Should Australia play for the draw?

[BoyBrumby]

With Australia's squad the only serious "playing for a draw" option would be Hughes for a seamer (Clark in all likelihood) with McDonald having gone home (although he might be back by the 5th test I assume) and North in the patented Cam White "Specialist spinner but we all know the deal" role at seven.

Never gonna happen.

 

[Bloody Hell]

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

I would have thought that with the constant selection of a second all-rounder in Broad this indicates the exact opposite. He only appears to be there in case the batting or bowling stuffs up bigtime somewhere. The only time he has really justified selection in this series is the last test where exactly this happened. Considering England have the longest batting lineup in International Cricket - Swann would have to be the best No. 9 in the world and I can't see Broad as England's No. 5 bowler he can only be considered as the most conservative selection of all!

As I alluded to in the first post the long Australian batting lineup came from a conversation about the inclusion of Hughes for the final test.

Would love to see him have a shot - see where he stands...could hardly do worse than Hussey. Watson is a good bat, but shouldn't be opening. Clarke should be batting 4, following the great tradition of Aussie No.4's - Chappell, Waugh, Martyn. North has proven to be the rock usually selected at 5. Watson the dasher at 6. Looks much more balanced IMHO.

Katich
Hughes
Ponting
Clarke
North
Watson

But why would Hussey get dropped? Long term, whether he fails or scores a hundred could only see Hughes inclusion as a positive.

 

[Bloody Hell]

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.

Feels like trying to keep that No.1 ranking is like trying to keep back the tide. Eventually SA will take it.

 

[pasag]

This post an image culture of CW has been taken to new levels

Was a Weeds gag, nvm

 

[GIMH]

I would have thought that with the constant selection of a second all-rounder in Broad this indicates the exact opposite. He only appears to be there in case the batting or bowling stuffs up bigtime somewhere. The only time he has really justified selection in this series is the last test where exactly this happened. Considering England have the longest batting lineup in International Cricket - Swann would have to be the best No. 9 in the world and I can't see Broad as England's No. 5 bowler he can only be considered as the most conservative selection of all!

As I alluded to in the first post the long Australian batting lineup came from a conversation about the inclusion of Hughes for the final test.

Would love to see him have a shot - see where he stands...could hardly do worse than Hussey. Watson is a good bat, but shouldn't be opening. Clarke should be batting 4, following the great tradition of Aussie No.4's - Chappell, Waugh, Martyn. North has proven to be the rock usually selected at 5. Watson the dasher at 6. Looks much more balanced IMHO.

Katich
Hughes
Ponting
Clarke
North
Watson

But why would Hussey get dropped? Long term, whether he fails or scores a hundred could only see Hughes inclusion as a positive.

Disagree. As Brumby said elsewhere, who is he actually keeping out of the team? Sidebottom or Harmison perhaps, and he has outbowled both when they have played together this year. Broad is in on the basis of his bowling, even if that hasn't always been the case.

 

[zaremba]

I would have thought that with the constant selection of a second all-rounder in Broad this indicates the exact opposite. He only appears to be there in case the batting or bowling stuffs up bigtime somewhere. The only time he has really justified selection in this series is the last test where exactly this happened. Considering England have the longest batting lineup in International Cricket - Swann would have to be the best No. 9 in the world and I can't see Broad as England's No. 5 bowler he can only be considered as the most conservative selection of all!

England has consistently picked 5 front-line bowlers. Maybe not very good ones, but that's beside the point. They've all bowled a similar number of overs. At Headingley they might have dropped Swann and played 4 quicks and an extra batsman like Australia did, but instead they played 5 bowlers.

Now, in your original post, to which I was responding, you suggested that Australia could play 3 bowlers plus a selection of part-timers (none of whom has bowled any significant amount of overs). If you reckon that England have shown any signs of being as conservative as that, I think you're barking up the wrong tree mate.

As for Broad, I'm sorry but I just don't get what you mean by saying "he's only there in case the batting or bowling stuffs up". He's bowled more overs than anyone bar Anderson. He, like everyone else in the team, gets a bat (and has duly contributed with the bat, not least in a potentially crucial half-century at Edgbaston). So I just don't understand what you're trying to say, sorry.

Besides which, to echo GIMH, it's not as though there is a queue of world-class fast bowlers that Broad's keeping out of the team. He's England's joint top wicket taker and second in the bowling averages.

 

[Matt79]

Saying that Watson is better suited to bat six rather than open makes me wonder how much of Watto you've actually seen. He's struggled at 6 in tests, and has done his best work in all cricket in the top 4. If we were desperate to get Hughes back in, which I don't think we need to be, I'd be looking at dropping Hussey and moving one of Watson or Katich to 4. As things stand, Watson is now the heir apparent to Ponting at 3.

 

[inbox24]

At the beginning of the series I'd say no way we drop Hussey, but given his performances I'd say to get the most of the batting we should. That's not to say I personally wouldn't give him a few more chances in the future (although if the selectors drop him from tests then it will probably be game over). We'd get more runs by having Hughes open with Katich and Watson at 4. In a perfect world with more juicy pitches and Hussey would still be in form, North would have failed and there would be reason to instate Watson at 6, Hussey to be retained at 4 and Hughes opening. However the next test is another flat pitch so expect the North to cash in again

 

[Matt79]

Was a Weeds gag, nvm

Ah, that would be why I didn't get it.

 

[Uppercut]

A draw isn't as good as a win just because you retain the Ashes at the end of it. If they were 2-1 up then there may be a case for it.

 

[BoyBrumby]

A draw isn't as good as a win just because you retain the Ashes at the end of it. If they were 2-1 up then there may be a case for it.

Hard to articulate just how much I disagree with that. Won't be celebrating a 1-1 draw precisely because we don't regain the urn.

Ashes more important than any spurious ICC test rankings IMHO.

 

[Jono]

Nah I agree with Uppercut. If Australia draw this series they can have the urn, they still come out drawing a series against a pretty poor test cricket team.

 

[Jakester1288]

That's ludicrous. We should pick our best team to win, but if we are in a sticky situation and get to a point where winning is very unlikely but we can still draw, then we can alter our plans a bit.

 

[Uppercut]

Hard to articulate just how much I disagree with that. Won't be celebrating a 1-1 draw precisely because we don't regain the urn.

Ashes more important than any spurious ICC test rankings IMHO.

That's not what I mean at all. If the series is a draw, Australia might be the team that goes home with the little trophy, but everyone will know that it was a draw and neither team has asserted their superiority.

The Ashes is the greatest prize in cricket. Winning them is more important than any World Cups, Champions Trophies, short-form cricket or spurious ranking system. Note that I said "winning" them. Merely retaining them is not the same thing, it's a pathetic achievement in comparison. It's the difference between telling your grandchildren "I was in the team that won the Ashes" as opposed to, "I was in the team that retained the Ashes with a 1-1 draw".

 

[pup11]

That's not what I mean at all. If the series is a draw, Australia might be the team that goes home with the little trophy, but everyone will know that it was a draw and neither team has asserted their superiority.

The Ashes is the greatest prize in cricket. Winning them is more important than any World Cups, Champions Trophies, short-form cricket or spurious ranking system. Note that I said "winning" them. Merely retaining them is not the same thing, it's a pathetic achievement in comparison. It's the difference between telling your grandchildren "I was in the team that won the Ashes" as opposed to, "I was in the team that retained the Ashes with a 1-1 draw".

Yeah, When Athers asked Ponting after the defeat at Lord's, whether he feels his side has a distinct advantage being the holders, Ricky was very clear in his reply, that he and his team would just be concentrating on winning the series, rather then trying to bank on an advantage like that.

Though being the holders we obviously have the advantage of adapting to the different circumstances that could develop during the 5th test, but there is no doubt we would definitely be go into the 5th test trying to win the game.

 

[BoyBrumby]

That's not what I mean at all. If the series is a draw, Australia might be the team that goes home with the little trophy, but everyone will know that it was a draw and neither team has asserted their superiority.

The Ashes is the greatest prize in cricket. Winning them is more important than any World Cups, Champions Trophies, short-form cricket or spurious ranking system. Note that I said "winning" them. Merely retaining them is not the same thing, it's a pathetic achievement in comparison. It's the difference between telling your grandchildren "I was in the team that won the Ashes" as opposed to, "I was in the team that retained the Ashes with a 1-1 draw".

Just don't agree, sorry. No one thinks of the 60s as anything other than a period of Aussie dominance, because we didn't regain The Ashes, despite all the drawn series. &, had Oz won at The Oval in 2005, I don't think their celebrations would've been any less joyous because of a 2-2 draw.

 

[four_or_six]

I reckon it'd be a real shame if the Aussies are that happy with a draw. We should be happier with that scoreline than them, in a way. I know they 'retain the Ashes' but all that means is they drew with us but they keep them because they used to be a great team.

 

[Bloody Hell]

Saying that Watson is better suited to bat six rather than open makes me wonder how much of Watto you've actually seen. He's struggled at 6 in tests, and has done his best work in all cricket in the top 4. If we were desperate to get Hughes back in, which I don't think we need to be, I'd be looking at dropping Hussey and moving one of Watson or Katich to 4. As things stand, Watson is now the heir apparent to Ponting at 3.

Strange to use his past record at 6 as a reason for not batting him at 6 (which was a fair while ago), considering his record as an opener prior to this series.

If he is playing as an all-rounder it makes much more sense to bat him down the order. If he is at the end of a long spell - then cleans up the tail he will have a 5 minute turnaround to be out batting. He appears to be having a bit of trouble with concentration as it is getting out just over 50 3 inning in succession.

You're suggesting disrupting the batting order to accommodate Watson. There is a pecking order and Watson IMO is at the bottom...well maybe ahead of Hussey. What is best for him should be considered last (second last)Suggesting Watson or Katich at 4 is very odd - when there is this guy call Michael Clarke, who is getting runs and should be at 4 now..

Agree with your sentiment re: batting No.3 in the future...would like to see either Watson or North there. But whoever takes it has to earn it. Clarke has been earmarked by the powers that be - but I think he is more suited to 4.

 

[Bloody Hell]

Disagree. As Brumby said elsewhere, who is he actually keeping out of the team? Sidebottom or Harmison perhaps, and he has outbowled both when they have played together this year. Broad is in on the basis of his bowling, even if that hasn't always been the case.

I'm not saying he doesn't deserve his spot, or he hasn't played well - just that it is a conservative selection. I would have chosen either of the guys you mention ahead of Broad.

He is a great one-day player, but lacks penetration as a bowler at test level. His figures for this series are overinflated because of the last test - where he happened to be bowling when Australia went the tonk.

When Flintoff is gone and you have to pick a mere mortal all-rounder I hope he has improved and is the one who fits the bill, more impressive than Bresnan. One thing England always seems to have over Australia is the all-rounder. Can see it continuing with this guy as his batting improves.

 

[Bloody Hell]

England has consistently picked 5 front-line bowlers. Maybe not very good ones, but that's beside the point. They've all bowled a similar number of overs. At Headingley they might have dropped Swann and played 4 quicks and an extra batsman like Australia did, but instead they played 5 bowlers.

Now, in your original post, to which I was responding, you suggested that Australia could play 3 bowlers plus a selection of part-timers (none of whom has bowled any significant amount of overs). If you reckon that England have shown any signs of being as conservative as that, I think you're barking up the wrong tree mate.

I clarified my point in the post you quoted, then ignored. I wasn't suggesting Australia should go for the draw - just asking a question.

As for Broad, I'm sorry but I just don't get what you mean by saying "he's only there in case the batting or bowling stuffs up". He's bowled more overs than anyone bar Anderson. He, like everyone else in the team, gets a bat (and has duly contributed with the bat, not least in a potentially crucial half-century at Edgbaston). So I just don't understand what you're trying to say, sorry.

I'm saying he's there as insurance. Again I'm not saying he doesn't deserve his place or he doesn't contribute, just that if I was picking 5 bowlers I would choose more attacking bowlers. He bowls as someone who holds up an end....which makes sense if you have 4 bowlers. TBH I was suprised when KP went down there wasn't another batsmen included and a strike bowler left out. Would make Broad's selection much more valuable. I guess the selectors had more faith in Flintoff and the new middle order or the tail (which has contributed well). Talent like KP isn't easily replaced.

I'm not talking about results or the game itself. I'm talking about decisions made at the selection table before a ball is bowled.

Besides which, to echo GIMH, it's not as though there is a queue of world-class fast bowlers that Broad's keeping out of the team. He's England's joint top wicket taker and second in the bowling averages.

See above.