To enforce the follow on or not

[Crazy Sam]

having though about it a lot this morning, i thought it was a great decision.

I think it is three-fold:

a) to allow ponting, hayden, martyn, lehmann, clarke to find some good touch. It has to be said that the only batsmen who have really been dominant across the summer thus far are Langer and Gilchrist. There were around 270 overs (3 days) left (well, that's if pakistan don't bowl their overs at such a slow rate) when the decision was made. It provided an ideal opportunity for them to get some form. Although, I do think Ponting's been in pretty good nick and is playing well.

b) To crush Pakistan. We slaughtered them with the ball, however I think the Aussies would've felt after being dismissed for under 400 that they weren't convincing winners with the bat in the first innings. If they slaughter Pakistan in the second innings (which is what is happening) then it may well set up the next two tests in Australia's favour.

c) Maybe a little outlandish, but I think that Ponting realised last night that Shoaib was struggling very badly, remembering that at one point he asked for a runner, and given Shoaib's past history with injuries I think Ponting felt that if they put pressure on him last night through his extensive bowling action before he got the chance to have it really fixed up, he would be putting Shoaib under an enormous amount of pressure. As it turned out Shoaib couldn't complete his second over last night and is going away for scans today for a possible injury. I don't think Ponting would've been hoping he'd be injured, merely to put more pressure on Shoaib. He carries this Pakistan team, without him and Sami they'd be struggling even more.


So really, I think it was a good move by Ponting and the Australians. Plus it's great to watch Australia whether they're batting or fielding, very enjoyable.

 

[Mr Casson]

There might be another, more sinister reason - prolonging the game to increase the gate takings.

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

People aren't being robbed of their money; they choose to go to the cricket of their own volition. What's wrong with people wanting to see some cricket paying for it?

 

[andyc]

And yet Ponting labelled Lara's 400 selfish. I think it may have something to do with the players needing a bit of practice, but also as Crazy Sam said, to put more pressure on Pakistan, especially the bowlers. It's also why Ponting won't declare at the end of today, either a bit after it or a bit before, so as to make the Pakistanis bat after they've already tired themselves in the field.

 

[C_C]

Put simply, its called being scarred for life.
the Laxman-Dravid virtuoso shell-shocked the aussies to the level tendy-sidhu's assult annihilated Warne.
ever so often you see teams do that...warne had that effect on the saffies.

Interestingly, fatigue is not a factor here- the cricketers in the 70s and 80s played around the same amount of cricket, if not more, than they play today....particularly the ones playing the county circuit...and they did enforce follow-ons back then.

 

[Mr Casson]

Put simply, its called being scarred for life.
the Laxman-Dravid virtuoso shell-shocked the aussies to the level tendy-sidhu's assult annihilated Warne.
ever so often you see teams do that...warne had that effect on the saffies.

Interestingly, fatigue is not a factor here- the cricketers in the 70s and 80s played around the same amount of cricket, if not more, than they play today....particularly the ones playing the county circuit...and they did enforce follow-ons back then.

Cricketers today play MORE than they did in the 70s/80s, especially ODI cricket. And I don't care whether they played as much on the county circuit back then because, realistically, it wouldn't have been that strenuous. Not compared to international cricket.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

People aren't being robbed of their money; they choose to go to the cricket of their own volition. What's wrong with people wanting to see some cricket paying for it?

I never said they were being robbed; obviously CA doesn't make much of a profit if people are only there for three days. Batting on makes the game longer and gives more people opportunity to watch it. And obviously keeps the turnstiles ticking for an extra day or two.

Having said that, it's one of the more cynical "cricketing conspiracy theories" I've dreamed up.....

 

[Beleg]

They could have gotten Pakistan for less then 200, IMO.

 

[Swervy]

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.

a part of the problem these days with enforcing the follow-on is the speed with which batsmen score these days..for example if a team follows on 201 behind and they get off to a flyer, it is quite fesible that the initiative has been stolen from the 'winning team' within a session and in fact within 2 sessions the team following on could well have to be considered favourites depending on the day of the game ,how the pitch is faring etc..all of a sudden tthe pressure is on the team who has enforced the follow on.

If the team that was 201 runs up didnt enforce the follow on scored poorly in the second innings, the pressure is still on the losing team pretty much all the way...the game is played a hell of a lot in the mind,by not enfocing the follow on it could be said that it is just not allowing Pakistan any let up on the pressure/dominance asserted by the Australians in the match.

To say that a team deserved not to win the game by not enforcing the follow on because they are worried about the pitch or whatever you said is rubbish

 

[Swervy]

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.

is this a wind up post

 

[C_C]

Cricketers today play MORE than they did in the 70s/80s, especially ODI cricket. And I don't care whether they played as much on the county circuit back then because, realistically, it wouldn't have been that strenuous. Not compared to international cricket.

inaccurate.
The cricketers of the 70s/80s spent MORE days on a cricket field than the cricketers do today- as hard as it may sound, its true.
Multiply the number of FC games played by payers of the 80s-particularly the ones to play in County Cricket by the relevant # of days per game and do the same likewise for today.

You may have a point about mentral strain, certainly not physical.
And even then, its contentious, as Country cricket back then were chock full of international callibre players and each team fielded 4-5 test players....so the level of competition was pretty high-almost test cricket levels.

Simple fact is, this current OZ team and management have undergone mental shock-n-awe due to Kolkata 2001.....they WONT risk another Kolkata as it was a jarring enough experience- to have defeat handed to them and losing the series after having one hand on the BG trophy.

Its a mental thing - just like Cullinan was a totally different batsman when Warne came on to bowl and just like how warne was/is a totally different bowler when Tendy is batting.
Simple mental block.

 

[C_C]

double post. sorry.

 

[Mr Casson]

inaccurate.
The cricketers of the 70s/80s spent MORE days on a cricket field than the cricketers do today- as hard as it may sound, its true.
Multiply the number of FC games played by payers of the 80s-particularly the ones to play in County Cricket by the relevant # of days per game and do the same likewise for today.

You may have a point about mentral strain, certainly not physical.
And even then, its contentious, as Country cricket back then were chock full of international callibre players and each team fielded 4-5 test players....so the level of competition was pretty high-almost test cricket levels.

Simple fact is, this current OZ team and management have undergone mental shock-n-awe due to Kolkata 2001.....they WONT risk another Kolkata as it was a jarring enough experience- to have defeat handed to them and losing the series after having one hand on the BG trophy.

Its a mental thing - just like Cullinan was a totally different batsman when Warne came on to bowl and just like how warne was/is a totally different bowler when Tendy is batting.
Simple mental block.

Mate, this isn't about county cricket. These guys today play more international cricket.

 

[C_C]

mate county cricket in the 70s and 80s wernt the same stuff today- the county teams of those era were equal to/superior to the level of cricket played in the FC circuit in OZ.....
so its while its not the same deal, its not that far off in terms of intensity and mental pressure.
But physical exertion-wise, it was more exhuastive back in those days than it is today for the average county/international cricketer.

Besides, the biggest argument presented in this thread is 'follow-on was not enforced because players are tired and they play too much cricket these days to not give em enough rest'.
That premise is false, unless you are willing to consider the idea that the cricketers today aint as fit as the ones from the 70s/80s if they cant bowl 2-3 days straight ( a follow-on situation).

 

[Mr Casson]

The glut of international one-day cricket is having an effect on players - by their own admission.

 

[C_C]

like i said, you can built a decent argument based on the mental strain forced by ODI cricket.......but the idea that its the physical strain which is why OZ didnt enforce follow-on is just rubbish.

Like i said before, it is a mental block this OZ team has but its good enough not to suffer the pitfalls.

 

[Mr Casson]

Have you heard the results of research that suggests bowling over a certain amount of overs each day is extremely detrimental to a bowler and potentially career-shortening? Whether or not bowlers are feeling the strain after just one day of hard work bowling, as a captain I would be loathe to put my men in a situation where their health is at risk.

 

[Swervy]

mate county cricket in the 70s and 80s wernt the same stuff today- the county teams of those era were equal to/superior to the level of cricket played in the FC circuit in OZ.....
so its while its not the same deal, its not that far off in terms of intensity and mental pressure.
But physical exertion-wise, it was more exhuastive back in those days than it is today for the average county/international cricketer.

Besides, the biggest argument presented in this thread is 'follow-on was not enforced because players are tired and they play too much cricket these days to not give em enough rest'.
That premise is false, unless you are willing to consider the idea that the cricketers today aint as fit as the ones from the 70s/80s if they cant bowl 2-3 days straight ( a follow-on situation).

thats BS...the standard of county cricket has been pretty soft for a hell of a long time, way before the 70's.

The game is more professional now and so more is expected of the players out on the cricket pitch, County players are expected to perform these days, the attitude was a lot more easy going back in the 'olden days'.

Anyway, the point being made is that international cricket is being played a lot more these days, and that is far more demanding than any domestic cricket that was played in abundance 30 years ago.

If a captain decides he wants to rest his bowlers and not enforce the follow on, so be it. Todays game is a lot more forward thinking than it ever has been, the effects on a player is now thought of in terms of months or even years ahead, as opposed to how he will feel the next day

 

[C_C]

thats BS...the standard of county cricket has been pretty soft for a hell of a long time, way before the 70's.

The game is more professional now and so more is expected of the players out on the cricket pitch, County players are expected to perform these days, the attitude was a lot more easy going back in the 'olden days'.

Umm...you are equating county cricket as it was in the 90s and today with what it was in the 70s/80s ?
Please.
I dunno about you but i wouldnt call a county team(Sommerset for eg) which had Viv Richards, Ian Botham,Joel Garner as soft.

The game is more professional but like i said, it is not more physically exhaustive compared to the 70s and 80s.

Have you heard the results of research that suggests bowling over a certain amount of overs each day is extremely detrimental to a bowler and potentially career-shortening? Whether or not bowlers are feeling the strain after just one day of hard work bowling, as a captain I would be loathe to put my men in a situation where their health is at risk.

and lemme guess.
Surprisingly, this research was considered rubbish or wasnt done 3 years go eh ?

Anyway, the point being made is that international cricket is being played a lot more these days, and that is far more demanding than any domestic cricket that was played in abundance 30 years ago.

mentally- yes.
Physically-no.
And the reasons touted in this thread so far have been physical exhaustions and stuff.
clearly, that is a false claim.

 

[Swervy]

Umm...you are equating county cricket as it was in the 90s and today with what it was in the 70s/80s ?
Please.
I dunno about you but i wouldnt call a county team(Sommerset for eg) which had Viv Richards, Ian Botham,Joel Garner as soft.

The game is more professional but like i said, it is not more physically exhaustive compared to the 70s and 80s.

what has how county cricket in the 90's got to do with with County Cricket now.

Have a look at the Somerset team of the Richards/garner/Botham era...there is no way those 3 players played the game with the same intensity has they did when playing international cricket, a team is really only as good as the weakest parts of the team,and in county cricket there has alwways been the problem of horribly average players clogging up teams. Somerset had 3 world class players (Botham actually rarely played for Somerset in teh early 80's),and tehn a bunch of no hopers....where is the real strain for an international player in playing against that..

I used to watch county cricket back in the 80's, and trust me, the standard wasnt as good as it is now,and the play wasnt of an intense nature as it is now..its still far from perfect as it is, but it is easy for you to look back at a team sheet and say ..wow that must have been tough to play against...the reality of the matter is completely different.

The truth is, international players play so much more demanding cricket all year round compared to 20 years ago its untrue..players travel a lot more, which in itself is physically demanding.

Coaches and captains have to consider long term health and development...they didnt 20 years ago, coz the international player back then had opportunity to recover from a tough tour, they just dont have that opportunity anymore.

 

[Pratters]

a part of the problem these days with enforcing the follow-on is the speed with which batsmen score these days..for example if a team follows on 201 behind and they get off to a flyer, it is quite fesible that the initiative has been stolen from the 'winning team' within a session and in fact within 2 sessions the team following on could well have to be considered favourites depending on the day of the game ,how the pitch is faring etc..all of a sudden tthe pressure is on the team who has enforced the follow on.

If the team that was 201 runs up didnt enforce the follow on scored poorly in the second innings, the pressure is still on the losing team pretty much all the way...the game is played a hell of a lot in the mind,by not enfocing the follow on it could be said that it is just not allowing Pakistan any let up on the pressure/dominance asserted by the Australians in the match.

To say that a team deserved not to win the game by not enforcing the follow on because they are worried about the pitch or whatever you said is rubbish

I said rubbish? Thank you

If a team is ahead by more than 200 runs and their bowlers arent fatigued, why shouldnt they enforce the follow on!?

The team is as many as 200 runs ahead. Yet if they want a paddier cushion, it doesnt make any sense. Are they worried the pitch will deteriote so much in the 4th innings that the 200 runs deficit will be wiped off?

Or are they unsue of winning?

Even if the players score faster these days, its preferable to get more time to get the opposition out. What if it rains on the 4th or 5th day of a match when the follow on is not enforced (not specifically this case).

Check ow many times teams enforcing follow ons have lost in history and I think you will have your answer.