Should Australia play for the draw?

[Bloody Hell]

Ponting has stated that they will be going for the win in this match - but a draw is all that is required to retain the Ashes.

Would the Aussies be better served by going with a batting lineup of:

Katich
Hughes
Ponting
Hussey
Clarke
North
Watson
Haddin
Johnson
XXXXXX
XXXXXX

and guarantee a draw and the Ashes?

If England got themselves together and managed a win while Australia was playing for the win...I'd be quite disappointed, to say the least. I would suggest that if the roles were reversed England would pick the sixth batsmen with Prior at 7, Flintoff at 8.



P.s I'd like to see Hussey dropped for Hughes anyway...show the lad a portion of the faith shown to Johnson. No doubt he's been working on his perceived weeknesses for the past month, could only bode well for the future.

[zaremba]

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

Anyhow selecting a team, and approaching the match, with a draw in mind is a recipe for disaster. It worked in 2005 at the oval (jones being replaced by collingwood) but that was precipitated by an injury and I'd say it was the exception rather than the rule, and the team was still balanced in that it had 4 front line bowlers in addition to Colly and the part timers.

So Australia should pick a normal team IMHO, and play with a normal attacking mentality. Only towards the closing stages of the game should the draw enter their thinking, eg when considering whether to make an aggressive / sporting declaration or whether to go for an audacious run-chase.

[Matt79]

No way. Going into a match planning to draw is simply not a part of Australian cricket. Fully expect all the non Aussies to say "you can think that when you have McGrath and Warne, but you'll have to adjust now they're gone", but I don't think we will and hope we don't change this aspect.

That said, I think we need to be realistic within the match - obviously a draw is a much better result than a loss, and if a win starts looking improbable, we should play sensibly. But that's a different situation from picking a team and entering a match saying "let's just go for a drawer".

[Matt79]

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.

And like almost all occasions when such a step has been taken, it's been a mistake on their part. Very much a fan of four specialist bowlers and six specialist batsman. England's case has been better than most in that Prior DOES seem good enough to bat at six, and in Flintoff, Broad and Swann they have a genuine no. 7 and a couple of no. 8s. That said that policy has led to the selection of Broad playing when for most of the series he hasn't appeared to merit inclusion as a bowler.

I guess my problem with the five man attack as a concept to be regarded as generally desirable, rather than something that on rare occasions is feasible, is that it often involves selecting an allrounder who is not good enough in either of his individual disciplines to merit selection in the team.

[zaremba]

Yeah I'm not saying that England's 5-man attack is necessarily a good thing, I'm just responding to the suggestion that england might tend towards the conservative if they were in Australia's position

[inbox24]

We don't really need to go all out and stack the batting. Even if we pick 4 bowlers and 6 batsmen, the tail should be long enough with Johnson and Hauritz at the end.

[andyc]

Originally Posted by Matt79

But that's a different situation from picking a team and entering a match saying "let's just go for a drawer".

[Pothas]

To be honest I would have thought that Australia would consider a 1-1 draw a bit of a dissapointment. England are not a dreadfull side but they are fairly mediocre and they have lost home series to India and South Africa in recent years. I think that if Australia want to consider themselves the best team in the world that they should be beating a side like England in a 5 test series. They should of course have won the first test and a draw would not be a disaster but Australia should not even be thinking about looking for a draw in the last test.

[ripper868]

As Ponting said during the post match with Atherton grinning ear to ear "What do you think?". Australia will be looking to win the ashes, not just retain them.

[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.

[howardj]

Australia very rarely set attacking fields and never really make bold declarations, so it will just be business as usual at The Oval - bat for as long as we can, and have sweepers back after about the 20th over

[Top_Cat]

**** no.

[Pigeon]

Wow 1-1 would be such an encouraging result for a 5-match test series in these times.

[vic_orthdox]

You don't select your side for the draw. But once the game is underway, and circumstances change, then your priorities may change as well.

[Burgey]

Originally Posted by vic_orthdox

You don't select your side for the draw. But once the game is underway, and circumstances change, then your priorities may change as well.

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.