-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Why didn't Ponting enforce the follow on?
- Thread starter sqwerty
- Start date
age_master
Hall of Fame Member
Nah i reakon he wanted to really crush england and really demoralise them, the way that he has already gone past Englands total again for the loss of 1 wicket would have a massive impact. If Australia keep going for abother half a day and englands batting doesn't do better then the first dig we could be in for a record hammering.
andyc
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I'm assuming that's meant to be a joke.sqwerty said:
Australia's been scared of making the opposition following on ever since Laxman and Dravid (in fact, have we ever enforced it since then?). And then you add in the fact that McGrath had just bowled 8 or 9 overs on the trot, and that the cracks in the pitch are steadily becoming wider, to the point where you'd definitely want to be the team bowling rather than batting last, and it's not that perplexing. All the same, it smacks of a defensive mindset from Ponting, and I would rather have seen him go for the kill rather than draw it out.
Langeveldt
Soutie
Doesn't this thread belong in cricket chat?
age_master
Hall of Fame Member
Nah i reakon this will keep the English shrink out here for the full series, it will be even tougher to come back from this. It will also have Flintoff doing alot more work this way which i think Australia want.
age_master
Hall of Fame Member
pasag said:
If they lose a couple of quick wickets Ponting may declare anyway to prevent them from gaining too much, he might also want to try and get Gilchrist some time in the middle tomorrow too.
BoyBrumby
Englishman
I think it's an example of rigid thinking from Punter a la Edgbaston. He was always going to bowl then, regardless of the situation. Similarly he was never going to enforce the follow-on. I doubt he considered the possibility of a 450-ish lead beforehand so didn't take it into account like he didn't consider McGrath knackering his ankle as making a difference last year.
I mean, we're going to lose & all, but it's given us an ever-so-slightly less infinitesimally small chance of the draw.
I mean, we're going to lose & all, but it's given us an ever-so-slightly less infinitesimally small chance of the draw.
Son Of Coco
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
It doesn't matter...it seems as if some people aren't taking into account that the wicket will get worse, not better. If England can't bat for 6 sessions on days two and three, they won't do it on days 4 and 5. The bowlers will come out fresh tomorrow and if England try to last for 2 days they won't, and if they try to attack they'll fail. Their only hope is late storms forecast on Monday, and by that stage the only way it''ll affect them is if it strikes their plane as they're on the way to the next game.sqwerty said:
With this much time left it makes perfect sense to rest your bowlers for an afternoon and let them loose again tomorrow. Warney will come into it more as the wicket deteriorates...if he's needed at all again.
Woodster
International Captain
Before I go any further, I agree that the result of this game should be in no doubt at all now. Even so, I find Pontings decision just a tiny bit strange.
I understand the thinking thats gone into it, cracks widening gonna get worse to bat on, perhaps really rub salt into the wound and try to demoralise the English camp, give a chance for the 4 bowlers to have a rest and come back firing in the morning. After all there is still 2 days to go, plenty of time.
However, surely putting England into bat with 40 overs in the day left, represents an excellent chance to whip out half the line up and leave this Test in absolutely no doubt. If he enforced the follow on, the cracks surely don't matter anyway, if the pitch is progressively getting worse while England are batting. The lead is so immense, it doesnt matter if England have a good day, they'd still be a relatively long way behind with the Aussies able to bat again, surely thats more demoralising! I'm sure the bowlers would have had a better rest had they been able to take half of day 4 and day 5 off!
England now have a target(an unlikely one I agree), of batting the remainder of the days, prob just over 1 and half days. Ponting for me is wasting time, Australia would probably not have needed to bat again, so this is a bit of a time killing experiment.
Also, one thought is that it is giving Englands bowlers some much needed practice in the middle. There is no pressure on them because what the Aussies get is pretty immaterial, so they can concentrate on trying to get everything going in the right direction in terms of rhythm (evidence yet to be seen mind).
Or am I just peeing in the wind here, and trying to find positive's for England when there really aren't any ?
I understand the thinking thats gone into it, cracks widening gonna get worse to bat on, perhaps really rub salt into the wound and try to demoralise the English camp, give a chance for the 4 bowlers to have a rest and come back firing in the morning. After all there is still 2 days to go, plenty of time.
However, surely putting England into bat with 40 overs in the day left, represents an excellent chance to whip out half the line up and leave this Test in absolutely no doubt. If he enforced the follow on, the cracks surely don't matter anyway, if the pitch is progressively getting worse while England are batting. The lead is so immense, it doesnt matter if England have a good day, they'd still be a relatively long way behind with the Aussies able to bat again, surely thats more demoralising! I'm sure the bowlers would have had a better rest had they been able to take half of day 4 and day 5 off!
England now have a target(an unlikely one I agree), of batting the remainder of the days, prob just over 1 and half days. Ponting for me is wasting time, Australia would probably not have needed to bat again, so this is a bit of a time killing experiment.
Also, one thought is that it is giving Englands bowlers some much needed practice in the middle. There is no pressure on them because what the Aussies get is pretty immaterial, so they can concentrate on trying to get everything going in the right direction in terms of rhythm (evidence yet to be seen mind).
Or am I just peeing in the wind here, and trying to find positive's for England when there really aren't any ?
oz_fan
International Regular
Agree with that. At first I thought he should have just enforced the follow on but after that session I agree with his decision. It tired out the English bowlers and demoralised them even further. All the Aussie bowlers will be fresh to bowl most of the day tomorrow and on the fifth day if required.Josh said:
dontcloseyoureyes
BARNES OUT
I've said my piece on this, but it's just petty bitterness from last year.
Pointless cricket. Hope England draw it, for the sake of cricket.
Pointless cricket. Hope England draw it, for the sake of cricket.
Johnners
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Fair Decision from Ponting, i'm leaning towards the "the follow-on was not enforced to give McGrath & Co. a rest" theory. McGrath was just finishing a Long spell, and he is 36 afterall, and there's every possiblity that we could face a far more determined english batting line-up in the 4th innings.
The idea of having our 2 old Warriors in Warne & McGrath in the field for 2 days straight, and then possibly following it up with at least another day in the field in Adelaide later in the week makes it a top decision imo. However, i would've liked to have seen Punter give Lee & McGrath another crack at the top order with 10 overs at the death today.
The idea of having our 2 old Warriors in Warne & McGrath in the field for 2 days straight, and then possibly following it up with at least another day in the field in Adelaide later in the week makes it a top decision imo. However, i would've liked to have seen Punter give Lee & McGrath another crack at the top order with 10 overs at the death today.
Woodster
International Captain
At this rate, he's definitely on for a 1000 series! He is so impressive, think in the past England have kept him reasonably quiet. Think he averaged around 40 against us, which is well below his career average. However, this may well change by the end of this series. He is in such awesome form this year, need to get him early in his innings or else its good night.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
You're kidding aren't you?dontcloseyoureyes said:
His 2 best bowlers are 36 and 37 respectively, his other two are both over 30, it's 30 degrees plus up there and will be for the next 4 days at least, and they have another test starting on an absolute ball-tearing belter in Adelaide.
Why's it pointless? Now Englands bowlers will be spending the majority of the time bowling in unforgiving conditions when they are all but down and out, and then have to back up in Adelaide. It's pointless in the sense that it takes up a lot of time, but it's a 5 day game, and he's perfectly entitled to rub every little bit into them that he can, especially with a good forecast.
And if he got burned personally after what happened last year, then who can blame him for twisting the knife? No one begrudged the Poms making the most of their dominance last year after being down and out previously did they?
If the tests were 2 or 3 weeks apart like they used to be I have no doubt he would have enforced the follow-on anyway, but now the managmeent of a team has to think of the next match while playing this one. It's unfortunate, it's dumb programming but they all agree to it.