Beebo
Firm and Fruity
- Location
- Hexleybeef
Just 2 draws in 44 tests.
Cricket thread
- Thread starter rich p
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
matticus
Guru
I think this is really the nub of this debate. There seem to be broadly two schools of thought:
- draws are good if your team wasn't expecting to win. And
- draws are almost always quite boring.
For myself, I accept draws as part of the rich tapestry of test cricket (and occasionally they can be hard-fought nail-biting finishes). But generally the most exciting matches are those where neither team wants a draw, and plays accordingly.
Equally, I usually find 3-day tests as exciting as 5 days. Unless you've actually paid for a day 4/5 ticket, there is nothing "better" about a 5-day match.
Beebo
Firm and Fruity
- Location
- Hexleybeef
yes, I think you have nailed it. I can see the win at all costs mentality. But to only draw 2 tests shows there must have been plenty of games where the draw was an option that was not taken.
The rear guard action battling draw can be one of the most exciting thing. It is what makes Test cricket so unique and baffling to non cricket fan.
A 5 day game can end with one team comprehensively outplayed in all facets of the game, but if you can’t get 20 wickets you won’t win.
Giving your wicket away cheaply is something that should be avoided.
But we have also had to sit through games where after day 3 a draw is a virtual certainty, which makes day 4 and 5 pretty pointless.
The pitch also has a huge impact on the result, and making a pitch that is good enough for 4 days but not too good for 5 days is clearly very tricky.
Pross
Guru
The Cardiff match in the 2009 Ashes was an absolute classic of a draw and arguably vital in the series being won. From memory weather also played its part, I seem to recall being at a Rugby League match in Bridgend at the time it was on with the rain falling and Barmy Army chants of "only rain can save Australia". Cricket draws really are hit and miss, there have been plenty of turgid draws played out on flat tracks over the years too of course. In terms of individual matches it's generally more exciting for a team to take the win or go down fighting approach but when playing for a series the draw can be vital and that is perhaps where England under Stokes haven't used their heads at time. One of the problems is that the fast scoring, high risk game often means that there ends up being too much time in the game to allow it to be viable playing out a draw when you're on the ropes.
matticus
Guru
"selected others" is doing a lot of work there :P
I will give you two* possible take-aways from your data;
- All of your captains with very good stats are from a bygone age - very few of us saw Illingworth/Hutton play, and Jardine has only been on screen in a period drama! The "lesser" nations have caught up since we stopped going to Australia on ships.
- Just about any way you choose to look at those numbers, the Bazball era comes out looking at least average. So why would you be unhappy with those numbers, AND a more exciting style of play?
*three: not totally sure what this means, or if it matters; "he also lost ost of the ones he didn't win with the shoot or bust approach," Feel free to elaborate
Alex321
Guru
- Location
- South Wales
*three: not totally sure what this means, or if it matters; "he also lost ost of the ones he didn't win with the shoot or bust approach," Feel free to elaborate
He means that he didn't get many draws.
deptfordmarmoset
Full time tea drinker
- Location
- Armonmy Way
Elsewhere, I wish they'd make up their minds....
T4tomo
Legendary Member
*three: not totally sure what this means, or if it matters; "he also lost most of the ones he didn't win with the shoot or bust approach," Feel free to elaborate
We could have won series we lost / drew or drawn series we lost had we not had such a shoot or bust approach.
yes England were a more dominant force in the Hutton Illy Brearley era, stats were there for comparison.
The other takeaway is that statistically I would say Vaughan and Strauss were more successful that Stokes.
That said some of the performances under Stokes have been absolutely exhilarating, winning games on the subcontinent that would have been bore draws on flat battling tracks in the past etc, but inevitably a bit hit or miss which goes with the approach. I'm not unhappy at all about the Stokes era at all, you seemed to have inferred that somehow, its been the shake up that test cricket needed.
Beebo
Firm and Fruity
- Location
- Hexleybeef
McCullum has left his role with England.
Key must be next?
Key must be next?
laurentian
Senior Member
. . . he's still doing the white ball stuff - just test cricket that he's left
Blazing Saddles
Über Member
The Torygraph reporting that Sir Gary Sobers has died, aged 89. A good innings.
Boy, I have seen him hitting his 6-sixes off Malcom Nash so many times…
Boy, I have seen him hitting his 6-sixes off Malcom Nash so many times…
Pross
Guru
Nash was a good Aber boy, his mum lived a couple of streets from me. Very good cricketer whose career was defined by that over. It feels unfair when it was good, old-fashioned declaration bowling.
laurentian
Senior Member
Northants win T20!! . . . yay!
