• 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

Pero

Cricket Spectator
It seems to me that Ponting and Gilchrist were right not to enforce the follow on against India, NZ and Pakistan - i.e. against good opposition with plenty of time in the match. The reasons are:

With so much cricket these days, it's easy for the bowlers to get tired, so it's better to give them an innings break
If the second innings gets off to a good start and the bowlers get tired, then there is more chance of a big second innings score
It gives the batsmen a chance to get some runs without too much pressure (in the latest match only Langer and Gilchrist got runs in the first innings, so it seems well worth giving the anothers another chance to score)

I believe, with hindsight, that Steve Waugh put his bowlers and batsmen under too much pressure, always declaring and enforcing the follow on.
 

Swervy

International Captain
Pero said:
It seems to me that Ponting and Gilchrist were right not to enforce the follow on against India, NZ and Pakistan - i.e. against good opposition with plenty of time in the match. The reasons are:

With so much cricket these days, it's easy for the bowlers to get tired, so it's better to give them an innings break
If the second innings gets off to a good start and the bowlers get tired, then there is more chance of a big second innings score
It gives the batsmen a chance to get some runs without too much pressure (in the latest match only Langer and Gilchrist got runs in the first innings, so it seems well worth giving the anothers another chance to score)

I believe, with hindsight, that Steve Waugh put his bowlers and batsmen under too much pressure, always declaring and enforcing the follow on.
all depends on the match situation at that moment
 

Swervy

International Captain
Pero said:
It seems to me that Ponting and Gilchrist were right not to enforce the follow on against India, NZ and Pakistan - i.e. against good opposition with plenty of time in the match. The reasons are:

With so much cricket these days, it's easy for the bowlers to get tired, so it's better to give them an innings break
If the second innings gets off to a good start and the bowlers get tired, then there is more chance of a big second innings score
It gives the batsmen a chance to get some runs without too much pressure (in the latest match only Langer and Gilchrist got runs in the first innings, so it seems well worth giving the anothers another chance to score)

I believe, with hindsight, that Steve Waugh put his bowlers and batsmen under too much pressure, always declaring and enforcing the follow on.
What makes you say that then..fair enough it went a bit pair shaped vs India, but in general when he enforced the follow on,Australia had a pretty comfortable time of finishing the game off
 

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Swervy said:
What makes you say that then..fair enough it went a bit pair shaped vs India, but in general when he enforced the follow on,Australia had a pretty comfortable time of finishing the game off
Yeah, I don't think the instances of a team being enforced to follow on and then doing what India did would be that high a percentage somehow.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
It'd be less than 1% lol :p What Laxman and Dravid did was majestic. However I do feel that it is still in the back of Ponting's mind everytime he has that option.
 

LongHopCassidy

International Captain
The only incentives NOT to force the follow on are tired bowlers and deteriorating pitches.

Other than that, I can't understand why Ponting refused to enforce it yesterday.

His bowlers had been dismissed Pakistan in less than a day, and Pakistan had a terrible mindset.

Waugh (on paper the most successful Test captain) ALWAYS enforced the follow on, no matter how tired his bowlers or bad the wicket. And all times except one freak occurrence, he won.

Fear of the 2001 fightback has made Ponting and co. treat such an attacking option like the plague.

Maybe the gate takings will be healthier?
 

GotSpin

Hall of Fame Member
LongHopCassidy said:
The only incentives NOT to force the follow on are tired bowlers and deteriorating pitches.

Other than that, I can't understand why Ponting refused to enforce it yesterday.

His bowlers had been dismissed Pakistan in less than a day, and Pakistan had a terrible mindset.

Waugh (on paper the most successful Test captain) ALWAYS enforced the follow on, no matter how tired his bowlers or bad the wicket. And all times except one freak occurrence, he won.

Fear of the 2001 fightback has made Ponting and co. treat such an attacking option like the plague.

Maybe the gate takings will be healthier?
I totally agree, the bowlers shouldn't need a rest. They had been only bowling for less than a day and if they could roll the pakistanies for a low total then they would be chasing a small score to win. Though aus sometimes has a few hiccups chasing 100'ish totals
 

NikhilN

International Regular
Swervy said:
all depends on the match situation at that moment
Exactly, you might need to inforce the follow on if you are on the lead on the end of the 4th day or something like that
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
LongHopCassidy said:
The only incentives NOT to force the follow on are tired bowlers and deteriorating pitches.

Other than that, I can't understand why Ponting refused to enforce it yesterday.

His bowlers had been dismissed Pakistan in less than a day, and Pakistan had a terrible mindset.

Waugh (on paper the most successful Test captain) ALWAYS enforced the follow on, no matter how tired his bowlers or bad the wicket. And all times except one freak occurrence, he won.

Fear of the 2001 fightback has made Ponting and co. treat such an attacking option like the plague.

Maybe the gate takings will be healthier?
To me it was a stance of dominance. The Australian way. They're not only intent on beating Pakistan, but rather thrashing them in a no mercy fashion. By not enforcing the follow it shows the confidence that the batsmen will score healthily again and that confidence equates to ruthlessness as it acts on the confidence of the Pakistani bowlers further heading into the next Tests. Let's face it, Pakistan's hopes of doing anything in this series lies with the bowlers and Ponting's move here seems to me to be a ploy to derail that critical aspect. Get at them while they're down.
 

age_master

Hall of Fame Member
if the pitch looks like it will deteriorate, dont enforce it

if your bowlers are remotley tired, dont enforce it

if your bowlers are still good or you are near the end of the day depending on how much lead you want, enforce it
 

LongHopCassidy

International Captain
Mr Mxyzptlk said:
To me it was a stance of dominance. The Australian way. They're not only intent on beating Pakistan, but rather thrashing them in a no mercy fashion. By not enforcing the follow it shows the confidence that the batsmen will score healthily again and that confidence equates to ruthlessness as it acts on the confidence of the Pakistani bowlers further heading into the next Tests. Let's face it, Pakistan's hopes of doing anything in this series lies with the bowlers and Ponting's move here seems to me to be a ploy to derail that critical aspect. Get at them while they're down.
If they wanted to be truly dominant, wouldn't they aim for an innings victory/victory in three days?
 

James90

Cricketer Of The Year
Why need truly dominent, you need to ensure that you win. Now even if Australia flopped in their second innings Pakistan would need something like 400 which i don't see them getting. However it's highly likely that they could have hit 400 in the third innings and Australia can't chase small totals. It will be hard to bat on the pitch in the fourth innings. I'm not a fan of the follow on unless you've batted for like the first 3 days and need to finish the test in time
 

Slow Love™

International Captain
LongHopCassidy said:
Remember the last big run chase against Pakistan.
Yeah, but that was a big one - it's the small ones we screw up. :)

I'm not that upset about Ponting's follow-on decision yesterday (in comparison to the decision not to enforce it against NZ, which I thought was unnecessarily dangerous, because of the threat of weather playing a part in the outcome). There's an issue with Australia's older bowlers that need some protecting, and in a way, this is kind of like a complement to the rotation system, in terms of preserving energy and staving off injury.

I do kinda wonder if Ponting will ever enforce a follow-on ever, though.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
If the bowlers arent tired and believe they can bowl the batsmen out again without a huge break needed, you enforce the follow on ALWAYS.

Logic : you get more chance to bowl the opposition out and thus more chance to win. If you are not confident with a lead of 200 and think the pitch will deteriorate so much in the end that you cannot handle a lead of 200, you do deserve losing the match.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
As regards to the logic of Australia not enforcing the follow on in the match vs Pakistan? Their batsman want to get more test runs to their names. No other reason seems logical.

If a subcontinent team would have dones such a thing, lets say a similar situation arose in India vs Bangladesh, that team would be labelled SELFISH and I believe rightly so. Only no one has the guts to call Aussies that for this act of theirs in the match vs Pakistan.
 

LongHopCassidy

International Captain
Slow Love™ said:
I do kinda wonder if Ponting will ever enforce a follow-on ever, though.
Sometimes I think that too - Ponting isn't like Waugh at all in captaincy. He's always thinking about the next Test. I think it's because Warne, McGrath and Lehmann are set to retire after the Ashes and that any one could break down at any time. I don't think it would hurt if he demanded more of his bowlers once in a while (i.e. enforced a follow-on).

I do reckon that Waugh was fortunate to inherit a team at the height of its form and fitness, though.
 

LongHopCassidy

International Captain
Pratyush said:
As regards to the logic of Australia not enforcing the follow on in the match vs Pakistan? Their batsman want to get more test runs to their names. No other reason seems logical.

If a subcontinent team would have dones such a thing, lets say a similar situation arose in India vs Bangladesh, that team would be labelled SELFISH and I believe rightly so. Only no one has the guts to call Aussies that for this act of theirs in the match vs Pakistan.
There might be another, more sinister reason - prolonging the game to increase the gate takings.

Let's hope Ponting isn't that cynical, though.
 

Mr Casson

Cricketer Of The Year
I just don't understand the point of following on. I think the incentives of the follow-on are outweighed by the potential downfalls.

If it's a matter of time and the follow-on is perhaps the only choice then go for it, but I see no problem in:
1) Giving out of form batsmen a chance to get some form back.
2) Giving the bowlers a rest (honestly, how can it hurt? They might not NEED it, but that's not to say you shouldn't give them a rest if you can - Australia should be well aware of the problems of fast bowler breakdown.)
 

Top