Australia don't do draws
 

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.

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

Australia don't really do losses either lol.

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.

I think I'll have a look at the losses in the same period sometime soon too actually, as that should be pretty interesting too.

Bangladesh don't do draws either, for the reverse reason Australia don't.:)

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.

What an amazing team.

Who has had the most draws in recent history?

oh i see... my bad

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.

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.

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.

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).

Bingo.