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

[Black_Warrior]

So. This is a highly contentious, debated, controversial topic and it creeps up at least once in every ****ing series. So here's me, setting up the licensed whorehouse because I believe these whorehouses actually help keep our streets safe.

I think this is actually a very interesting discussion nonetheless, because it allows me to put myself in the captain's shoes and try to consider all the factors. And it's also something reveals a lot about a person - their character, nature, the way they approach the game.

Let's get this rolling. The other recent topic of debate was 1st test at Perth between Australia and South Africa and whether Faf should have declared earlier or not. It got forgotten later because they won the game but I feel like the same discussion just creeps up in different games.

So - to enforce the follow on or not?

And when do you declare? How much is enough?

What factors do you consider for the above two decisions? weather? pitch? fitness of bowlers, opposition etc etc.

We can use real match situations to make it more interesting.

How many of you think Smith should have followed on and how many think he made the right call?

Personally I would not have enforced the follow on. If I were a captain, I would rarely enforce a follow on in most situations unless you were playing Bangladesh in the early 2000s and they got bowled out for 70 odd in 30 overs.

The main factor behind that, is I would like to give my bowlers a break. Taking 10 wickets is not easy. They would have bowled with a fair bit of intensity and if they have bowled over 50 overs, I would like to give them a break. Secondly, the other factor I would consider is batting in the 4th innings. If I have won the toss and batted first, then would I really want to bat last in that same game? I mean there's a reason why I wanted to bat first right. Why change the scenario completely and put that extra pressure on myself?

I'll come back with my separate post on declaration and how much is enough and what the thinking is behind it.

 

[TheJediBrah]

If you declare too early and it turns out not be enough you should be able to go back in and bat again starting from the point you declared.

eg. say, hypothetically, you declare at 5/200 and set a target of somewhere around 490 or so, and the opposition chase it down with 1 or 2 wickets in hand. You should be able to keep playing to try and bowl them out, and if you bowl them out and they have say a lead of, like, 30 runs, you restart your innings at 5/200 with a target to win of ~230.

 

[Athlai]

If you declare too early and it turns out not be enough you should be able to go back in and bat again starting from the point you declared.

eg. say, hypothetically, you declare at 5/200 and set a target of somewhere around 490 or so, and the opposition chase it down with 1 or 2 wickets in hand. You should be able to keep playing to try and bowl them out, and if you bowl them out and they have say a lead of, like, 30 runs, you restart your innings at 5/200 with a target to win of ~230.

 

[Daemon]

If you declare too early and it turns out not be enough you should be able to go back in and bat again starting from the point you declared.

eg. say, hypothetically, you declare at 5/200 and set a target of somewhere around 490 or so, and the opposition chase it down with 1 or 2 wickets in hand. You should be able to keep playing to try and bowl them out, and if you bowl them out and they have say a lead of, like, 30 runs, you restart your innings at 5/200 with a target to win of ~230.

So if you lose the toss and get sent in on a greentop, just declare?

Then the opposition declares.

Then you declare.

Never ending test.

 

[DriveClub]

So if you lose the toss and get sent in on a greentop, just declare?

Then the opposition declares.

Then you declare.

Never ending test.

Haha lol

 

[grecian]

I've said it in the tour thread, people are really insistent on the early declaration/follow-on thing all in the name of intent, which is getting beyond ****ing tiresome.

Bottom line is this, pitches don't wear like they used too. sothe records they talk about are anachronisms. Watch some Youtube vids of old cricket, on the final day you would see one ball grub along on the floor, followed by a throat ball off the same-ish length regularly.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I've said it in the tour thread, people are really insistent on the early declaration/follow-on thing all in the name of intent, which is getting beyond ****ing tiresome.

Bottom line is this, pitches don't wear like they used too. sothe records they talk about are anachronisms. Watch some Youtube vids of old cricket, on the final day you would see one ball grub along on the floor, followed by a throat ball off the same-ish length regularly.

This is a very good point. Depending on the specific wicket in question of course.

 

[morgieb]

I think in the modern game following on isn't really a great option. Unless the pitch is pretty bad or it's the last Test or something.

As for declaration, I wouldn't declare in a 3rd innings unless 1. you're leading by over 550 runs and/or 2. there's 5 or less sessions to play and your lead is over 450. Unless there's a tactical advantage to declaring when you do (e.g. new ball under lights)

 

[vic_orthdox]

There's also a lack of recovery time between Tests now compared to years ago, which makes it harder on the bowlers to back up for two innings in a row.

 

[Furball]

I think in the modern game following on isn't really a great option. Unless the pitch is pretty bad or it's the last Test or something.

As for declaration, I wouldn't declare in a 3rd innings unless 1. you're leading by over 550 runs and/or 2. there's 5 or less sessions to play and your lead is over 450. Unless there's a tactical advantage to declaring when you do (e.g. new ball under lights)

I don't think getting the new ball under lights is a big enough reason to declare.

 

[honestbharani]

why are you posting it here?

 

[Burgey]

There's also a lack of recovery time between Tests now compared to years ago, which makes it harder on the bowlers to back up for two innings in a row.

This is an enormous factor which a lot of the old school commentators forget. You hear blokes like Chappell say Lillee & Thomson never had to be rested, they just bowled their hearts out in every test. FMD there were habitually three weeks between tests back then, and the guns picked and chose which tour matches they played in between.

 

[vic_orthdox]

This is an enormous factor which a lot of the old school commentators forget. You hear blokes like Chappell say Lillee & Thomson never had to be rested, they just bowled their hearts out in every test. FMD there were habitually three weeks between tests back then, and the guns picked and chose which tour matches they played in between.

Yup, you'd have six Tests in the summer, and they'd still be playing them on Australia Day in Adelaide. You'd have the one day games between the Tests, so there was plenty of rest time.

I think this also plays a large factor in Australia's want for an all-rounder - four man bowling attacks (which I'd naturally prefer) are hard work on the quicks when you've only got three days between Tests.

 

[honestbharani]

Think this is why the role of the spinner, apart from just the all rounder, has become crucial in today's cricket. I would not be surprised as we move forward, the role of the spinner in international cricket gets redefined like how the role of the wicket keeper batsman got redefined. With so much of cricket, you need good spinners to help you get through that many matches and still have reasonably fresh fast bowlers and you also need decent batsmen at least till 8 or 9 these days and with blokes like Ashwin and Jadeja doing it, slowly we might see that every spinner making an international side will also need to be a decent to good test match batsman.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Think this is why the role of the spinner, apart from just the all rounder, has become crucial in today's cricket. I would not be surprised as we move forward, the role of the spinner in international cricket gets redefined like how the role of the wicket keeper batsman got redefined. With so much of cricket, you need good spinners to help you get through that many matches and still have reasonably fresh fast bowlers and you also need decent batsmen at least till 8 or 9 these days and with blokes like Ashwin and Jadeja doing it, slowly we might see that every spinner making an international side will also need to be a decent to good test match batsman.

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.

 

[Furball]

This is an enormous factor which a lot of the old school commentators forget. You hear blokes like Chappell say Lillee & Thomson never had to be rested, they just bowled their hearts out in every test. FMD there were habitually three weeks between tests back then, and the guns picked and chose which tour matches they played in between.

Small matter of a massive back injury for Lillee as well.

 

[centurymaker]

If you get a lead of around 300 after having bowled the opposite out for well under 200, simply Follow-on and finish the opposition.

 

[theegyptian]

I think the psychological benefit of having a bit of a break before bowling a second time is kind of underplayed in general. Even if it's only a session break, I kinda feel like the bowlers appreciate the mental break. Just sitting around, talking and joking for a couple of hours is a nice break from the pressure you're under playing outside. Taking 20 wickets in a row can feel like a pretty big thing when the norm is to take 10 wickets and then bat.

 

[SteveNZ]

One thing overplayed in declarations is the belief it's the captain's sole decision, and the result therefore sits squarely on his shoulders. It's the most diplomatic process in cricket, which unlike most other decisions made by the captain, doesn't have to be a split-second one. The coach is heavily involved. The bowlers are definitely consulted. Probably these days (god forbid) the sports scientists are.

I found the dismissiveness towards Smith's decision this week as strange, myself. His bowlers had three Tests on the trot v SA, straight into the NZ ODIs, then no real rest into the Pakistan Tests. Boxing Day is on Monday and the third Test is the following Tuesday. Any surprise he didn't want to make his bowlers go around again? Then dropped catches keep Pakistan in the game from 180-5, which I'll be damned how that has anything to do with judgement on a declaration. Maybe he should've batted for 5-10 more overs, granted. But not enforcing the follow-on, as vic orthodox said, it's a completely different kettle of fish in the modern game - even if Neil Harvey might tell you they're soft.

 

[TheJediBrah]

One thing overplayed in declarations is the belief it's the captain's sole decision, and the result therefore sits squarely on his shoulders. It's the most diplomatic process in cricket, which unlike most other decisions made by the captain, doesn't have to be a split-second one. The coach is heavily involved. The bowlers are definitely consulted. Probably these days (god forbid) the sports scientists are.

I found the dismissiveness towards Smith's decision this week as strange, myself. His bowlers had three Tests on the trot v SA, straight into the NZ ODIs, then no real rest into the Pakistan Tests. Boxing Day is on Monday and the third Test is the following Tuesday. Any surprise he didn't want to make his bowlers go around again? Then dropped catches keep Pakistan in the game from 180-5, which I'll be damned how that has anything to do with judgement on a declaration. Maybe he should've batted for 5-10 more overs, granted. But not enforcing the follow-on, as vic orthodox said, it's a completely different kettle of fish in the modern game - even if Neil Harvey might tell you they're soft.

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