Ties in Tests

[Lokomotiv]

I have heard that there have been only 2 ties in the history of international Test Cricket. Is that true?

 

[Spikey]

 

[fredfertang]

I've got about a dozen myself - came as a job lot on ebay for a tenner

 

[Howe_zat]

MORE TIES!

z

 

[honestbharani]

I have heard that there have been only 2 ties in the history of international Test Cricket. Is that true?

Tied Test Matches are rare.. but Deano talking about one of them happens everytime he is on the friggin TV..

 

[King Pietersen]

Yep, just the 2, both involve Australia:

1st Test: Australia v West Indies at Brisbane, Dec 9-14, 1960 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

1st Test: India v Australia at Chennai, Sep 18-22, 1986 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Senile Sentry]

Does this qualify as a tie?

3rd Test: India v West Indies at Mumbai, Nov 22-26, 2011 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Stapel]

Does this qualify as a tie?

3rd Test: India v West Indies at Mumbai, Nov 22-26, 2011 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Nope. It's a draw, as there had only fallen 9 wickets in the 4th innings.

 

[Lokomotiv]

Yep, just the 2, both involve Australia:

1st Test: Australia v West Indies at Brisbane, Dec 9-14, 1960 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

1st Test: India v Australia at Chennai, Sep 18-22, 1986 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Oh, the 2nd one is interesting. Australia declared twice, and too early. In this case, a win should be given to Australia, because they declared.
And follow-on should be allowed if the batting-first side is leading even 1 run. If Australia had chosen follow-on, Australia could have won.
So the 1st one is the only real tie in Test Cricket.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Rarely seen in tests away from Lord's.

 

[Red]

There's no reason why they couldn't catch on.

 

[Burgey]

Oh, the 2nd one is interesting. Australia declared twice, and too early. In this case, a win should be given to Australia, because they declared.
And follow-on should be allowed if the batting-first side is leading even 1 run. If Australia had chosen follow-on, Australia could have won.
So the 1st one is the only real tie in Test Cricket.

I have no words.

 

[sledger]

I bet Jono has terrible taste in ties.

 

[Burgey]

I bet Jono has terrible taste in ties.

Confirmed.

 

[Coronis]

Oh, the 2nd one is interesting. Australia declared twice, and too early. In this case, a win should be given to Australia, because they declared.
And follow-on should be allowed if the batting-first side is leading even 1 run. If Australia had chosen follow-on, Australia could have won.
So the 1st one is the only real tie in Test Cricket.

Am I the only one with blood coming out of my ears?

 

[Bahnz]

Am I the only one with blood coming out of my ears?

You can sort of see what he's saying though. The 1960 test is more of a 'pure' tie, in the sense that both teams lost their allotment of 20 wickets for the exact same number of runs. The second test ended as a tie because Australia chose to declare and set India a gettable 4th innings target.

 

[NUFAN]

I wasn't actually aware just how fast India batted in the fourth innings to tie the game. A run rate of 3.99 back in the day was pretty outstanding.