Australia don't do draws

[Googenheim]

Has to do with lack of good opposition more than anything. IMO, a greater factor than even their aggressive approach to the game.

Flat Australian pitches would offer more draws if only the opposition matched upto them. India drew two in Australia in 03/04, and drew 1 (and if not for Bucknor, 2) in 07/08 too.

[Richard]

I don't see why you didn't include rain-affected games, though, particularly those which didn't become so contrived as to lead to an automatic draw.

Obviously the way Australia play & have played largely precludes them drawing too often, but I think it's slightly misleading to omit weather affected draws completely; one surely wouldn't omit games where results have been possible despite interuptions from the elements. & Given the nature of our weather, I would imagine this criterion would lead to a lot (the majority?) of English home draws being similarly disregarded.

Yeah it would - and as I've said, I'd actually rather like the weather-enforced draw to be taken out of cricket by the complete making-up of all lost play until 450 (or 444) overs have been bowled.

It goes without saying, really, that the more interruption from weather, the less likely a result becomes. Of course sometimes said interruptions are beaten and a result is still possible, but a weather-affected draw is always IMO quite different to one where a full game has been played out. And quite a few of Australia's draws not on the list in my OP were games where there was lots and lots of time - 2 days, occasionally even more - lost. EG, Lord's 1997, a couple in West Indies in 1991, a game at the MCG (I forget the year), Basin Reserve 2004/05, etc. (And in several of these Australia were comfortably on top and would very obviously have won had making-up of time been available.) These games qualify as virtual non-starters. And really, I don't think it's entirely fair to group games like The 'Gabba 1998/99 (where Australia were closing-in on victory before massive thunderstorms completely washed-out the last couple(ish) of sessions) or Chennai 2004/05 (where there was certainly going to be a result on the last day, before rain washed it out) with (for example) Australia's remarkable escape at the SCG in 1990/91 or indeed Sri Lanka's skin-of-the-teeth one at Cairns in 2004.

[Richard]

As for the SA Adelaide one in 1997/98, they were stopped from winning more by the catches that they dropped than that hit-wicket decision against Mark Waugh (which was apparently correct, as he was not in the process of playing a shot when he hit the wicket).

It was? Ah right, fair enough then - everything I'd read about it suggested it was a poor decision along the lines of Langer's fairly obvious catch off Vaughan being given n\o (on the same ground actually) in 2002/03. And I've never actually seen the incident myself.

BTW, been meaning to ask this for ages - do you use MSN?

[Burgey]

The key here is obviously the bowling (trite comment but hey).

Warne gave balance to the attack, and of course McGrath was a champion, but the role of the support bowlers is often under-estimated (not on here, but broadly). A fella like Dizzy, for example, would have led most attacks of his era, but was instead the third of three very good/ great bowlers. The question mark over a quality spinner in the medium term now Warne is gone is a factor which may well impact the balance of the side, in requiring Australia to play a 5th owler in order to get results, thereby potentially weakening the batting.

Notwithstanding the great bowling, credit also must go to a top order which, especially upon Waugh's ascension to the captaincy, played with such aggression as to give the bowlers time to knock over the opposition. Sure the wickets have been pretty easy-paced, but they've still had an aggressive mind set which has meant they've won a lot of matches which one would have thought would be comfortably drawn.

Occasionally this mind set contributes to a loss - the lack of adaptability of the top order to moderate its stroke play was a (not the, but a) factor in the 2005 Ashes loss, imo. Still, it's a fair trade off if the side wins so many games along the way.

[DaRick]

It was? Ah right, fair enough then - everything I'd read about it suggested it was a poor decision along the lines of Langer's fairly obvious catch off Vaughan being given n\o (on the same ground actually) in 2002/03. And I've never actually seen the incident myself.

BTW, been meaning to ask this for ages - do you use MSN?

Yes, indeed I do. My address is darick89@hotmail.com. Thing is, though, I haven't been using it regularly lately and the difference in time zones may be an irritance if we wanna chat about things. Still, you're welcome to take it.

[Richard]

One thing I forgot to mention above was that there should've been another draw - Adelaide 2006/07.

But anway - on raw results, between 1989 and 2006/07 Australia lost 35 games. 12 of these can be broadly classified as "dead" (including 2 against England where the series was still alive but the destination of The Ashes was decided).

The others are:
Trent Bridge and Edgbaston (should've been Old Trafford too) 2005
Adelaide 2003/04 vs India
Chennai and Eden Gardens 2000/01
Kandy (should've been Galle too) 1999/2000
Kensington Oval and Sabina Park 1999
Eden Gardens and Chennai 1997/98
Kensington Oval and Bourda 1991
These 12 can broadly be classified as coming in series in which they were fairly well (sometimes comprehensively) outplayed - though those against India in 2003/04 and in West Indies in 1999 were drawn. There were also one-off Tests at Delhi in 1996/97 and Basin Reserve in 1989/90 which were lost.

The remaining 9 are:
Edgbaston 1997 (went 1-0 down and ended-up winning)
MCG 1996/97 vs West Indies (2-0 up going into this match)
Queen's Park Oval 1995 (this loss made it 1-1 but they won the next game to win the series)
National Stadium Karachi 1994/95 (a defeat by 1 wicket, thanks to the batting of Mushtaq Ahmed This goes down as one of the great "how did they lose?" games of all-time)
The Wanderers and the SCG vs South Africa 1993/94 (2-2 draw in this 6-Test home-and-away series, both defeats putting Australia 1-0 down in the respective "leg" from which they came back)
Eden Park 1992/93 (a loss which enabled New Zealand to tie a 3-Test series)
The WACA vs West Indies 1992/93 (comprehensive defeat in a deciding Test)
...aaaaaaaaaaaannnnnndddddddddddd Adelaide 1992/93 (which needs no explanation - 1 run, though apparently it shouldn't have gone anywhere near that close, to set-up the above decider)

That's 5 live home Tests they lost in 18 home seasons. And 2 of those were by wafer-thin margins (Adelaide 1992/93 and SCG 1993/94).

Just 3 times at home, and 17 times away, were Australia been easily beaten in the 1989-2006/07 period. And in this time they played, let's remind ourselves again, 195 Tests (excluding World XIs, Bangladesh and the Zimbabwe of 2003/04, against whom they won every game). Of course, there's the odd victory (already mentioned Adelaide 2006/07, there's also a game in Sri Lanka in 1992 that Sri Lanka should have cantered to victory in) that really shouldn't have been one. But that's 2 occasions - even had they gone the way they should have, Australia's record would remain astonishing.

[Son Of Coco]

One thing I forgot to mention above was that there should've been another draw - Adelaide 2006/07.

[Richard]

BTW, I might as well, being on a roll. From those games which I mentioned were drawn with interference from the weather, to have a quick look at who missed-out. We'll have to assume that, rather than the question "if it hadn't rained" the question will be "if extra time were to be played" because clearly most matches had their direction altered by the rain and accompanying weather. What's more, this is far from entirely scientific because if teams knew time would not be lost they'd sometimes play differently to how they did. But nonetheless:

• The Oval 2005: had another 140 overs been available, you'd have to say England would've been big favourites with Australia chasing 342. But you'd also have to ask would the last day have gone differently if the players had known 2 more would've been available.
• Old Trafford 2005: pretty well beyond question if England had had 75 more overs available, you'd think they might have taken the 1 wicket they needed.
• Basin Reserve 2004/05: near enough unquestionably Australia's game had they had the extra overs.
• Chennai 2004/05: India were certainly big favourites until rain washed-out the last day, but it could possibly have been close.
• The 'Gabba 2003/04 vs India: Australia would've had to have been favourites here. They ended-up declaring 199 runs ahead with 7 wickets left. There were, should 444-over-min be applied, 178 overs left in this game, so Australia could easily have set India plenty and plenty. India, equally, would have had a fair chance of chasing 300, even 350, the way they batted and Australia bowled and caught that summer.
• Bellerive and The 'Gabba vs New Zealand 2001/02: Australia would've been favourites for both these games, though NZ competed better than many.
• SSC and Galle 1999/2000: substantial chance Australia and Sri Lanka were each robbed of a victory.
• The 'Gabba 1998/99: hard to conceive Australia wouldn't have won this but for the last-session thunderstorm.
• Bellerive vs New Zealand 1997/98: New Zealand were 9 down in their second-innings (this after Australia had declared 2 down in their second-innings and they had declared their first- 149 behind) after 4 sessions had been washed-out in the first 3 days. However, had both teams batted on, the way New Zealand's second-innings went tends to suggest Australia would probably have won.
• Lord's 1997: Australia would almost certainly have won this.
• ARG 1995: very interesting one this could possibly have been. In theory, 156 overs remained, and Australia ended-up declaring 7 down to set West Indies 257 (by the time of the declaration all chance of a result were gone). What might have happened had West Indies had the time to bowl Australia out and chase would have been fascinating, as batting (as you might expect at this ground ) was getting easier by the innings.
• SCG vs England 1994/95: virtually a full day's play lost here in a match which it's near inconceivable England would not have won but for it (took a first-innings lead of 193 then declared on 255 for 2).
• MCG vs South Africa 1993/94: impossible to say here, just 4 hours' play on the first 3 days. Just 231 overs bowled in which time Australia scored 342 for 7 and South Africa 258 for 3, almost all of which came when a draw was already certain.
• The WACA vs New Zealand 1993/94: this is an interesting one; just 21 overs would have been left with a 444-over minimum, and with New Zealand just 4 down no result appears imminant. But New Zealand's last 4 were Watson, Morrison, Su'a and Blain, and with 2 quick wickets Australia might just have been in business.
• Basin Reserve 1992/93: another interesting one. With 92 overs in theory remaining, New Zealand led by 241 with 3 wickets left and every innings being smaller than the previous one. They could just have won this.
• The 'Gabba vs West Indies 1992/93: 21 overs left here, West Indies 8 down (Walsh at the crease, Patterson to come, Ian Bishop having already lasted 82 balls). Australia should've won this. Subsequent happenings makes it even worse that they didn't.
• Moratuwa 1992: 141 overs left, Australia led by 334 with 2 wickets left - fairly safe to say they might have won this had more time been available.
• Some ground in Columbo, 1992: 86 overs left, Australia having declared 286 runs ahead 6 down. Probably a decent chance they'd have converted this with more time.
• SCG vs India 1991/92: 67 overs left, Australia 3 ahead with 2 wickets left - get the feeling India would've added some small comfort to a wretched summer with more time in this game.
• Queen's Park Oval 1991: loads of play lost on the opening 2 days, but with Australia leading by 190 with 7 wickets left, they might have had possibilities had time been made-up.
• Sabina Park 1991: particularly annoying this one, as it was poor covering that meant as many as 130 overs were lost here. At the end of the game West Indies were 227 ahead with 7 wickets left, Richardson and Richards at the crease, and the possibilities endless. Could've been fascinating, though you'd have to have had the home side as favourites.
• Adelaide 1990/91: just 26 overs left here and a superb partnership between Gooch and Atherton appeared to have saved England. But with 5 down, DeFreitas having already lasted 61 balls, and a last 4 of Small, Fraser, Malcolm and Tufnell hardly being confidence-inspiring, you'd have to say Australia might just have won this had those overs been bowled.
• The SCG vs Pakistan 1989\90: this was a virtual non-starter, but Australia had much the better of it (replying to 199 with 176 for 2).
• The WACA vs New Zealand 1989/90: 31 overs left here, New Zealand led by 32 with 3 wickets left. Australia might just have won this.
• The Oval 1989: 110 overs left here, Australia needed 5 wickets to win. Hard to believe they wouldn't have managed that.
• Edgbaston 1989: 140 overs left, Australia 340 ahead with 8 wickets left. But for rain in these Tests this would almost certainly have been the only 6-0 whitewash in history. A shame it didn't happen really, because if it had maybe this catastrophic summer would've been seen for the low-point it really was.

By my calculations, that's 9 potential defeats they were saved from, and 17 (maybe 18) victories denied. Out of 28 games. Vaguely interesting.

[Laurrz]

Flat Australian pitches would offer more draws if only the opposition matched upto them. India drew two in Australia in 03/04, and drew 1 (and if not for Bucknor, 2) in 07/08 too.

they may be batsmen friendly but i wouldn't say flat... there is assistance for bowlers (of all types) and batsmen