The second Test between Pakistan and Australia, which ended in a thrilling draw in Karachi on Tuesday, brought to the fore one rather puzzling question: why is Australia so afraid to enforce the follow-on?
It looks like the decision made by Steve Waugh in Kolkata in 2001 still haunts the Australian team.
On that occasion, Australia – 274 ahead on the first innings – asked India to follow on.
Thereafter, what happened is well known: Rahul Dravid and VVS Laxman put on 376 for the fifth wicket and India finally waltzed out winners by 171 runs (coincidentally their own first-innings score).
After that loss, Australian captains have enforced the follow-on 14 times (13 wins, one draw).
It doesn’t look like Pat Cummins will go down the route of enforcing the follow-on.
In Karachi, Australia had a lead of 408 on the first innings, but still opted to go in for a second knock.
(Photo by Chris Hyde/Getty Images)
Of course, one could argue that a team would like to have a rest after bowling out their opponent, but in this case, Australia weren’t in the field for too long as it took only 53 overs to send Pakistan packing.
And Karachi is far from being at its most oppressive weather-wise in early March.
Arguably, putting Pakistan in again, in the shell-shocked state they were in, could well have produced better results than the massive fightback they eventually produced.
In Pakistan’s second innings, after Australia had batted for just 22.3 overs, neither Mitchell Starc nor Pat Cummins looked half as threatening as they had in the first.
On the spin front, Mitch Swepson is too green to have a major impact.
Remember, even the late Shane Warne – a maestro – was massacred by the Indians when he appeared against them in 1992.
And while many would not agree, I personally feel that Nathan Lyon is well past his prime.
The final Test will be all the more tough as a result of Pakistan’s great escape.
But whatever the outcome, the first series in that country for Australia, after 24 years, has already been a great success for the game.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
The option we took also increased Pakistan's chances of hanging on for a draw. And they did not deserve any shot at winning after conceding a first innings deficit of 408.
Nick
Roar Guru
It's must be a miracle that the cricketers of the previous 100 years were able to get out of bed, what with the threat of injury that could happen at any time...
Nick
Roar Guru
If you are declaring with less than 100 on the board, then either you don’t have a big enough lead, or you should definitely have enforced the follow on. Yeah, I think this it.
Johnb
Guest
So what you're saying is that they were courageous enough to choose the option that gave Pakistan a tiny chance of winning, rather than taking the safe, can't-lose option of the follow on?
Trung
Guest
I don’t even think it’s about fear or Kolkata 2001 It is more about the influence of sports science https://www.ajol.info/index.php/sasma/article/download/31923/5938 “ Further, bowling after enforcing the follow-on in a test match is associated with an increase in injury. ” I don’t think the follow on will happen unless it is impossible to win without enforcing it
Mining Man
Roar Rookie
As I posted in another thread, but more appropriate here: The most important bit about the Kolkata test is never mentioned. It’s not about whether we enforced the follow on, or not. It’s not about the Indian second innings. It’s the fact that we lost 7/56 to lose the game, on a wicket that had just delivered a 7(dec)/657 third innings. Our fourth innings defensive record is pretty poor; Kolkatta is just one more example. Cummins not enforcing the follow on in this test (and every other time we haven’t done it) is less about preserving the bowlers, and more a lack of belief in our ability to play a defensive 4th innings if required, should the bowlers not do the job in the third. The irony in that, is that if the bowlers haven’t done the job in the third innings, then it’s more than likely that the wicket holds no demons and any fourth innings challenge should be minimal.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
“dressing room being equally uncertain , opting to add another 100 or so runs simply because there was time left” ——– And that “uncertain” feeling is exactly the fear I refer to. If a captain knows his bowlers and fielders he’ll back himself in. There is also the aversion to batting 4th. Had Cummins forced the follow on he would’ve instilled fear in the opponents, confidence in the bowlers and created a team environment where they wanta bust a nut to show they’re with him. I truly believe they would’ve not dropped those catches had they forced the follow on because their nostrils would’ve been for the battle. ——– Cummins the Hour, Cummins the Man … or not.
Choppy Zezers
Roar Rookie
I fear that Elle MacPherson won't be able to travel back in time 30 years and realised then what she could, or can or must, have/had. Her loss, I guess.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
I fear conjugal relations with Carla Gugino. As remote as that is l could still be snared. Help!
Choppy Zezers
Roar Rookie
I think they might fear spiders, or clowns, or confined spaces, or watermelons, or global warming, or bottle rockets, or sea horses (or any horses for that matter), or not being able to bowl out a team in the 4th innings from 170 overs more than the follow-on.
Just Nuisance
Roar Rookie
So many opinions . Yet can anyone honestly say that enforcing the follow on or batting on was an obvious call . At the time as I recall opinion was split pretty much down the middle here with good and bad arguments both sides . It could have been as simple as the coaching and leadership group within the dressing room being equally uncertain , opting to add another 100 or so runs simply because there was time left . The one advantage players have when making the call is they have at least batted and bowled for 3 days on the pitch so probably had a better idea of what it really was about . This looks like an argument simply for the sake of one .
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
“Gave them the chance of doing the impossible” ‐—- Yes, I like that way of putting it – perfectly said. I think Pakistan’s last chance of winning was upon the resumption after the final drinks break with 134 needed from 21 7 wickets in hand. They had to go at that point. —– But the risk would have been had Bab Az holed out right after drinks and then Australia had snared his partner immediately after, Pakistan would have been in grave danger. —– But yeah, if ever 500 does get successfully chased down, it will be under the circumstances that pervaded late day 3 in this most recent of tests.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
Ever heard of fear of losing ? ——- As in “Let’s get a few more runs on the board and make it safe”, instead of backing your bowlers to give the opponents another round whilst they’re down. ——- I agree with the writer. You can disagree but l thought I’d clarify my position.
John66
Roar Rookie
Yet we gave them a chance of doing the impossible by batting again. Until Babar's wicket, that possibility was becoming increasingly likely. Something that was never possible had we enforced the follow on. Cummins expected the pitch to deteriorate. It didn't. Pakistan batted very well which they may not have done if they had been sent back in. However, we got an early breakthrough after batting again, and picked up a 2nd wicket without many on the board. We still had momentum but weren't able to win the game. Not uncommon in recent years.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
It would be ridiculous if they had feared it because a Pakistan win was a mathematical impossibility with only 194 overs of playing time left and a deficit of 408 to wipe off.
Andrew
Roar Rookie
For this last test it was most definitely a choice made with no “fear” involved. End of story. You can argue against the choice, to suggest fear is ridiculous.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
For this past test we feared it. EoS
Big Daddy
Roar Rookie
Couple of scenarios here . A lot of teams don't like batting on the last day on a wearing pitch and one of the main reasons is probably commercial . The home cricket board like to drag these matches out as more days means more dollars .
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
A major consideration has to be what you gain from batting again. If you lead by 274 and you set them 506, then you have increased your lead by 84.3%. If you lead by 408 and set them 506, you have only increased your lead by 23.8%. If you are declaring with less than 100 on the board, then either you don’t have a big enough lead, or you should definitely have enforced the follow on. I don’t think the record successful 4th innings chase of 418 is going to be smashed anytime soon, but if a team ever does successfully chase 500, two conditions will be present: 1. A very flat track, and 2. The team on top will have handed over the momentum in a criminal manner.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
I agree the fear is mostly myth, but there was no logic involved whatsoever in Karachi.