The Follow On/Declaration Thread - To be or not to be

[Compton]

If the lead is sufficient, the time works, the conditions are right, and all other reasonably analysed conditions suit enforcing the follow on; you still need the seamers to be up for starting again.

Without a fifth bowler (and probably a part-time trundler on top of that) I'd be very wary of enforcing the follow on after an innings lasting more than 40 or so overs. Even if just one of my main seamers wasn't feeling right, I'd be inclined just to bat again.

 

[SteveNZ]

This is heavily dependent on the captain involved, the level at which others are consulted could vary greatly with different people. I'm sure many of us have experienced that personally.

good post though

Yeah definitely, at the end of the day the captain is hanging his hat on the decision - it falls on him if it's right or wrong. I'm only guessing with Smith, but I know decisions made by NZ captains have been very much in consultation with coaches and senior players/bowlers. Obviously the du Plessis one in Brisbane (?, my memory is questioning me for some reason) was completely him, and was a rare declaration where time and a network of decision makers weren't part of it. I'll admit on that occasion I thought it was wonderful at the time but with hindsight had too much arrogance/intent rather than sound reasoning behind it.

Maybe I'm discovering why CH9 talk about declarations so much, it's quite fascinating. And there's no black and white about it really, even in terms of winning and losing (at least in my mind).

 

[honestbharani]

TBH, with the Du Plessis declaration, think the series situation let him take that risk. Understandable AFAIC.

 

[SteveNZ]

TBH, with the Du Plessis declaration, think the series situation let him take that risk. Understandable AFAIC.

You're trying to win every Test you play, and SA said as much. As I say, I thought it was wonderful at the time but that was as a neutral who loved Australia copping a healthy dose of arrogance. It was pretty average in hindsight.

 

[TheJediBrah]

You're trying to win every Test you play, and SA said as much. As I say, I thought it was wonderful at the time but that was as a neutral who loved Australia copping a healthy dose of arrogance. It was pretty average in hindsight.

I still think that declaration was the clear right decision. It just looked bad in hindsight because they didn't end up getting a wicket that night.

 

[honestbharani]

You're trying to win every Test you play, and SA said as much. As I say, I thought it was wonderful at the time but that was as a neutral who loved Australia copping a healthy dose of arrogance. It was pretty average in hindsight.

Nah.. this is a risk to reward thought process. Obviously the intention is to win the game and what would the best decision be at that point towards that end. With 9 down and Shamsi simply having a slog, there was as much a chance that he would get out the next ball as there was of them getting more runs. But still, if they were not 2-0 up in a 3 test series, I dont think Faf would have taken that risk. Being in a position of strength or dominance (or victory as was the case in this series) allows you to take such risks without the fear of too much backlash.

 

[honestbharani]

This has been stressed a lot in first class cricket for a while in Australia, because so often as a spinner you weren't going to contribute much in the first innings of games. You go back a decade, and it's sort of how Cullen Bailey, Beau Casson, Nathan Hauritz, Chris Simpson played so many games, because they could be relied on to contribute without bowling too much.

So how is your batting shaping up, Vic?

 

[Bijed]

Sorry resurrecting the thread, but I was doing a bit of research into the follow-on and felt I might as well stick it on here in case anyone was interested. Source.

Anyway, the various statistics for results in matches where the follow-on (under the current laws regarding it) was available are:

	Enforced	Not Enforced			Enforced	Not Enforced
Wins	118	58		Wins	79.73%	87.88%
Draws	28	7		Draws	18.92%	10.61%
Losses	2	1		Losses	1.35%	1.52%
Total	148	66		Total	100%	100%

Also, with regards to giving the bowlers a rest, I thought that might be worth a look-in too. The most appropriate measure I could think of to quickly get some data on would be to see if the difference in runs scores/overs faced in their 1st & 2nd innings by the side correlated to the number of overs face in their 1st innings (intuitively you might expect a relatively high workload in the first innings to mean a poorer bowling display in the 2nd?). Anyway, the results didn't come out how I'd expected, but maybe that's just my poor grasp of things. I've excluded drawn matches here as the team following on just batting out maybe only a few overs until the end of the match would skew the stats. I'll go through in a bit and add drawn matches where all 4 innings were started.

 

[Howe_zat]

I'm glad it totals 100%.

I suspect that the increase in % of drawn matches when enforcing the follow on is probably to do with to the circumstances surrounding you needing to enforce (e.g. rain) but it's still one in the eye for the get-on-with-it priests, so I'm pleased it's there.

 

[Furball]

Or the match is at a stage where a draw is a nailed on certainty, but enforcing gives you a 10% shot at winning (thinking a batting paradise where Team A scores 650, team B is dismissed for 425, which at 3 an over takes you to roughly close of play day 4 if weather hasn't been a factor.

 

[GIMH]

Or the match is at a stage where a draw is a nailed on certainty, but enforcing gives you a 10% shot at winning (thinking a batting paradise where Team A scores 650, team B is dismissed for 425, which at 3 an over takes you to roughly close of play day 4 if weather hasn't been a factor.

I think Barbados 09 went something like that but with higher totals