The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

To follow on or not, that is the question

25th July, 2016
Advertisement
Virat Kohli and his attitude are key to India's success. (AFP PHOTO / SAEED KHAN)
Roar Guru
25th July, 2016
11
1504 Reads

The modern follow on rule was introduced in 1980, making it optional for a side to be asked to bat again if it has a deficit of 200.

A follow on was seen after a long time without when Virat Kohli asked the West Indies to bat again after India bowled them out for 243 after piling up 566/8. However the very next day Alistair Cook, with an even bigger lead of 391 for England, decided not to enforce the follow on.

The trend nowadays is more not to enforce the follow on rather than to enforce it. In his classic Art of Captaincy Mike Brearley says that the advantages of enforcing a follow on are overwhelming. He once bitterly criticised Captain Andrew Strauss for not doing so, even though England won the Test.

Earlier, almost always the side which had a chance to follow on the opposition did so. It was almost automatic. The two main reasons were that one has more time to win, or rather the opposing team has less time to draw the match.

Secondly, the effect on morale was expected to be magical, and it could really lift up the team.

While Brearley speaks of the advantages of enforcing follow on, interestingly one of the best ever wins after being asked to follow on was under his captaincy. It was the famous ‘Bothams Test’. England in the second innings were 135/7 and still 92 behind. Botham chose to hit for 149 not out and Australia chasing 129 were 111 all out, with Bob Willis taking 8/43.

Slowly over a period of time the advantages of not enforcing following on was seen by teams- and captains. Steve Waugh, Ricky Ponting and Michael Clarke all preferred to bat for the second time and grind the opposition to submission.

It was also tempting for Waugh and Ponting to unleash the greatest spinner of all time, Shane Warnem on a late 4th and 5th day track. Not that Warne needed it of course. Clarke too followed the trend and enforced follow on only once in his career – in his last Test after having resigned from the captaincy and after England had already claimed the Ashes.

Advertisement

It is clear that VVS Laxman’s great 281 had placed doubts in opposing skippers minds. Australia were unbeaten for 16 tests in a row. After India were bowled out for 171 in response to 445, they were asked to bat on.

Laxman scored 281 and Dravid 180. India scored 657/7. Suddenly an Aussie win was out of equation as India declared with a lead of 383 with no time for Australia to chase it. Rather India shot them out for 212 claiming an epic win.

That apart, not following on had the advantage of taking a loss more or less out of the equation. Nowadays cricket is played incessantly and it made sense to give rest to bowlers.

It was also pertinent that most countries played four bowlers and therefore it was difficult to ask them to bowl two innings in a row. An injury to a key bowler could not be risked.

Further, the series was more important than the particular Test. Therefore captains often did not prefer to enforce follow on in early part of series. Pertinently Clarke too had done in last Test of the series.

What are the important factors behind Kohli enforcing follow on? Most important is that he played five bowlers. Secondly the opposition’s batting line up did not inspire confidence in fighting back.

Thirdly the side had batted pretty fast scoring at 3.49 and finally the wicket was not expected to be a minefield on the final day, even assuming an opposition fightback.

Advertisement

There is no magic formula. It is a captaincy decision to be taken considering various situations such as own bowling strength, opposition batting strength, pitch condition, time left in match, how long a series and so on.

Until then, one thing is certain. Every time such a situation comes, cricket fans will debate on both the options.

close