The theory that the 2001 Kolkata Test influences Australian captains regarding the follow-on is baseless and makes no sense.
It is time to abandon the concept altogether.
Let me explain.
Steve Waugh’s first Test series as skipper was in the Caribbean in March 1999.
He had a dream start with the Windies shot out for 51 in the last innings of the first Test at Port-of-Spain to hand Australia a thumping 312-run win.
Waugh then won the toss in the second Test at Kingston and chose to bat.
Australia was bowled out for 256 with the hosts amassing 431 in reply.
When the tourists were rolled for 177 in their second innings the West Indies romped to a ten-wicket win.
The hosts won the third Test and Australia the fourth leaving the series all square at two-all.
To this day, Waugh rues the decision he made when he won the toss in the second Test.
In hindsight, he believed had he inserted the Windies on the back of being all out for 51 in the fourth innings of the opening Test he could have broken their spirit with another solid bowling display, and as such, recorded a series win.
That regret shaped the remainder of his Test captaincy.
At Kolkata in 2001, in his 23rd match as skipper, he had his first opportunity to enforce the follow-on.
He did not hesitate.
After being swept aside inside three days in the opening Test at Mumbai, India was dismissed in its first innings in the second Test at Kolkata for 171, handing the tourists a whopping 274-run lead.
What ensued was a cricketing freak of nature with VVS Laxman and Rahul Dravid batting the entire fourth day to set-up a once-in-a-generation victory.
I was there commentating and I have never seen a day’s play like it and I doubt I will again.
The teams convened a few days later at Chennai with India recording a two-wicket win to take the series 2-1 thus denying Australia their first series win on Indian soil since 1970.
If anyone was to be scarred by such a happening it would have been Steve Waugh.
He wasn’t.
Four Tests and five months later at The Oval, Waugh had another chance to enforce the follow-on.
He did and Australia won by an innings and 25 runs.
Before his captaincy reign ended he had another six opportunities to enforce the follow-on and he did it each time and each time his side won.
So, the man who led Australia to that famous loss at Kolkata enforced the follow-on on each of the seven occasions he had the chance after that fateful Test and won every time.
Hardly a case of a captain or team being gun shy.
Waugh’s successor, Ricky Ponting, played in all those matches so it is doubtful that he was mentally scarred by the time he ascended to the job.
Around 18 months before the end of Waugh’s captaincy something did begin to change in Australian cricket, however, and it would shape future captains’ outlook on the follow-on.
I was in the UAE in 2002 covering the Test series between Pakistan and Australia for the ABC.
Leading into the second Test of the series – the first had been played in Colombo – I was watching the Australian team train at the Sharjah International Cricket Stadium.
The team’s official scorer and assistant manager, Mike Walsh was standing behind the bowlers with a note book.
I had not seen it before and after training asked what it was he was doing.
I was told that at the behest of team physio and conditioning coach, Errol Alcott, he was keeping a tally on the number of deliveries each bowler was sending down.
Each of the quicks – Glenn McGrath, Brett Lee and Andy Bichel – were on a set schedule.
When they had bowled their individual allotment, as decreed by Alcott, they were told to stop bowling.
It was the start of a regime that would only grow in subsequent years.
In fact, as fast bowlers continued to breakdown – and Australia has had more in the rehab ward than any other Test nation in the last 15 years – the stringent monitoring of the quicks has escalated.
In turn, it has become from and centre in the minds of successive captains in that time.
With the exception of opportunities to enforce the follow-on in Asia – and they have been very rare – where teams are not keen on batting last, almost every decision has been predicated on bowler workload.
Steve Smith said as much when quizzed about his choice not to ask England to follow-on at Adelaide.
“We know it’s a long summer”, he commented post-game, “And I think these bowlers we’ve got are very valuable, and just giving those guys a little bit of a rest always make me confident they can come back and do the business they need to do.”
Rightly or wrongly, the health and ongoing fitness of Australia’s fast bowlers is the primary driver behind the decision as to whether or not the follow-on will be enforced.
Hence, the mental scar that was supposedly left after Australia’s demise at Eden Gardens 16 years ago is a furphy.
It is time it was put to bed – permanently.
Mindfulness
Guest
CA decide that we can't have grassed or even slightyly dry/spinning pitches, because it will aid other teams too much? We are willing to ruin a team dynamic in trying to find a 6/7 who will play the role of the Neo Hussey-Gilchrist (ie, break in case of safety).
dave
Guest
We acknowledge that our fast bowlers are quite often injured and then replace our 5th bowling option with a 34 year old who has a history of being injured. Still seems like a bizarre decision to me but it may have just won us the Ashes.
Redsback
Guest
Whatever the case, it didn't make sense j. This case. They had bowled only 70-odd overs. If they had gone back to bowl, the game could well have been over a day earlier. Surely that would be the best option - to give them an extra break. Simply don't understand it.
James Cattermole
Roar Rookie
Spot on Glenn. There is a big focus on workloads of bowlers in recent years. That seems to me to be reason for captains not enforcing the follow on in recent years. Having said that, I think the pink ball tests may still force a change in thinking as there is a dynamic with a new ball in those conditions that is not in play in other tests.
rl
Guest
as I said above, that all seems sensible but James Pattinson is broken and he's had no end of access to sports scientists.
Albo
Guest
100% sheek ! There is no black and white correct decision here ! Its horses for courses at the time of the follow on choice. Position of the series, pitch and playing conditions, quality of the opposition, health of your own team, and a myriad of other things will impact the skipper's decision to bat or bowl with a 215 lead on the first innings. At the end of the day Smith was correct ! Look at the scoreboard. Despite an atrocious batting performance in the 2nd innings, disastrous calls on the DRS and some patchy bowling at times, the Aussies won comfortably in the end.
paul
Guest
and there's no way Smith and co would have been looking forward to that given the past few years experience with the moving ball
Linphoma
Guest
More than anything I think its just another step in the maturation of Smith. He will learn from this experience and given he is on track to who knows what by the end of his career I think we may all chuckle looking back on the formulaic captaincy he is currently enjoying. I dare say he will work out captaincy like he worked out batting - in his own way.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
The Overtone had batted for 105 mins so was probably a bit knackered. Also he is the least experienced bowler, so after one bad over in a short session it was fair enough to take him off. I like his style. He shows some fight.
DaveJ
Guest
Thanks Glenn, enlightening. As others have said, Smith may also have been misled by the extent to which the ball didn’t move around on the first two night. Of course, the first night was with and old ball, but the fact that England moved the old ball much more on Day 4 than Australia moved a newer ball later in the day, makes me suspect it was only partly greater skill and something to do with some individual balls having a tendency to swing and seam more.
Tanami Mehmet
Guest
Dennis Lillee broke down with stress fractures that nearly ended his career. The only thing that saved him was a recovery program developed for him by a physiotherapist. If anything he may have begun this whole idea of using sports science to help bowlers. I agree DKL liked to bowl as much as he could and that was certainly the thing that led to his injury. There must be a middle ground, where workload and rehab find a balance but suggesting they should just bowl and bowl and bowl some more is not correct.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
I'm a fan of not enforcing the follow on. More cricket for me to watch.
CK
Guest
The rubbish coming out of the media these last few days about whether Smith should or shouldn't have enforced the follow on has led me to believe that they are fearful of a drab and uneventful Ashes series and are trying to create issues which are not really there. The fact of the matter is that Smith only had four bowlers at his disposal and would rather rest them for a final assault on Day 4/5. What made his decision look bad was that our batsmen collapsed to 138 all out. While it brought England back into the contest a little bit, they were still long outsiders to win. I agree with what Smith did. Ask any captain and they would rather defend 350 on Day 5, then chase 150/200 on Day 5. Think if they sent England in again and they make 400. The way the have scored runs this series would have meant at least 150 overs at the crease leaving Australia making 150-200 on a Day 5 Adelaide wicket at night against the swinging ball. It's all a moot point anyway. Aussies won, lead 2 nil and are unbackable in Perth.
Bakkies
Guest
Some pitches particularly in Adelaide and Perth have actually got better to bat on later on in tests. I remember SA getting to about 450 for 4 batting last chasing a huge total. That's another thing to take note of putting your bowlers in again. The opposition can make a far bigger total in their second innings if the pitch becomes better to bat on late in the test.
Bakkies
Guest
Had England got past Australia's total following on there was a likelihood of a run chase under lights facing a new ball.
Bakkies
Guest
Two Starc and Cummins. Hazlewood has just come back from a side strain and is struggling with his accuracy. Then you have Behrendorf, Coulter Nile and Pattinson out with serious injuries.
Paul Giles
Guest
The best way to protect the quicks is to prepare the WACA at its bounciest best, have the game over on the 3rd morning, then a 9 day break til boxing day test and with the series already sewn up by Sydney, prepare a spinners wicket, play 2 spinners and give Starc and Cummins, a well earned rest giving Bird a well deserved test match.
Brian
Guest
Don't think Smith was even close to enforcing the follow on. Last year against Pakistan he was up by 300 runs and still batted again.
Anindya Dutta
Roar Guru
Thanks so much Glenn. It’s available on Booktopia in Australia and Spiro should be doing a review here soon i believe.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
It's a tough one, I think in general probably enforcing the follow on would be the right thing. There's the thought that bowlers would look pretty stuffed after being in the field for 150 overs, so if you bowl a team out in 80 overs and then make them follow on and they bat a similar time again, then you are putting a big load, equivalent to an innings of 160 overs or something. But while fast bowlers will definitely suffer from fatigue, I wonder if a lot of the fatigue from a long innings is psychological. If you are in the field for 150 overs and haven't been able to bowl a team out that's wearing. But if you are on top, have already bowled them out once and are going in for the kill, that's energizing. So it's probably not the same. At the same time, compare modern day test series to 20-30 years ago and you probably find the matches are more compressed, less breaks between with further tour matches and the like, so the bowlers having to back up again quickly is potentially more of a thing. I think in general cotton-wooling fast bowlers doesn't work. Lots of bowling can make them strong. But there certainly are things to balance up. Either way is a tough decision. If Smith had enforced the follow on, the ball hadn't moved much in the evening and England survived without losing too many wickets and batted on long on day 4, and then this resulted in bowlers looking really work out and potentially picking up an injury, then people would have been critical of Smith and said he shouldn't have enforced the follow on. It's easy in 20-20 hindsight to make the call, but he didn't have that at the time. And in the end they won by 120 runs and go to the WACA with a 2-0 lead.