Enforcing the follow-on

[Craig]

I don't think this has been done before.

So I'll give you all your fantasy (not the one) that your the captain of your country in a Test. You win the toss and bat and make a big total (insert your own amount) and bowl your opposition before they can met the follow-on target, and you have a chance to do so, would you? Obviously if it is a flat pitch and the weather forcast is hot, it would be tempting to go go back in, give the bowlers a break and rub it in and make a total of like 535 to win. For me I like to have a lead of about 250 at least and then I look at the amount of overs it took me to bowl them out, if it took me about 60 overs, then I think my bowlers would be capable of going back in and backing them to go for an innings victory. I would aslo look the amount of time, and of course weather if it is likely to rain or not (as I mentioned). If I bowled them out midway through the 3rd day and I have my minimum 250 run lead, I would send them back in, if it was after tea I would go back in and look to bat until tea on the 4th day at the latest, looking to give my bowlers 120 overs to knock them over.

So do you have a method if you had to enforce the follow-on (like the ones mentioned), or do you just bat again regardless? Personally if I were captaining against Australia and I was in the position like England was in this match, I'd be tempted to go against my tatics and insert them, to get a one-up on them and give a massive boost to my bowlers, if making Australia bat again and to knock them over to get a big win (even if my team had to bat again) wasn't going to motivate them, then nothing would IMO.

 

[eglezdzdiyd]

i would almost always enforce the follow on. My reason being that that way i'm probably not going to lose the match having not used all my 20 wickets. ie. i'd probably declare the second innings.

 

[archie mac]

I think the bowlers work load is also important, back to back Tests would certainly help me to decide

 

[Lillian Thomson]

i would almost always enforce the follow on. My reason being that that way i'm probably not going to lose the match having not used all my 20 wickets. ie. i'd probably declare the second innings.

If you enforce the following on it means you're batting last and there are no possible circumstances under which you could declare the second innings without the match being lost or tied.

 

[BoyBrumby]

In the example Craigos gives I think it was important psychologically for us to enforce the follow on as Australia hadn't been asked to bat again for several decades (well, seemingly) at that point. It signified (ha!) some change in the balance of power between the two nations, however temporary & illusory. As it turned out it actually gave Oz a decent-ish sniff of victory, with Lee & Warne bowling quickly & guilefully respectively, which possibly wouldn't have happened had we chosen to bat again. In Vaughan's defence tho, Jones's injury vastly reduced our bowling stocks for the 2ns innings where he'd bagged a 5-for in the 1st.

In general terms, it depends on the state of the game, the pitch & one's bowlers. If you skittle a team out quickly (say less than 60 overs) & your lead is substantial I'd personally usually enforce. I realise I reply as an Englishman & a built-in mistrust of our weather should be factored in. Obviously, if your bowlers have spent over four sessions (say) in the field it probably makes sense to bat again, weather forecast allowing.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Highly situational. If a team is bowled out in 60 overs in the first innings (and it's a good team) I'd give my bowlers 100 to do so in the second innings. So if there's time to bat again and leave that many overs for bowling, I'd do so. Not a fan of the follow-on in a heavy pace attack. Bowler workload is a big enough concern when the follow-on isn't involved.

PS - I started a thread a while back about fantasy situations (cricketing!) and "what would you do?", so I'll be expecting royalties.

 

[Craig]

Highly situational. If a team is bowled out in 60 overs in the first innings (and it's a good team) I'd give my bowlers 100 to do so in the second innings. So if there's time to bat again and leave that many overs for bowling, I'd do so. Not a fan of the follow-on in a heavy pace attack. Bowler workload is a big enough concern when the follow-on isn't involved.

PS - I started a thread a while back about fantasy situations (cricketing!) and "what would you do?", so I'll be expecting royalties.

Duly noted.

Your payment will consist of 4,312 Belarussian Ruble.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Duly noted.

Your payment will consist of 4,312 Belarussian Ruble.

How much fried chicken can that buy me?

 

[Craig]

How much fried chicken can that buy me?

Well it is worth one pound, go from there. Unless you went to Belarus.

 

[TheLad]

I would want a full scenario. Each follow on consideration is different, like the way the pitch is playing, how much time is left in the match, what the weather is doing and just how much bowling did the bowlers do/ how many did they score.

These are the factors needed to be analysed before deciding to enforce a follow on or not.

 

[sideshowtim]

I would want a full scenario. Each follow on consideration is different, like the way the pitch is playing, how much time is left in the match, what the weather is doing and just how much bowling did the bowlers do/ how many did they score.

These are the factors needed to be analysed before deciding to enforce a follow on or not.

Where in the series you're at also needs to be taken into consideration. You don't want to run your bowlers ragged without any rest between innings in the first match of a long series. It's asking for trouble.

 

[andruid]

I say get some Practice for T20 matches next

 

[Jamee999]

That match was all about sticking the knife in, if we'd batted again, we'd be giving the convicts a break from the onslaught.

 

[Richard]

And in the example in the next series, Ponting was sticking the knife in by not enforcing the follow-on. As was Smith in the game at Newlands in 2004\05.

Me, I always tend to view the follow-on as a "last-ditch" sort of thing. There's substantial evidence come to light in recent years that follow-ons (and more than ever when there's back-to-back Tests to thrown into the mix) increase quite markedly the risk of bowlers (seamers, at least) getting seriously injured.

There's obviously going to be certain circumstances where enforcing (as well as not enforcing) is important from a psychological POV, to your own team, to the opposition, or to both.

But in the absence of these, I'd only ever enforce if time was very, very short. Even if we've bowled 'em out in 40 overs with a lead of 420, I'd still bat again, provided I had ample time. Why not? Tests last 450 overs, why not use them?

 

[BoyBrumby]

It would be interesting to see the win/draw/loss ratios for enforcing/not enforcing respectively. CBA to put in the leg-work meself tho.

Hasn't there only been like 4 wins ever by the team following-on in tests? & one of those was due to a forfeit.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It would be interesting to see the win/draw/loss ratios for enforcing/not enforcing respectively. CBA to put in the leg-work meself tho.

Hasn't there only been like 4 wins ever by the team following-on in tests? & one of those was due to a forfeit.

I think there's only been three, I don't remember anything about a forfeit.

 

[Richard]

h

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Well there's only ever been 1 forfeited Test in history. And England had followed-on before said forfeit.

Would presumably be reduced to footnotes a la half-centuries \ centuries scored from joke-bowling.

Huh? England batted first in the forfeited match.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Huh? England batted first in the forfeited match.

You're quite right, actually. My mistake.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

You're quite right, actually. My mistake.

Richard was wrong as well, although I anticipate a long winded waffle outlining why he is actually right dispite being wrong.