“I was a little bit nervous. On another day I might decide to go another way, but we’ve won the Test match, so it’s irrelevant.”
Take a wild guess at a) who said this and b) what he was referring to.
Oh go on, it’s not that difficult and there aren’t any prizes for coming up with the correct answer.
Yes, you’re spot on, it’s a) Steve Smith and b) the Adelaide non follow-on.
The decision occupied many a journalists’ column and commentator’s thoughts in the immediate aftermath. This only increased in intensity as Joe Root led the England resistance on the fourth evening of the second Test.
It wasn’t surprising as every time a captain chooses this path, and especially in cases where it seems to be particularly clear-cut, he will be doubted by many on the outside and often compared to someone who has committed a heinous crime.
Just a pinch of rationality will tell you a lot of this is nonsense, after all, how can you properly judge a decision that manifests itself in the eventual outcome and not what occurs straight away?
And this is where the final few words of the aforementioned quote from the Australian captain provide the perfect, and in fact the definitive, riposte to any criticism.
If the hosts had been defeated then Smith would’ve been squarely in the sights as it would’ve been difficult to form an argument which didn’t have Australia batting again as a prime reason for such a result. But the facts state otherwise, they will continue to state otherwise and that is pretty much that.
If winning the game supersedes everything else then there isn’t a case to answer. Yes, there may have been a few twitchy moments as reviews were squandered, chances grassed, and half the target was scratched off but that is cricket and a 120-run victory is, for all the nerves that Smith alluded to, still comprehensive in manner.
(AAP Image/Julian Smith)
What Smith’s way of operating showed was a continuation of a modern trend that has shied away from the default setting of enforcing the follow-on.
Where once it almost went without saying that should the target fail to be reached the openers would be padding up for another go, now the fall of the tenth wicket is generally quickly followed by numbers one and two sprinting off for an extra minute to get their gear on.
A coach I played under when first starting out at Northants was always of the opinion that by batting again you’re handing your opponents an opportunity, however slim, where none should exist.
This could be applied to Adelaide with a reeling England, who must have expected to bat again with the lights coming on, seeing their chances suddenly rise from the dead, yet Smith wouldn’t have seen it that way.
Whereas the format I was playing was generally three-day cricket with the odd four-day contest thrown in, with the time obviously more limited for any potential comeback, there were seven sessions remaining when the England first innings was wrapped up. And that, the reasoning would suggest, is ample time for a strong position to become impregnable.
Add to the melting pot the modern-day theory of not flogging the seam bowlers into the floor – understandable with a five-match series crammed into seven weeks – and it isn’t surprising Root was asked to take his team out to field again.
Such an approach couldn’t care less for the fact Jimmy Anderson was able to bowl himself into form or Chris Woakes could get a few confidence-boosting wickets under his belt, or even that a couple of the batsmen in need of a score were presented with an awkward assignment that need not have existed.
The result is king and the result came down in the favour of Australia so as Smith mentioned, all talk is indeed irrelevant.
Pedro The Fisherman
Roar Rookie
Under that scenario Australia would likely have still held a lead (or scores would be close to even) and Australia would have then been taking another new ball under lights. Failing to enforce the follow on gave England an outside chance!
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Absolutely! But also, if England had managed to get through the session just one or two down and bat the whole next day, then people would be saying that he shouldn't have enforced the follow on. With hindsight it's easy to make the call, but either choice had potential risks.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
England only had the new ball for one over under lights on the first night. Because of the rain, most of that session was the old ball. Only 81 overs bowled on day 1. But yes, sometimes one ball just swings more than another.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Yep, England had a brand new ball under lights, Australia had a 40 over old ball by the time the sun went down. Very different result. The new ball in the afternoon does more than the old ball at night, unless it starts reversing like it did in the NSW v SA shield match where Starc demolished SA for the 8-for
Rellum
Roar Guru
That had a rest when they were batting, which the whole argument to batting again.
Rellum
Roar Guru
So if we did enforce the follow on and did win, which was at least as likely, you could have also argued vindication of that decision? I know you can say that is conjecture but we were likely to win that game either way, it was more about burying England mentally. To me that was a perfect chance to enforce the follow on, but for those that didn't what would be an acceptable occasion? Getting them all out for 90 in under 20 overs? It doesn't sound like a full nights rest would be enough to over come the resting the bowlers position.
Rellum
Roar Guru
The ball was old by then, different situation to England bowling with a new pill.
TK
Guest
And ensuring that the opposition bowlers don't get a rest.
Murphster888
Roar Rookie
Steve Smith should of enforced the follow on, the game would have been over by the end of the first session on the next day, second session at most which would have given the bowlers a whole extra day of rest between matches to recover. Instead he gifted the Poms with the only conditions that they are capable of bowling effectively in and ressurected what was left of there confidence instead of absolutely crushing them into the Adelaide pitch and destroying there morale for the rest of the series by thrashing them by an innings +. This error still could come back to bite us later, with that spike in confidence giving England an admittedly delusional idea that they can still win on Australias non English doctored pitches. But unless there pitch doctors can become witch doctors and get our curators to produce one of there specially doctored "as long as England win who cares if the test lasts five days or two days or if it produces an even contest between bat and ball" pitches they have about as much chance of winning as Joe Root does of growing a real moustache anytime soon. Oh well at least the England team and the Barmy Army got to play the bully, that they like to accuse us of being, for that short period of time. After all we have to give them something or else the whinging whining sooks will take there bat and ball and go home before we have the chance of humiliating them with another 5-0 loss to go with the last one.after all I just think it's more polite to pair the humiliations up rather than just leaving them with the one to fondly remember there trips down under. It's just a real shame the down under they got to see was down under the heel of our cricket spikes Anyway I wish you good luck in Perth England I'm sure your past glories in that beautiful city will hold you in good stead for the upcoming match. Maybe there pitch/witch doctors can recommend a good medium so they can get some tips from the last English side to win there.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
It's not guaranteed though. Not enforcing the follow on is a guarantee of getting your bowlers rest..
Geoff Schaefer
Guest
The result vindicated the decision. Just as the selectors' decision to recall Marsh did. What ifs and maybes are just pointless noise...
JohnB
Guest
If all goes well and Australia bowl as well as England did on the 3rd night, and England are 4 or 5 down for not many at stumps and then rapidly roll over the next day, enforcing the follow on is absolutely the right decision and you won't have overtaxed your bowlers. But what if everything doesn't go well (and there's no guarantee it will)? The bowlers had already bowled for a day. Even if they did lose some wickets in the night session England could still have batted well into day 4 such that the Australians would be in the field for 2 straight days - which is one of the situations where injuries are more of a risk.. There are 3 more tests in this series, and Smith wants his 3 pacemen to play all of them. That's without considering you might want to make the opposition bowl more themselves or that in some cases you may be more reluctant to possibly have to bat last. And a factor to consider when talking about what captains in the past might have done - there’s no rest day now.
rl
Guest
enforcing the follow-on and ending the game early is a fairly effective way of getting some rest for your bowlers, no?
JamesH
Roar Guru
I can't help but think that the particular ball England picked had something to do with the exaggerated movement in the third dig. Some balls just go more than others, due to their hand-made nature. England weren't nearly as effective with the new ball under lights on the first night, even though there was a bit of moisture in the air. Yet on day 3 it was hooping around corners. The movement was still there the following morning too, even when the ball was older and the conditions didn't really suit swing bowling.
Worlds Biggest
Guest
I didn’t mind the call Smith made at the time as our fourth innings chases are not renowned for being good, why not get more runs on the board and put the game out of reach. This is how it played out despite a very poor second innings from Aust ( this created the uncertainty of his decision ) and a defiant middle order chase by England. Ultimately Smith got it right. If another situ like this arises I would like Smith to chat with his bowlers and get there feedback.
bigbaz
Roar Guru
I guess it's not the process it's the result.
Christo the Daddyo
Guest
More than that - the performance of the Australian bowlers under lights the following night wasn't that great. More evidence to back Smith's decision.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Spot on. It was the right decision at the time, and Smith was vindicated by the result. End of story.