The recent Test loss to South Africa has exposed a worrying trend for Australia – their inability to dig in and fight out a draw.
Australia were sent in just before tea on day four with the unlikely target of 539 for victory. The only realistic outcome for Australia outside of a loss was to show some resilience and grind out the draw. Yet it proved beyond Australia as they were eventually bowled out late on day five.
Surprisingly the tail did show some resistance during the final day’s play. Unfortunately, the result had been decided late on day four when four top order wickets fell through unintelligent batting.
The most disappointing aspect of the capitulation was the fact South Africa were minus their number one strike bowler. The absence of Dale Steyn gave Australia a genuine opportunity to play for the draw.
David Warner’s runout started the rot and Australia never recovered. With the best part of four sessions to bat to save a Test match, what were Warner and Shaun Marsh thinking even attempting such a risky single? Steve Smith, Marsh and Adam Voges departed soon after attempting wild strokes away from their bodies at deliveries that could have easily been let go.
Given the tail batted so well on the final day and stretched the depleted South African attack. If the top order had a similar mindset the previous evening, a draw could have been possible and a significant momentum shift in the outcome of series. Why did the Australians not commence the innings with the mindset to survive until lunch on day five and reassess the state of the game?
In recent times similar opportunities to save a Test and demoralise the opposition have eluded Australia. In the first Test earlier this year against Sri Lanka in Kandy, Australia were unable to hold on as rain was imminent and previous days’ play had ended early for bad light. Sri Lanka were handed an unlikely win given their predicament earlier in the Test and were never headed for the remainder of the series winning 3-0.
Cardiff 2015 England set Australia an unlikely target of 412 for victory and heavy rain was forecast for day five. Australia went on to lose the first Test by 169 runs after being dismissed late on day four. When the rain did come on day five an opportunity had been lost and the momentum was lost as England went on to win the series and retain the Ashes.
Inflicting the indignity of settling for a draw on South Africa in Perth who would not have expected it could have psychological damaged the tourists for the remainder of the series. A look at recent history highlights how similar situations involving Australia have played out
In the first Test of the 2009 Ashes series England were on the ropes on the final day’s play and somehow held out for a draw. Jimmy Anderson and Monty Panesar, England’s last two batsmen, survived the last 69 balls to deny Australia a Test victory they had no business losing. The mental damage to Australia who missed the opportunity to go one nil up was significant and they never recovered. England were inspired after grinding out an unlikely draw and set in motion a series which England won 2-1 to regain the Ashes.
The second Test of the Australia and South African series in 2012 produced perhaps the greatest salvage mission ever perpetrated on Australian shores. South Africa led by Faf du Plessis were required to bat for four and a half sessions on a wearing Adelaide Oval pitch to salvage a draw. Australia were shocked and the bowling attack was shot to pieces.
Four days later in the series deciding Test match in Perth a makeshift Australian bowling attack were slaughtered by the energised South Africans.
The Australian team will say it is not in their nature to bat for a draw. This mindset was confirmed by the former skipper Michael Clarke in commentary in Perth who urged Australia to bat for the win. The cynic may say the mantra of always batting for the win is masking a deficiency to simply grind out long innings.
Given Australia has had more ten wicket capitulations in the past five years than any other Test-playing nation, the cynics may have a body of evidence to mount a successful prosecution. It doesn’t appear that defensive application interests Australia batsman.
Letting balls go, concentrating on nullifying the swinging or turning ball is nonexistent and constructing an innings by gradually wearing out bowling attack is not seen as a matter of importance.
If Australia had survived in Perth, the series would have a vastly different feel about it. It would be South Africa heading to Hobart on a four-day turnaround with an overworked bowling attack.
Ed
Guest
Australian teams have not always had a policy of playing for a win no matter what. In the mid 1980s Alan Border frequently played for a draw, and he himself was instrumental in pulling draws out of seemingly impossible positions. Even in hindsight, it is clear that was all he could do given that at the time he had a team full of inexperienced players. Playing for a draw was appropriate given the make up of those sides.
mactheblack
Guest
This is an excellent post .. it's something that has been occupying my mind for some time now. Somewhere, somehow teams are giving up the fight when the lead is over 400 .. I'd like to know the stats over the last seven seasons of Tests. How many have been drawn on the last day and a half when a teams was facing a target of 400+. C'mon Australia ... a dogged draw is better than a lame loss. Steve (Waugh) would never have accepted such weak succumbing .. a throwing in of the towel. I blame it on the T20s/ODIs draws are a forgotten element. The game needs more Athertonesque characters ....
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
It's worse than that. The coaches are telling them to move the match along as though that is the only aim. Collapsing moves games along extremely efficiently so that's working, I guess. Youngsters are being told to try and score off every ball in lower levels. Once that's ingrained, you can forget about playing for time. That will be out of their range as players.
The Bush
Roar Guru
I'm not entirely sure what you mean? Are you comparing any of this mob to Ponting or even De Villiers? If your point is that good batsmen like those two can defend out a test match, I agree. But I don't think any of this mob are even in the ball park of Ponting at his peak and I don't even think any of them are as good as De Villiers. You talk about those greats players ability to play the situation, you're right. That's why they're great players. Warner and Smith are not (yet, and maybe never) great players. I dunno if you can say they've done "nothing". As Ronan pointed out the other day, they comprehensively beat New Zealand at home and away and they were touted as a good time at the time. But yes, when you consider we haven't wont in India since 2004, England since 2001 or even against Pakistan in the UAE (since ever? Not sure), it has been a bit lean for a while...
Brian
Guest
I don't agree that none of them can defend if you are a good batsman like Ponting in that Ashes game you can defend as well as attack. The Saffers draw in Adelaide a large portion of the blocking was done by De Villiers. He plays the situation he doesn't just go well I am an attacking batsman so I can't be bothered leaving the ball alone outside off stump. If Warner or Smith want to go from good to great they need to show more match awareness. The current team have spent awhile now doing not much in Test Cricket. They had one summer when the swept the Ashes and beat South Africa with Mitch Johnson impersonating Malcolm Marshall. Otherwise its generally been failure after failure.
The Bush
Roar Guru
Can you blame them? All we hear from every commentator and coach is that they should be "playing their natural game". When you then consider that none of them have a natural game that you'd consider conservative (except perhaps Nevill), the end result is a side that will not last long, whether they score big or not.
Paul Potter
Roar Guru
Old Trafford, 2005 would appear to be an exception to your comment.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
I think they did fight hard. 120 overs is a pretty good effort in the 4th.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
Although the ump somehow missed a massively obvious catch behind from Langer when the Aussies were a long, long way from home.
Magnus M. Østergaard
Roar Guru
The weird thing here is that it is bl**dy interesting seeing a team bat out a tight 4th innings draw. But nonetheless, we see Australias top order play dead, a min resurrection in the middle, the bowlers slog it around and then the last 2 or so are cleaned up for 10.
Brian
Guest
Aussie batsman have this ridiculous notion that you play your natural game irrespective of the match situation. In other words 6 wickets need to be lost before they will aim for the draw. The only draw I can recall was in that 2005 Ashes when Ponting saved the game
Paul D
Roar Guru
It appears to be a mindset thing. Batsmen feel like that they have to play positive and not let the bowler dictate terms. They don’t spend enough time playing defensive anymore to trust their defence for an extended period.
Ed
Guest
Did I say Alan Langer! I meant Justin Langer of course.
Simon G
Guest
For as long as I can remember it has always been the Australian way to risk a loss going for a win. That's all well and good if you are chasing 339, but 539? There's a reason why a total that big has never been successfully chased down before. I would've liked to see the Aussies play for the draw, making South Africa bowl 140 overs in hot conditions with a bowler short. The extra overs that Rabada and Philander would've had to bowl would've surely had a detrimental effect on them in the 2nd Test.
Ed
Guest
I think it stems from the period of Australian dominance. I remember when Australia chased down a big score against Pakistan at Hobart. If I remember right that was Gilchrist's 2nd test, and he played a big part in that chase, as did Alan Langer. The problem is that the current group of batsmen are simply not as good as that line up. They are under the delusion that they can do things that better players have done in the past. The current lot, with the possible exception of Warner are nowhere near as talented.
BrainsTrust
Guest
it was a flat wicket with a team missing a bowler and having a batsman like Warner who can score at a high rate naturally they should have been going for the win and picking up the runs. Shaun Marsh took a few risky singles in the first innings to get himself off strike but they didn't hit the stumps with conventional throws. Irony is no one criticised him for those genuine risky singles which were certainly unnecessary. The same applies to Du Pleiss from choosing to bat first, got his bowlers bowling short at the start of the first innings, to overbowling his front line bowlers , and then defensive fielding positions on the 5th day, one of the worst captaincy performances I have seen. When South Africa got the draw in 2012 it was similiar circumstances Australia losing a bowler, Clarke also had less bowling options than du Pleiss. In the second innings south Africa lost a wicket straight away but they didn;t even start batting defensively till they lost the second wicket, but then they really batted ultra defensively,.In Australias case the run rate needed was higher but they had Warner. So it made sense to spend the first wicket at least chasing the total. What happened afer was certainly not what was required, you can't say Australia continued chasing the total, they were in no mans land, they were taking some extra risks but without any prospect of reward.The skipper Steve Smith should be telling the batsman what he wants, but he can;t even control himself or he has no idea what he should be doing.
Magnus M. Østergaard
Roar Guru
I don't think I have seen a courageous dig it and fight 4th innings batting effort by Australia ever, perhaps from the start of Pontings captaincy our teams have lacked a mental strength. In fact I am sure I have never seen them show any sort of resistance to bat out a full day for a draw.