• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Australia don't do draws

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Recently they don't, anyway. I mean, it's no massive secret, but I've just been having a glance through, and the extent to which it's true is truly remarkable.

Between 1989, when Australia became a team of note again, and the end of The Ashes 2006/07, the games involving them which were drawn with no interference from rain numbered 15. This out of 197.

Out of interest, these games are:
2005/06 vs SA at the WACA.
2004 vs SL at Cairns (and they were within 2 wickets of winning this)
2003/04 vs India at the SCG
2001/02 vs NZ at the WACA (and New Zealand should have won this and were only stopped by bad Umpiring)
1998/99 vs Pakistan at National Stadium Karachi
1998/99 vs Pakistan at Peshawar
1997/98 vs SA at Adelaide (and of course South Africa should have won this and were only stopped by bad Umpiring, the infamous Mark Waugh game)
1997/98 vs SA at the MCG
1994/95 vs Pakistan at Gaddafi Stadium Lahore
1994/95 vs Pakistan at Rawalpindi
1993/94 vs SA at Kingsmead Durban
1993/94 vs NZ at the WACA
1993 vs England at Trent Bridge
1992/93 vs WI at the SCG
1990/91 vs England at the SCG (and England should have won this, they allowed the last 4 batsmen to survive 200 balls to take Australia to safety :blink:)
1989/90 vs Pakistan at Adelaide
1989/90 vs SL at the 'Gabba

As you can see, the trend's even more astonishing since The Ashes 1998/99, when there are just 3 uninterfered (counting Ian Robinson in 2001/02 as interference) draws out of 98 games. :wacko:

There's so much about Australia in recent times to marvel at, but this is one of the highest heights.
 

ret

International Debutant
they are the team that have made watching tests interesting .... though there is always the danger of one-sided games but overall the quality of cricket from them has been truly remarkable
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
It is an amazing achievement. Based as much in approach and mentality as talent and ability.

Quality players obviously make a huge difference but the positive approach, fast scoring (giving plenty of time to bowl opposition out), deep batting (top order not worried to play aggressively as losing a couple of quick wickets didnt cripple the team) and balanced attack capable of taking 20 wickets regularly in different conditions meant that this era of Aus cricket was able to do what no other group of players have been able to.

I have a great deal of admiration for them.
 

Laurrz

International Debutant
there was two draws in the 2005 ashes in england?
3rd test (Pontings 150 and McGrath and Lee's nerve wracking last stand)
and 5th test..... (when England officially won the Ashes.. )
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
there was two draws in the 2005 ashes in england?
3rd test (Pontings 150 and McGrath and Lee's nerve wracking last stand)
and 5th test..... (when England officially won the Ashes.. )
Both had significant time lost due to the weather.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
It is an amazing achievement. Based as much in approach and mentality as talent and ability.

Quality players obviously make a huge difference but the positive approach, fast scoring (giving plenty of time to bowl opposition out), deep batting (top order not worried to play aggressively as losing a couple of quick wickets didnt cripple the team) and balanced attack capable of taking 20 wickets regularly in different conditions meant that this era of Aus cricket was able to do what no other group of players have been able to.

I have a great deal of admiration for them.
Also surprising that they didn't really have an all rounder, though having the best batsman-wicketkeeper of all time made that much easier to bear. And of course, having McGrath and Warne means you rarely need that fifth bowler. Guys like Gillespie provided amazing support so really you had the entire bowling attack being close to or actually world class.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
Im not convinced allrounders are that useful as they are generally not used properly.

Too often they are expected to be both batsman and bowler and too often they are neither. Basically a 2nd rate bat and 2nd rate bowler that can weaken both the batting and bowling.

Unless an allrounder can make it into the team as a specialist in 1 discipline ie a Kallis or a Flintoff in 2005, then its often a bad thing to pick them.

I think its no suprise that the 2 greatest teams sine the late 70s (WIs and Aus) didnt have an allrounder and relied on specialists to get the job done.

Good allround cricketers can really help average - good teams, but the best tend to have quality specialists with quite clearly defined roles. Ill not bring the conversation onto Symonds and Watson :)

Obviously guys that can help out are preferable (like a Bevan or a Blewett or a Richards or a Hooper etc) but the bulk of the work is on the heads of the specialists. Secondary skills (like the batting of Marshall or Lee and Warne) are a joyful bonus.

As you said though, having a genius like Gilchrist at 7 doesnt hurt.
 
Last edited:

BoyBrumby

Englishman
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.
 

DaRick

State Vice-Captain
Recently they don't, anyway. I mean, it's no massive secret, but I've just been having a glance through, and the extent to which it's true is truly remarkable.

Between 1989, when Australia became a team of note again, and the end of The Ashes 2006/07, the games involving them which were drawn with no interference from rain numbered 15. This out of 197.

Out of interest, these games are:
2005/06 vs SA at the WACA.
2004 vs SL at Cairns (and they were within 2 wickets of winning this)
2003/04 vs India at the SCG
2001/02 vs NZ at the WACA (and New Zealand should have won this and were only stopped by bad Umpiring)
1998/99 vs Pakistan at National Stadium Karachi
1998/99 vs Pakistan at Peshawar
1997/98 vs SA at Adelaide (and of course South Africa should have won this and were only stopped by bad Umpiring, the infamous Mark Waugh game)
1997/98 vs SA at the MCG
1994/95 vs Pakistan at Gaddafi Stadium Lahore
1994/95 vs Pakistan at Rawalpindi
1993/94 vs SA at Kingsmead Durban
1993/94 vs NZ at the WACA
1993 vs England at Trent Bridge
1992/93 vs WI at the SCG
1990/91 vs England at the SCG (and England should have won this, they allowed the last 4 batsmen to survive 200 balls to take Australia to safety :blink:)
1989/90 vs Pakistan at Adelaide
1989/90 vs SL at the 'Gabba

As you can see, the trend's even more astonishing since The Ashes 1998/99, when there are just 3 uninterfered (counting Ian Robinson in 2001/02 as interference) draws out of 98 games. :wacko:

There's so much about Australia in recent times to marvel at, but this is one of the highest heights.
You're right, despite Australia's weather generally not favouring draws. I would say that this is Steve Waugh's primary legacy. 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.

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).
 
Last edited:

Googenheim

U19 12th Man
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

Cricket Web Staff Member
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.
 
Last edited:

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
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?
 
Last edited:

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
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

State Vice-Captain
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.
 

Top