Reverse Follow on?

[Xuhaib]

Team A skittles out Team B then bats and get a lead of 200+ before getting bowled out. After being bowled out Team B gets the option of batting again or inviting the opposition back in.

Thoughts?

 

[Prince EWS]

Nah don't like it. The point of the follow on is to progress the game to its natural conclusion; this would probably just delay the inevitable and create a lull in the game.

 

[Cabinet96]

It could work. However. I reckon it would struggle to be accepted and captains would rarely use it, not just because of caution to using a new thing, but also like PEWS said, it would slow down the game and somewhat delay the inevitable.

I fear it's main use would be a defensive one if a team only needs to draw a match to win a series.

 

[sledger]

Would surely encourage negative play. Not a fan.

 

[silentstriker]

Yea, invite them to bat and just bowl negatively to waste time. If the lead is just barely over 200 the batting team won't declare and the fielding team can drag it out.

 

[zaremba]

At first sight I like the tactical "reward" being given to the batting team, and the symmetry with the reward given to the successful bowling team under the current follow on rules.

I don't know how it would play out in practice. My immediate objection would be the risk of monotony: one team bats for bloody ages and then just bats again, which could be dull. That said it could certainly be tactically useful for the batting team in that the bowling team could get absolutely exhausted and demoralised, and there could be some slaying.

 

[Howe_zat]

Would be in favour if you called it the "Carry on".

 

[Cabinet96]

Would be really useful in the Sub Continent tbh.

 

[Burgey]

Misbah would use it

 

[unam]

Not a good idea, as said by Sledger it would encourage negative play.

 

[watson]

If team B sent itself back in to bat again then wouldn't the inclination be to throw the bat in order to advance the 200 run lead quickly?

This is because team B needs to give itself enough time to bowl out team A in the 4th innings. Especially if its late on day 4 of the Test Match. On the other hand, teams curently batting 3rd, and more than 200 runs behind, seem to bat cautiously to preserve wickets and restrict time in order to draw the test.

I like the idea as the 3rd innings naturally becomes more attacking; unless team B starts to lose wickets quickly in which case team A is back in the game!

 

[Jono]

I think its fair enough. A team who performs so dominantly in the first 2 innings should have the option to avoid batting in the 4th innings if they really don't want to.

 

[GIMH]

Well said Jono. I agree. Come on ICC, let's do this ****.

 

[Xuhaib]

A lot of the sides don't enforce the follow on these days thus I can see this option being used quite frequently by the teams who get themselves in such a dominating position.

 

[GIMH]

Also I agree that it would often lead to more attacking innings. Generally when a captain hasn't enforced the follow on, weve seen that side go for batting runs rather quickly. The side batting 2nd in Xuhaib's example is in the exact same position as a captain who doesn't follow on.

Edit - beaten to it, basically

 

[Howe_zat]

I've changed my mind. "Why haven't we declared yet" moaning irks me enough as it is.