improved and is the one who fits the bill, more impressive than Bresnan. One thing England always seems to have over Australia is the all-rounder. Can see it continuing with this guy as his batting improves.

  10. #40
    School Boy/Girl Cricketer Bloody Hell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Abu Dhabi, UAE
    Posts
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by zaremba View Post
    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.
    I clarified my point in the post you quoted, then ignored. I wasn't suggesting Australia should go for the draw - just asking a question.

    Quote Originally Posted by zaremba View Post
    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.
    I'm saying he's there as insurance. Again I'm not saying he doesn't deserve his place or he doesn't contribute, just that if I was picking 5 bowlers I would choose more attacking bowlers. He bowls as someone who holds up an end....which makes sense if you have 4 bowlers. TBH I was suprised when KP went down there wasn't another batsmen included and a strike bowler left out. Would make Broad's selection much more valuable. I guess the selectors had more faith in Flintoff and the new middle order or the tail (which has contributed well). Talent like KP isn't easily replaced.

    I'm not talking about results or the game itself. I'm talking about decisions made at the selection table before a ball is bowled.

    Quote Originally Posted by zaremba View Post
    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.
    See above.
    Last edited by Bloody Hell; 13-08-2009 at 12:44 PM.

  11. #41
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Remembering The Prince - 63*
    Posts
    49,382
    Quote Originally Posted by Bloody Hell View Post
    I'm not saying he doesn't deserve his spot, or he hasn't played well - just that it is a conservative selection. I would have chosen either of the guys you mention ahead of Broad.

    He is a great one-day player, but lacks penetration as a bowler at test level. His figures for this series are overinflated because of the last test - where he happened to be bowling when Australia went the tonk.

    When Flintoff is gone and you have to pick a mere mortal all-rounder I hope he has improved and is the one who fits the bill, more impressive than Bresnan. One thing England always seems to have over Australia is the all-rounder. Can see it continuing with this guy as his batting improves.
    Harmison has done nothing to suggest he deserves to be selected ahead of Broad, though. They've only played a handful of Tests together; Harmison was better at The Oval last year but other than that Broad has outbowled him every time. Same with Sidebottom - some would say that's because of Sidebottom's fitness issues. Hell it probably is, but are they issues that are likely to go away? Sadly not, the guy is one of my favourite players but I wouldn't have him in the team. I don't think there is any bowler who genuinely has a case to be in the team ahead of Broad other than those that are in there with him.
    Phillip Hughes 1988-2014

    RIP Craigos. A true CW legend. You will be missed.

  12. #42
    Global Moderator Matt79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Colll----ingggg---woooooodddd!!!!
    Posts
    17,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Bloody Hell View Post
    Strange to use his past record at 6 as a reason for not batting him at 6 (which was a fair while ago), considering his record as an opener prior to this series.

    If he is playing as an all-rounder it makes much more sense to bat him down the order. If he is at the end of a long spell - then cleans up the tail he will have a 5 minute turnaround to be out batting. He appears to be having a bit of trouble with concentration as it is getting out just over 50 3 inning in succession.

    You're suggesting disrupting the batting order to accommodate Watson. There is a pecking order and Watson IMO is at the bottom...well maybe ahead of Hussey. What is best for him should be considered last (second last)Suggesting Watson or Katich at 4 is very odd - when there is this guy call Michael Clarke, who is getting runs and should be at 4 now..

    Agree with your sentiment re: batting No.3 in the future...would like to see either Watson or North there. But whoever takes it has to earn it. Clarke has been earmarked by the powers that be - but I think he is more suited to 4.
    I was talking FC as well as tests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Irfan
    We may not like you, your filthy rich coffers or your ratbag scum of supporters but by god do we respect you as a football team
    GOOD OLD COLLINGWOOD - PREMIERS IN 2010

    Is Cam White, Is Good.

  13. #43
    Global Moderator Matt79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Colll----ingggg---woooooodddd!!!!
    Posts
    17,426
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyBrumby View Post
    Hard to articulate just how much I disagree with that. Won't be celebrating a 1-1 draw precisely because we don't regain the urn.

    Ashes more important than any spurious ICC test rankings IMHO.
    Agree.

  14. #44
    State Regular readie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    934
    Theres no way in hell an Australian side will ever start a match with a mindset of trying to draw a match to secure anything, we're not the English. Any captain who would consider it is a fool.

    We've been unfortunate to not be 2-1 up at this stage. We'll be going in for the kill at the Oval trying to continue on the momentum from the 4th test.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. *Official* Club Cricket Season XIV-XV
    By Mr Mxyzptlk in forum CW Offseason Club Cricket
    Replies: 1002
    Last Post: 18-12-2009, 03:37 PM
  2. Replies: 37
    Last Post: 22-07-2009, 04:44 PM
  3. What rules do you play?
    By jonny1408 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 03-07-2009, 01:43 PM
  4. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 08-09-2005, 12:50 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •