Black_Warrior
Cricketer Of The Year
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.
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.