Playing for a draw

[gPhonque]

A bit pathetic really in my opinion. The Test Series was there to be won yet Steve Waugh wimped out in the last hour.

It would have been a hard decision, but i always thought the idea was to WIN a test series - not draw it. It was definately there to be won with Gilchrist on fire the way he was. I would have liked to have seen Brett Lee go in and not throw the bat, but hit the balls that were there to be hit. Had the Aussies lost another wicket, it would have been a pretty tense hour, but had they not lost a wicket, they would have more than likely walked away with the Test Series.

It's just another example of what an average team Australia really are. The WSC-era Australia test side could have beaten the teams Australia has over the past few years. A top-class team would have kept going for the win, at least for a little while longer. I'd rather lose having a go than wimp out and play for a draw when the game's there to be won. Doesn't do anything to promote Test Cricket to those who are sceptical about it in the first place.

Don't get me wrong - I love the tradition of Test Cricket as much as the next person, but i also love to see leaders make gutsy decisions. Had we lost, so what!? Had we won, then just maybe Australia could start talking about what a great side they are.

But a draw? That just shows that Australia aren't able to throw the game on the table and say "either we're going to lose, or you're going to lose."

It seems every time we get a challenge thrown at us, we can't live up to it. And that doesn't make a very good team.

Just my 2c on the 3rd Test. Feel free to abuse me all you like.

(mind you, it was a good effort to get as far as they did. But so what? SW still took the easy way out. GUTLESS!)

cheers!

 

[Darky]

Originally posted by gPhonque

(mind you, it was a good effort to get as far as they did. But so what? SW still took the easy way out. GUTLESS!)

After years of batting for the not out (red ink) and leaving tailenders on strike, then running them out... maybe our glory-hunting captain decided, once he got out, that if he couldn't be our match-winning hero, then nobody would - and sent in Gillespie to block for the remainder, and told Gilly to shut up shop.

The match was still there to be won when Waugh got out - he should have sent Brett Lee in ahead of Warne (yes, despite the 99 in the first dig), and let Gilchrist play his natural game a bit longer.

In some respects, a draw is much the same as a loss. Simply put, you haven't won.

Australia, in three attempts, couldn't beat New Zealand.

Best ever? My f**king arse!

 

[Fat Red]

1. While Warne was in they were still going for it, so, Darky, SW did not put the shutters up when he went out.

2. Personally, I was ****ting myself that they were going for it with 5 wickets in hand, never mind 3. Waugh was bagged pretty hard in some sections (wrongly, in my view) for giving NZ a chance in the 1st test. He can't win at the moment.

3. They were chasing the record score ever in a Test match and they went for it until they had 3 wickets in hand. I could write a LONG list of captains who would have gone for a draw from the fall of the 3rd wicket, if not from the start of the innings.

 

[PiesPremiers]

I was disappointed with Steve.
I dont think hes a great captain like everyone makes out he is. He has great players, and alot of players that arent in the team, that would play for any other country in the world

Gutless captaincy? i think so...

I would have sent Brett lee in before Gillespie.
There was 60 balls left, 3 wickets in hand. and Gillespie defence is sound. I was pretty upset when they gave up soo early!

 

[RogerC]

I think New Zealand did the wrong thing. It's still a mistake to think that giving Australia a tantalising target is the best way to get them out. What it did was give us a focus for the last day. Play towards a position of safety, then strike hard. Which is what we did.

Don't get me wrong. It's a good tactic, but it only really works against teams who are a bit fragile mentally. It's a challenge a team like England might get into a bind over. But Australia only know one way - straight ahead. So I think New Zealand should have put that option way beyond us. Bat till stumps on the fourth day. Put the target above 500. Take one result out of the picture. Give us nothing to do but twiddle our thumbs on day 5.

Then our concentration might have wavered. We might have lost a cheap wicket or two. And when you're two or three down, there's still 4 and a half hours to go and the only option is survival, it's not so easy to keep your mind on the job.

The difference between playing to succeed and playing not to fail is enormous. We wer only playing not to fail for about 10 overs, and by then it was too late.

But I'm having trouble getting any takers for that line of thought.

 

[NICK THE PIE MAN]

ppfftt..
come on guys.
When Waugh got out, it was over.
needed like a 110 of 82. We would lose cheap wickets going for the target which was virtually impossible with 7 or 8 down.

We had to then bat for the draw.
What would you before?
Draw or honourable defeat?

 

[Player]

RogerC I think your judgement has been impaired by a decade of watching Warne spin the ball square on deteriorating day five pitches.

I don't think Fleming was trying to give Australia a tantalizing target to chase, I mean come on he did set a massive 434, rather enough time for his bowlers to bowl out Australia on a very benign pitch. I think the reason Fleming was so good this series is that he no longer cares if New Zealand lost a test as long as he had the opportunity to get into at least one winning position.

At no time during the test did the ball dominate the bat, I know what happened at the end of day one, but that collapse was assisted by two generous LBW decisions.

Also would your assessment of Flemings tactics have been so percise if Robinson had given either of those two decisions?

There is obviously some merit in your reasoning, and frequent Australian precedent, but I do not think anybody would believe New Zealand would have been capable of bowling Australia out in less than a day.

 

[gPhonque]

I know what you're saying RogerC, but i would definately have done what Fleming did - made them bat at the end of day 4. (it's my favourite part of Test Cricket when that happens) They did get 2 wickets too. (3 would have been nice though!)

But i still think S Waugh is pathetic, and he'll be remembered as the captain who had a chance to win a series but prefered to play for a draw. That game was there to be won and he took the easy way out.

So much for the spectacle!!! I was looking forward to a good finish to the test and he had to go and **** it up by being a pathetic spectacle-ruining "i have no faith in my team" tosser!!

cheers

 

[The Hippie]

Look at his record. He's won a hell of a lot more than he's lost or drawn. How many draws has he actually been involved in? Not too bloody many. Before this series the Aussies had played 2 draws out of 24 Tests under Steve Waugh, hardly the record of a gutless captain who's unwilling to take risks. I bet if they did lose, you'd be the first ones jumping in and abusing Waugh for not playing for a draw and handing New Zealand a series win. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

And Darky, how many times has Waugh batting with the tail put on enough runs for Australia to put itself in a winning position? He shows tailenders that he has a bit of confidence in them by letting them have a bit of strike and not shielding them. How many times has McGrath held an end up and helped put on 20 or 30 runs when everyone has headed for the pie stand because they've thought the innings was going to be over in a couple more minutes?

Don't forget that Australia was in a strong position to win both the first 2 tests. And no one else would have even thought about taking that total on on the last day. Gutless, my arse.

 

[play on]

I am happy with the draw. I would rather have the draw than a close finish that resulted in us losing. As a result of us getting the draw, we have won the trophy due to the fact that we beat them last series, and that is good enough for me, and clearly Steve as well. I would have done the same, rather than risk losing a series to a side where most of the players are players I have never heard of.

 

[NICK THE PIE MAN]

Originally posted by gPhonque
But i still think S Waugh is pathetic, and he'll be remembered as the captain who had a chance to win a series but prefered to play for a draw. That game was there to be won and he took the easy way out.

So much for the spectacle!!! I was looking forward to a good finish to the test and he had to go and **** it up by being a pathetic spectacle-ruining "i have no faith in my team" tosser!!

cheers

That's utter drivel...

He'll be remembered for being one of Australia's best captains of all time. The man that established so much hunger and ruthlessness into this side.

The man that led us to 16 consecutive test match wins. The most of all-time.

The man that hit an unbeaten century in the World Cup in the super 6's againist South Africa to get us through to the semi-final when everyone else was collapsing. And after we got to the Semis, you know what happened from there...

Show some respect...

You said, "I was looking forward to a good finish to the test and he had to go and **** it up by being a pathetic spectacle-ruining "i have no faith in my team" tosser!!"

Im sorry, but he is not there for your enjoyment. He had to play for the draw once he was out. Because, if our tailenders were trying for the win, God knows they would get bowled, get caught in the deep, trying for a virtually impossible target. (78 of 50 at that stage) We may as well handed them the series on a silver platter. Use some common sense mate....

 

[RogerC]

Player, I wasn't in any way trying to put Fleming down for his captaincy, which I think has been impeccable throughout the series (apart from maybe his choice to bowl first in the first two tests, but who could have known how they would have panned out). I personally think he did set a target Australia would be tempted to chase - beyond us, but not by so much that it's not worth chasing after. The fact that we did chase it is testament to that.

And we'd have been heroes if we'd knocked it off. That would have been firmly in Steve Waugh's mind. A big opportunity to erase the disappointments of the series - both weatherwise and as regards our form in the last test - in one fell swoop. He took that risk, and maybe if umpiring decisions went NZs way they could have won. But then again we would certainly have shut up shop sooner, too.

And I think there were few options left to Fleming anyway. The series has been captained aggressively and postively by both teams. It'd be a bit of a downer if Fleming had put the game way beyond us. I just wonder how we would have approached the last day with absolutely nothing to play for. Bad from a spectator point of view, but if it's going to be a draw anyway, why not a strangulation?

As regards Steve Waugh. He didn't wimp out. When he realised the possibility of losing was getting too close, he took the safe option. With only three wickets left, aggressive batting gets too dangerous. If Gilchrist had gone, for instance, survival would have been unlikely. I'd back Warne (on current form) with someone, or Gilchrist with someone. But once Warne goes, you can't afford to risk Gilchrist. Even in a one day match, that target is tough, and that's with one day fields set.

 

[Player]

I know where you are coming from RogerC, has Australia ever lost a test at home on the last day with Warne bowling and dozen close in men around the bat? Nobody can survive forever just trying to push a turning ball back to the bowler.

It is just obviously I have seen a lot more of Fleming than most posters here and know he approaches test against Australia far more aggressive than playing anyone else. With our batting/bowling lineup we win 85% of our tests when we bat last knocking off 50-250 runs as we really do not have the weapons to remove determined batsman.

He is from a generation that has never beaten Australia, unlike the teams from the 70s and 80s (the 60s even) and after experiencing so many defeats he is prepared to risk everything for the chance of a one of victory. Ok he pulled back his fielders when Gilchrist was charging, he is not an idiot, I personally would start with three men just off the boundary for Gilchrist anyhow as attacking field placings (deep extra point, deep square leg, deep long on) and make him change his approach or take on the field.

I am sure Fleming would have taken greater personal satisfaction if the result from this series had been 2-1 to Australia than 0-0.

Of course Australia did not wimp out, there is nothing dishonourable in playing for a draw in the last half hour of a test match.

 

[gPhonque]

Come on guys - Australia have had such a better side than everyone else over the past few years that it wouldn't have mattered if George W Bush was the bloody captain. But here we are, presented with a chance to win the series, and create a potentially classic finish to a test series, and S Waugh throws in the towel and settles for a draw. And sorry but in my opinion, when the test series is there to be won, and you supposedly have one of the "best teams ever", then that is a gutless decision.

The only other slightly challenging series we've played in the past 5 or 6 years has been the India tour, and we couldn't win that either.

If this side gets remembered as one of the best ever on the basis of beating crap teams, then it will be an injustice to all the other good sides who built up their reputation by actually playing against some competition during their reign.

It's certainly not Australia's fault that they haven't had anyone decent to play against, but on the odd occasion we DO get a challenge thrown at us, we show our true worth. S Waugh certainly isn't helping test cricket gain more of an audience either. Test cricket is close to dead, and it's because of gutless decisions like that.

Christ, who cares if we had lost the Test series!? The fact is, in the end, we didn't win when it was there for us to win. (not to mention what a huge anti-climax it was after such a good 5 days.)

The Hippie - i'd be the last person to abuse Waugh if we lost. I'd rather see a good match. And yes, i applauded his decision to give NZ a chance in the 1st test. I don't really even want Australia to win anyway. 'Carn the Proteas!

cheers!

 

[Fat Red]

Originally posted by gPhonque


I don't really even want Australia to win anyway.

The truth emerges. If you're clalling him gutless from a neutral position, fair enough, but from a pro-Aussie position I am rapt he didn't do what you wanted.

I and many Australian supporters would have been furious to lose the Trans Tasman trophy.

 

[gPhonque]

Originally posted by Fat Red


The truth emerges. If you're clalling him gutless from a neutral position, fair enough, but from a pro-Aussie position I am rapt he didn't do what you wanted.

I and many Australian supporters would have been furious to lose the Trans Tasman trophy.

Hey, i would have loved to have seem them come back and win it, but they "settled" for a draw. (gutless! )

If New Zealand were to beat us in a nail-biting test such as that, it would probably be the best thing for Test cricket, and Australian cricket. A lost test series going into a series against SA would get the general public talking cricket again, which has been lost for a few years now.

Had we won, well, we would have broken records and that is good for the game too.

"The truth" is that i like to watch good games, regardless of who wins. That was a great test match until S Waugh made the decision to turn it (and the entire series) into a non-event.

Take a risk i say!

cheers

 

[Fat Red]

That's fine, and I agree that cricket would have benefited, but his job is to get the best result for Australia.

I don't say you're wrong; I just think you are setting a higher standard than any previous captain would have achieved. Can you give an example of a captain who went for it in similar circumstacnes?

 

[NICK THE PIE MAN]

Originally posted by gPhonque

"The truth" is that i like to watch good games, regardless of who wins. That was a great test match until S Waugh made the decision to turn it (and the entire series) into a non-event.

Take a risk i say!

He is not playing for your personal enjoyment.
The media and everyone else would be down his f*cking throat if they continued to go for it knwoing that they would probably lose going for a lost cause.

They were 7 down for Christ's sake! Give me one captain that would of still gone for the win when they were 7 down and needed someting ridiculous like 77 off 50.

And, you said that he made the entire series a non-event. Utter crap mate. Remember the first test, he declared on the last day at 80. Trying for a result. Your talking drivel...

 

[gPhonque]

Don't give me mr pieman.

I could do the same thing to you when i read your one-eyed view of sport.

And i never said S Waugh turned the entire series into a non-event. You must have conveniently missed (or forgotten) my post earlier where i said i applauded his decision in the first test to declare to make a game of it. I said that his decision in the final test turned the entire series into a non-event. And you can't argue with that because it did!

It comes down to whether the game was there to be won or not. I say that if Australia are as good as they (and everybody) say they are, and with Gilchrist batting the way he was, then i say a win wasn't out of the question at all.

WHO CARES what "other" captains might have done. It's the very reason test cricket is struggling to appeal to anybody these days. I'm a traditionalist and the last thing i'd want to see is test cricket changed in any way to make it exciting - i beleive that comes down to the teams playing it.

And it's about bloody time Australia did something to prove themselves. They've had 2 chances lately (the India tour, and that final day of the NZ test) to prove themselves and have blown both of them.

cheers!

 

[Fat Red]

Your criticism is that Steve Waugh is not more attacking than any other captain ever.

It's fair enough to say what you think he should have done, but I think it's unfair to call him gutless for not doing something that no one else has ever done.

 

[gPhonque]

Well, i thought it was there to be won. Forget history, forget what other captains would do - on the day, the series was there to be won and Steve Waugh turned his back on it.

I understand it's a little harsh, but so what? It was a perfect opportunity for them to actually do something that might pass as an act of a great side, and they couldn't keep going.

It's not as though i expected McGrath to come out swinging the bat - not even Gillespie. But i thought he threw it in too early. Lee should have come in and played safely but agressively enough to try and keep the field back, Gilchrist was likely to do anything so let him score, and as long as they'd kept attacking the NZ's, they would have had the upper hand forcing Fleming to play defensively.

One more wicket and THEN i'd call it quits. As i said earlier, it would be tense, but so what!? Makes for a more interesting match too.

I know i'm being a bit harsh but too bad. It's about time the oh so magnificent side did something other than beat crap sides.

 

[gPhonque]

Well, i thought it was there to be won. Forget history, forget what other captains would do - on the day, the series was there to be won and Steve Waugh turned his back on it.

I understand it's a little harsh, but so what? It was a perfect opportunity for them to actually do something that might pass as an act of a great side, and they couldn't keep going.

It's not as though i expected McGrath to come out swinging the bat - not even Gillespie. But i thought he threw it in too early. Lee should have come in and played safely but agressively enough to try and keep the field back, Gilchrist was likely to do anything so let him score, and as long as they'd kept attacking the NZ's, they would have had the upper hand forcing Fleming to play defensively.

One more wicket and THEN i'd call it quits. As i said earlier, it would be a tense last hour, but so what!? Makes for a more interesting match too.

I know i'm being a bit harsh but too bad. It's about time this oh so magnificent side did something other than beat crap teams.