England beat Pakistan by 330 runs at Old Trafford earlier this week.
Apologies if you already knew the result but it’s actually the word ‘beat’ I’m interested in.
After deservedly coming second in the series opener at Lord’s a few days earlier, Alastair Cook’s side responded with a thoroughly efficient, high-class performance to level things up at one Test apiece.
The captain batted nicely, Joe Root played magnificently, Jimmy Anderson showed exactly what had been missing in North London and Chris Woakes continued his upward curve with another decent effort.
They were helped by a couple of limp Pakistan showings with the bat but I doubt anyone connected with England will really care. They won, they won well and that, really, is that.
However, as Pakistan’s first innings came to a close and Cook indicated he was going to have another innings and not enforce the follow-on, you could have been excused, given some of the opinion being offered, for thinking the very fabric of society was being vandalised.
With just less than half the game remaining, Cook decided to make the visitors bowl again after a relatively short time with their feet up, thus rubbing their collective noses in the dirt a bit and in the process put the hosts’ lead way into insurmountable territory.
Yet some of the reaction was absolutely ludicrous given, and this is the important part, there was more than two days of the game remaining.
In no particular order the gripes were along the lines of ‘they’ve only bowled 60-odd overs’, ‘what if it rains?’, ‘the Pakistanis wouldn’t want to bat again’, ‘they’re not thinking about the crowd’, ‘you can’t be number one in the world winning in this fashion’, ‘it’s insecure not ruthless’ and so on and so on.
All well and good if the cricketing world was run on hypothetical lines but as it isn’t, like all professional sport, all some distance wide of the mark.
The main factor to consider is the contest hadn’t been played out and a decision was being condemned by many with the ultimate outcome not yet known.
That, unless I’m missing something, doesn’t make any sense.
The aim of the game, as we are told so often when a manager/coach/captain gets the sack, is to win matches. It’s a results business and if results don’t stack up then whoever is in charge should be ready to feel the proverbial guillotine at the back of their neck.
If England had failed to bowl Pakistan out second time around then Cook, as I’m sure he would have been aware, would have squarely in the firing line and rightly so.
But, and in this instance it is a very big but, they did bowl Pakistan out and won the game with more than a day to spare.
In anyone’s eyes that is a comprehensive victory and now the dust has begun to settle and the scorecard can enter the history books, a 330-run triumph can be viewed in the correct manner.
You win by an innings, you win by 330 runs. Six of one and half a dozen of another. Is the latter of less worth than the former? No. Do England appear weaker for not enforcing the follow-on? No. Did they win in emphatic style? Yes.
The final point is what matters. England won the game and that is what they were there to do.
I can recall other sides acting in the same way and it being considered a hard-nosed way of operating. Don’t give the opposition a sniff and a demoralised team is one waiting to be thrashed.
What took place at Old Trafford was no different and hopefully, although my fingers will have to be crossed, the next time such a scenario pans out the reaction won’t be so immediately scornful.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
A great decision. Maybe Cooky remembered the dopey declaration in Adelaide 2006/7. or read about the team morale sapping declaration in Sydney when genial old Hicky was 98.
Prasenjit Dey
Roar Rookie
Considering the weather conditions Cook just risked their opportunity to win with his decision to bat again. England were fortunate enough that the weather remained good otherwise that decision would have drawn stern criticism from pundits and fans alike
Frederick the Englishman
Guest
We get the same nonsense every time England have to make a follow-on decision. I think it's a form of collective insecurity. Ever since Waugh's Australians, the average English cricketer (and fan) has had it drummed into him that winners are "ruthless" and "keep their foot on the throat of the opposition". Most assume this to mean that, inter alia, you always enforce the follow on. Not enforcing the follow-on thus invokes the sense that the England team is being too timid, too 1990s, too 'jolly good effort, chaps' - hence the hysterical reaction to Cook's decision. It's a cultural tic, in other words.
Josh
Guest
I thought his decision was quite sound. Cook had a great test and is scoring a swag of runs. I feel the whole forcing the follow on changed a great deal in 2001 when India were forced to follow on and Dravid and Laxman put on 376 for the 5th wicket with some of the greatest batting ever seen. In the end India won by 171 runs in an amazing series - mentioned many times as one of the greatest series ever. This was the pivotal Second Test. Australia had come into the series on a record 15 straight wins at the time. Harbajan Singh had test best figures of 3/30 but took 13 wickets in the second test and 15 in the third. Since that time you don't see many teams enforcing the follow on
OJP
Guest
agree with all that Bush!
Andy
Guest
that for me was the main reason i think Cook did it, he has two bowlers who are just coming back from injury and has 2 days still to play with not terrible weather forecast, why risk bowling them again.
The Bush
Roar Guru
Always reckon the reaction to the failure to enforce the follow on is ridiculous. Why does it even matter? Besides, not enforcing it has so many benefits - gives the bowlers a chance to get off the ground for a shower and a rub down, maybe even some decent sleep. Also means you can grind them into the ground by putting up an impossible total for them to chase. Plus it means you don't bat last. Considering the importance placed on batting first in basically every test, why wouldn't you want to hold onto the advantage? It's like any other decision, as long as you win, who cares?
JohnB
Guest
I disagree that you should only judge a decision once the end result is known. A decision is made at a time, and in my view it is completely appropriate to judge it based on what is known at that time. Having said that, unless bad weather was forecast, not enforcing the follow on was a perfectly reasonable decision because there was plenty of time to give the bowlers a rest and to still win the game. With 2 matches left in the series, 2 of your 5 bowlers (Anderson and Stokes) coming back from injury and one of them (Broad) not getting any younger, managing workloads is at least as significant a factor in making a decision on the follow on as any other.
Paul Potter
Roar Guru
I'd agree with that. The other two things I would mention is that England had two bowlers coming back from injury and Pakistan had a decent ninth wicket stand in their first innings. I have to admit I didn't care too much about Cook's decision and was genuinely surprised by the strident criticism.
AlanKC
Guest
Because supporters always know better...
Neil Back
Roar Rookie
Yeah, I'd agree with all those sentiments and that's my side of the fence but I can also see Cook's perspective. But at the end of the day, I'm not sure there's much of a story here.
Camo McD
Roar Guru
It's a funny one. They were so far ahead in the game it didn't really matter what they did. However given a shell shocked Pakistani line up needed to make nearly 400 just to make England bat again anyway, I reckon all the declaration really achieved was to delay the victory for a couple of sessions. No problems as it turned out but not sure why you would risk potentially bringing the weather or the draw into the equation.