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.
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.
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.
SDHoneymonster
Guest
IMO there are only two situations where I'd say enforcing is definitely the better call - one is where you're pressed for time, maybe due to a poor forecast or bad weather that's already been (Strauss enforced v India at The Oval in 2011 as most of the first day was wiped out and the first innings of the game wasn't completed until midway through day four, for example) or simply because it's taken an age to complete both teams' first innings. The other is where conditions overwhelmingly favour seam bowling. If you have good spinners and the track is already spinning it's only going to get worse to bat on and stack things even more in your favour, whereas favourable conditions for seamers come and go a bit more. Cook making Sri Lanka follow on at Headingley earlier in the English summer was a good example of that - Sri Lanka got close to avoiding the follow on but the ball was doing all sorts in the air and off the pitch, batting again and giving Sri Lanka's bowlers use of those conditions was the only thing that could've brought them back into the game. I remember McCullum not enforcing against India a couple of years back at Eden Park when they'd rolled India over cheaply because the ball was hooping around and it nearly backfired - they were 20-odd for 5 at one point and ended up bowled out for 105, and India got within 40 runs or so of what was still admittedly always an unlikely chase of just over 400 (I believe they'd had a couple of chances they missed too, and given that they got pretty close to 400 if they'd been able to chase 350-odd they may well have got there). I don't really think either of those applied at Old Trafford - the forecast was pretty clear and there was oodles of time left, and the ball wasn't doing anything untoward through the air or off the track, Pakistan just collapsed because of scoreboard pressure and tiredness (and if they'd collapsed under scoreboard pressure, why not make them face down an impossible target? They'd already shown they were fallible in those circumstances.) I'd also on the flipside of all that say that it's rarely the wrong decision to enforce it either, but it's just one way of going about winning the game. This idea that it's somehow morally superior that seems to be going around is utter bollocks if I say so myself!
Andy
Guest
If only they had looked at the weather and realised they had another freaking day to bowl Sri Lanka out.
Andy
Guest
Isnt this Jimmys and another of the English bowlers first game back from injury? And by that i mean it is, why not give your bowlers a rest so that they avoid injury. And Englands 1 and 3 both scored their quickest test 50 in their second innings so i dont see how it cant be seen as a good job to not enforce.
Asif Karmali
Roar Rookie
Being forced to follow on affects a team psychologically, the 1971 India-West Indies series being a perfect example. In the 1st test match India scored 360 odd and bowled West Indies out for 200 odd taking a lead of 160 runs. When Ajit wadekar asked the windies side to follow on ,sobers was flabbergasted. Wadekar had to remind him that as the first days play was washed out a lead of 150 was sufficient to enforce the follow on. The choicest of cuss words followed mostly aimed at the windies batsmen, off course some were directed at wadekar and company too. Though the windies managed a draw they couldn't recover from the psychological impact and the Indians marched on to a famous and historic win
Asif Karmali
Roar Rookie
I firmly believe that a follow on should invariably be imposed. The draw in the India Australia test at Sydney hurts even after 12 years. Fitness levels have improved to such an extent that we've done away with the rest day in test matches. In fact denying the bowlers to have another go at the batsmen is sheer madness. The bowlers have settled into a wicket taking mode, the adrenaline is flowing, the batsmen are more intent on keeping their wickets intact.
Anindya Dutta
Roar Guru
That was precisely my point. With 2 days to go and a lead of 391, why would you not enforce the follow on? The bowlers hadn't bowled much. Anyway English conditions are not as exacting on the physique as say an Indian summer or an Aussie summer. And if it rains in Manchester, anyway you will have a draw, no point in increasing the chances of that. And if it rains and stops, you are the team with the bowling to best exploit those conditions. Cook got the right result with the wrong decision. All power to him, but not necessarily the right lesson for other captains to home.
Paul Potter
Roar Guru
Scheduling has made it harder to enforce the follow-on in modern cricket unless you have a strong spin attack. A strong spin attack means you don’t have to bowl your seamers into the ground. Of course, having a strong spin attack is also a good reason to bat again. It’s obvious that the Kolkata Test of 2001 played a major role in changing how captains think about enforcing the follow-on, but it is worth remembering Australia has enforced the follow-on since, and it hasn’t always been enforced by conditions. Ricky Ponting enforced the follow-on only once when he had the services of Shane Warne, in a match where the rain left him with no choice. But as his team got dragged back to the pack, he used it more, not always because rain forced his hand. On two occasions he used it in an attempt to break opponents in the first Test of an Australian summer – 2007 against Sri Lanka, and 2009 against the West Indies. We might see a short-term resurgence in teams enforcing the follow-on in the future, as less and less opponents are used to doing it and pitches get better and better.
spruce moose
Guest
Yeah, there are some definite valid points there. However, there is another variable that needs to be considered: weather. There was already a rain delay in the Manchester test. When you lead by 400, your bowlers have bowled just 60 overs and rain is about: enforce the follow on. By not following on, Cook did bring back the possibility of a draw. A follow on all but eliminates that outcome.
Nudge
Guest
Personally I think not enforcing the follow on gives the opposition virtually zero chance of winning. The advantages of not following on is (a) your bowlers get a good rest instead of potentially having to bowl 150-200 overs in a row which can cause injury at the time, or later down the track. (B) it completely demoralises the opposition ( did anyone see the poor pakies in the field in the second innings) (c) and most importantly, by batting again, you are batting with absolutely no pressure on you at all. You are basically walking out to bat at 0 for 200. You're virtually no chance of being bowled out with less than a 400 odd lead. If you send the opposition back in and they get off to a decent start (say 2 for 100) all of a sudden your bowlers are getting tired and the opposition are a chance to make 350 odd. Then batting in the last innings on a day 4 or 5 track, the pressure is huge for the batting team chasing 150 to 200 odd, especially if they lose a couple of early wickets.
JohnB
Guest
1980 is the date Wikipedia gives for when the current form of the law came in - I'd be extremely surprised however if it's correct that that is when the option of enforcing the follow on if 200 or more runs ahead in a Test match came in. I'm sure the rule was that well before that (possibly some technicality changed in 1980 - I don't think the basic rule changed then). It is certainly true that in the now distant past the follow on was not optional - over time there were also very different laws about declarations. When talking about the reluctance now to enforce the follow on, what should not be forgotten is that there were rest days in all test cricket up to the late 70s. Packer effectively got rid of them in Australia and everywhere else followed over the next few years.
Anindya Dutta
Roar Guru
Interesting one Ritesh. Kohli enforcing the follow on was a test Cricket at its classic best. Cook not enforcing it, was just typical Cook. Dour, boring, unimaginative and insecure. All the reasons why I dislike him as a captain. Yes, he won the game anyway. He always knew he had a Jimmy Anderson Bowling in conditions that suit him to the hilt. The pressure of the runs would always weigh heavy on the shoulders of this young Pakistan team. England have won the match, but missed a chance to win the psychological battle. Kohli, on the other hand, has made a start from which the WI will be hard pressed to recover psychologically.