-
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.
To enforce the follow on or not
- Thread starter Pero
- Start date
superkingdave
Hall of Fame Member
http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_dat...N_RSA/SCORECARDS/ENG_RSA_T3_26-30DEC1999.html
A classic example of when the follow on was enforced and it was probably the wrong decision.
http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_dat...IN_ENG/SCORECARDS/WI_ENG_T1_22-26JUL2004.html
An example of when the follow on was not enforced and turned out the correct decision.
A classic example of when the follow on was enforced and it was probably the wrong decision.
http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_dat...IN_ENG/SCORECARDS/WI_ENG_T1_22-26JUL2004.html
An example of when the follow on was not enforced and turned out the correct decision.
superkingdave
Hall of Fame Member
A new ball on a more deteriorated pitch with Andy Caddick fresh.
Neil Pickup
Cricket Web Moderator
The second example had no chance of enforcing the follow on? :Ssuperkingdave said:
superkingdave
Hall of Fame Member
Correct, i meant this oneNeil Pickup said:
http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2004/WI_IN_ENG/SCORECARDS/WI_ENG_T2_29JUL-02AUG2004.html
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
Which totally ignores the potential game situation.Pratyush said:
SA following on knew they had to bat out so much, but also knew that when they got to a certain score, they'd be in front of the game.
Had England gone in and hit 250-300, then they were then in a far more dominant position both in the game, and also in the mind.
C_C
International Captain
marc71178 said:
intensity and travelling add up to the mental strain...not physical.
The cricketers of the 70s and 80s who played international cricket and county cricket spent more time on a cricket field running around than they do today- that is a FACT.
And like i said, the reasons given here are physical exhaustion/injury risk to players for not enforcing a follow-on.
That is clearly a FALSE premise- as physically, cricket was more exhuastive in the 70s and 80s than today.
Either that or today's players(or aussies-since they are the only ones who dont enforce follow ons) are a buncha cissies who cant bowl for 2-3 days straight.
C_C
International Captain
A simple exercise really.Mr Casson said:
Take the total # of FC games minus Test matches and multiply them by 2.5 ( to find on average how many days they spent on the field playing FC cricket-2.5 to take into account games that finish early). Muliply by 4 for Test matches.
Add all List A days.
That is the total # of days a player spent on a cricket field playing FC cricket or higher in his career.
Divide by # of years ( FC debut to FC retirement) to get ave. # of days he was on the cricket field per year.
Do the same for current players, except take 1/4th or 1/3rd of their non Test FC matches and mulitply them by 3.5 ( since FC games are 4-day affairs instead of 3 dating back a few years).
You'll find that test cricketers who played county cricket actually spent MORE days on average on a cricket field than test cricketers today.
For example. ( i'll quote one batsman and one bowler from 70s/80s and today)
lets compare Malcolm Marshall and Glenn McGrath for bowlers and Graham Gooch and Ricky Ponting for batsmen.
Marshall: 81 tests, 327 non-Test FC matches ( total FC = 408) and 440 list A matches(which includes ODIs). Career span: 1978- 1996 [ 20 years]
Therefore a close approximation to Total # of days Marshall spent in the middle playing FC or higher level cricket : 81 *4 + 327*2.5 + 440 = 1582 days.
Over 20 years, that means 79.1 day/year spent in the middle.
McGrath: 103 tests, 64 non FC test matches and 244 List A matches(which includes ODIs) cricketing span: 1993 to 2004 [ 12 years]
Therefore a close approximation of Total # of days McGrath spent in the middle playing FC or higher level cricket : 103*4 + 40*2.5 + 24*3.5 +244 = 840 days.
Over 12 years, that means 70 days/year spent in the middle.
Now lets see Gooch vs Ponting.
Gooch: 118 Tests, 463 non Test FC games and 614 List-A games(which includes ODI games)
Career span: 1973 to 1997 [25 years]
Therefore a close approximation of Total # of days Gooch spent in the middle playing FC cricket or higher level cricket : 118*4 + 463*2.5 + 614 = 2244 days.
Over a span of 25 years, that is approx. 89.7 days/year
Ponting: 82 tests, 92 non Test FC matches and 274 List-A games(which includes ODI games).
Career Span: 1992-2004 [13 years]
Therefore a close approximation of Total # of days Ponting spent in the middle playing FC cricket or higher level cricket : 82*4 + 70*2.5 +22*3.5 +274 = 854 days.
Over a span of 13 years that is approx. 65.7 days/year.
You can repeat this exercise for MOST current day players and test players from 70s/80s who played county cricket and this will hold ( i did this analysis in another board a long time ago but cant be arsed to dig through the pages)
Which disproves a popular myth: cricketers today play more cricket than in the 70s/80s.
Cricketers today play more INTERNATIONAL cricket than 70s/80s. But total days playing cricket was actually MORE in the 80s.( i am considering FC cricket as everyone plays around the same amount of school cricket and charity/non FC games are very very rare once a player makes it to FC cricket and beyond)
With the jetsetting and higher intensity International cricket, one can argue for mental fatigue but certainly not physical fatigue, which is the premise of this 'to declare or not to declare' thread.
And if it is, it leads to the conclusion that modern day players who dont enforce follow-on because of physical fatigue are cissies compared to the old timers.
C_C
International Captain
You wanted me to try and prove my point, which i did.Mr Casson said:
If you have the attention span of a moth, i am sorry, i cannot make things THAT concise.
If you are gonna take exception to my statements, then read up when i explain. Else dont dispute it without reading the reasoning behind it.
C_C
International Captain
you can just read marshall-mcgrath comparison and end there to get a gist.
And dont have any basis ?
care to substantiate that ?
I am claiming that back in the 70s/80s, test players who played in county cricket spent more days on a cricket field than players do.
Inorder to validate that claim, i try to approximate as closely as i can to how many days of action they have per game.
In test cricket, i took it as 4 on average, for some matches last 3 days, some 5 and some 4... if you dont like it, pick another number...4.4 perhaps ? 4.3 ?
Same thing with FC matches- i took the average # of days/match as 2.5 for oldies and 3.5 for the last third/quarter of FC matches played by players today. ( since for the past few years, FC matches have been bumped up from 3 day affairs to 4 day affairs).
You dont like that number ? well pick anotehr then- 2.4 ? 2.3 ? 2.6 ?
whatever.
Just be consistent- ie, apply the same barometer.
Then divide by the total # of years to get how many days/year on average they spent on a cricket ground.
This is as close an approximation as you can get without burning dozens of hours to get EXACT # of days someone played- and even in that case, it wont be off by more than 5% to what i did ( Marshall's for eg, is out by just under 5%- i know this is because i did an exhaustive research on Marshall).
So care to say why you think my numbers have no basis ? Substantiate please.