Cricket
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
No other explanation for not enforcing the follow on - is there ?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 87
|
By:
Give bowlers a rest, bat Australia out of the game
|
|
By:
know it's incredibly unlikely with this awful aussie batting line up but you enforce the follow on they get 400 and then bowl england out for 150 is the only way they could lose
still be wrapped up inside 4 days batting again |
|
By:
Afraid i think its more about ensuring bums on seats --this match and the next .
|
|
By:
There was never a chance of England enforcing the follow on with 20 overs left on the second day. These days they (and most teams) only enforce if time is short and batting again would leave no chance of winning.
Number of good cricketing reasons for the decision, only 4 bowlers so important to try to avoid too long a session in the field, pitch is so dry that it is very likely to deterioate over days 3 and 4, batting again gives the chance to grind Aus down and significantly reduces Aus chance of winning (Eng are 1-0 up) and finally history tends to laugh at teams who enforce and lose, so why risk it. |
|
By:
Cook didnt enforce in the New Zealand series when there was rain forecast so there was no way he would enforce with no rain forecast and lots of time left. He is a defensive captain that likes batting. For that reason I think its unlikely he will declare unless he gets 600 ahead.
|
|
By:
commercial decision....
|
|
By:
I'm afraid you can't know too much about cricket kelly. It has not been unknown in cricket for a team following on after a disastorous 1st inning to clock up 500, 2nd time around (i know unlikely with this lot of Aussies). It was a darn hot day today and before the innings even finished I was thinking, don't enforce the follow on. Bat again, which tires the already tired Australians out. The batsmen still have to field and will tire even further tomorrow and gives our bowlers a rest. I know they probably don't need one, but they will all be fresh, when England are all out again and are ready to bowl out the feeble Aussies yet again. We rarely enforce the follow on and there are 270 possible overs still left in the game. Englands aim will be to score at least another 200 tomorrow and leave Australia 2 and a bit days to score 460 an impossibility you would of thought.
|
|
By:
Sorry I dont measure up to your cricketing criteria , cri**** .
You can speculate all you like and come up with all sorts of potential scenarios , but as posy says , its a commercial decision . When commercial decisions override sporting considerations its a switch off . Sport becomes business driven as "entertainment" for which people are prepared to pay , nothing wrong with that . I just prefer my sport as a contest pure and simple , and may the better man win irrespective of how many are watching . |
|
By:
yes kelly bums on seats
|
|
By:
England never enforce the follow on, that the way it is, it will bite them one day, by not doing so, but they don't enforce it, in case of the big 2nd innings scenario. I don't think for 1 moment, it has got anything to do with a commercial decision and by the way this games going. it will be over tomorrow anyway.
|
|
By:
ffs how can it be a commercial decision unless sky tv or ecb are bribing Alistair Cook and there is no way that is going to happen?!
|
|
By:
Ridiculous thread. I'd have been far more concerned with Cook's state of mind if he had enforced it! It was the right decision. What wasn't the right decision was losing 3 wickets tonight.
|
|
By:
You would think, that Glen McGrath, Shane Warne, Ian Botham and James Anderson, were all bowling in the same side, but their not, the batting, by both sides is close to a total disgrace. Too much 20/20 cricket, its time for that rubbish cricket to end and just go back to a 50 over knockout Tournament, each season
|
|
By:
Anyone who thinks Cook is the sole arbiter in this decision might want to think again . Not the way it works any more , its not a gentleman captain situation any more .
The fact that Englands batsmen contrived to get 3 dismissed before stumps this evening implies that Aussies might have suffered same fate , they being technically and statistically inferior to England in recent performances . In which case Aussies would have been 200 behind approx with only 7 wickets left . To me thats negatives a lot of posted comment . I always played sport competetively , and when you got your opponent on the run you put him away as fast and as much as you could , saving energy and leaving something for the "rainy day " when you might face him again . Tiger is the best example of this I can think of in recent sporting terms , he had his foot on the neck of every other player in his era . And the Aussies were good at it when they had good teams . No harm winning half a furlong if its easy and there is no handicapper around . |
|
By:
The way the Aussies bat, you would think they are batting with a stump in their hand, rather than a bat and he can afford to bat again anyway, its the way its done these days and I'm no youngster
|
|
By:
So if you are saying Cook is deliberately trying to lengthen the match to 'get bums on seats', if he ends up setting Aus 500 to win and they are 250-8 at 6 pm on day 4, do you expect him to put himself on to bowl so the match lasts into day 5 or will he do that when they are 125-4 so that its closer?
|
|
By:
with more than 3 days left in the game enforcing the follow on was never gonna happen, you cannot guarantee that you won't have to bat again and the 5th day pitch could be a minefield
if there had been 5 sessions left in the match of course you enforce it but with 9+ sessions, no chance |
|
By:
Aston , not saying Cook is trying to lengthen the match . Just dont think it is entirely his decision . Used to be the captains decision , particularly in the old days with seperate entrances , but nowadays its more of a corporate decision I suspect .
As I said before , if you get a team on the run , bury them . |
|
By:
that's exactly what England are doing, they are just going about it differently
they want a lead of 500 and two days to bowl them out I personally don't agree with the plan but that is the thinking behind it |
|
By:
under flower england have long been a cautious team, preferring to bat out the opposition completely rather than going for the throat. i still remember those tests in the west indies which were a total shambles. in this scenario the only realisitic way aus could win was by following on, batting big and making england chase ensuring they have the best of the conditions. england have taken that possibility away and being already 1-0 up in the series its understandable.
|
|
By:
agreed cri****
|
|
By:
agreed cric nut
|
|
By:
See we've had the oft repeated suggestion that the great Aus teams were ultra aggressive, usually comes up when England decline the follow on. Can I respectfully remind the forum of Brisbane 06? Aus were still smarting after 2005, lots of silly paper talk that they were over the hill (at least over here). They then racked up 600ish at around 4po, bowled England out for 150ish half way through day 3, Aus batted again (only the 450 odd ahead, can you imagine the forum meltdown if England did that), set England the small matter of 648 to win in just under 2 days. Not surprisingly England lost by a lot and we all know how the series turned out (and the next test was a particularly poor performance by Eng, I still can't believe they managed to lose it).
Can't see that not enforcing is taking the foot off the throat. |
|
By:
When will England declare - if, it comes to that - well they won't declare today, thats for sure, unless they score at 4.5 an over or more. He would declare an hour into tomorrow mornings session. Why - because England are 1-0 up and will want to give Australia no chance of winning. What do I think will happen England will be bowled out for around 220, just after tea today, which will leave Australia just under 10 sessions, probably 210 overs to score the required 460 to win. What do I expect to happen, Australia bowled out tomorrow afternoon for around 180 at worst, or 250 tomorrow evening at best.
|
|
By:
I don't tkink England will declare
 The batsmen are taking it out of Cooks hands! Hypothetical. The modern style is to take a rest and with 4 man attacks and back to back test's it makes strategic sense Ordinarily England would be looking to humiliate Aus further here but poor batting and smarting Aussie bowlers will actually give Aussie a lift today. The result though is beyond question. |
|
By:
You are talking about a different beast though.
The reality is enforcing the follow on is much more likely to throw a result than not. There is no point batting to a lead of 600 then bowling them out for 200, when you can just bowl them out for 250 then bat for long enough to win. Given the conditions, England would bat long enough to put Australia out, enhancing the draw, as really if you bat for too long you need the other team to have a sniff to win the game. Here, they will get bowled out regardless, then Aus will have all the time in the world to chase the target. It will be too high still, but a ridiculous strategy. Better option is to send them in again. Bowl them out under 300 and you need to chase SFA to win. Much more humiliating for a team to be beaten at the start of the 4th day than into the 5th day by plenty of runs. If England get bowled out for under 200, what have they really done? The result would be the same, but they have made themselves look a bit silly in doing it. |
|
By:
One of the contributors on cricinfo ventured the opinion that England lacked the rock hard killer instinct . Guess I am in that camp . England will win undoubtedly , but why drag it out ?
|
|
By:
Keep the Aussies in the field for 4 sessions, wear their bowling down, demoralize them and leave em needing to bat 5+ sessions to
draw the game. Nothing negative about that. |
|
By:
Apart from the fact that Aus bowling is better than England. Australia only need to click with the bat and England do themselves in.
Enforce the follow on, they pretty much guarantee a win. Don't and you give up some of your hard work. |
|
By:
AUS bowling is better than England? err, ok then
 |
|
By:
Apart from the fact that Aus bowling is better than England
Should have gone to specsavers |
|
By:
Enforcing the follow-on would have been close to insanity as it would offer Australia a genuine route back into the game.
Imagine if they had batted again and clocked up a perfectly feasible 450 on this still-good wicket against some tiring bowlers. England would then be chasing a nasty 220 to win towards the end of the Test. Psychologically, the whole game would have changed from England batting as steadily as they want under no pressure, to England trying to get over the line under the most extreme pressure. Australia's bowlers would have also enjoyed a long, long rest prior to that England chase. Furthermore, England's toss advantage would had been completely reversed, so they ludicrously end up batting last on a deteriorating pitch whilst trying to chase a target! We are seeing less and less follow-ons nowadays and I can see why. With the game played at a quicker pace than before, your overwhelming advantage can easily be lost and you can end up with a high-pressure chase against rested bowlers on a dismal pitch. Unless you have bowled a team out for virtually nothing, or you are severely out of time, you simply HAVE to bat again. There's no other decision to be made here. |
|
By:
Have to agree with the decision not to enforce it purely because I have a ticket for Day 4 and have never been to Lords!!
|
|
By:
"never give a sucker an even break ever"
the only way australia could win this game is to enforce the follow on knacker their bowlers rest england bowlers (after short turn around and Jimmy bowling a very long spell) completely demoralise aussies give England plenty of batting practice ffs why would you enforce follow on I notice on Sky the 2 advocates of the follow on are an Australian and a West Indian |
|
By:
some regular Einsteins on this thread, for sure...commercial decision, my arris
|
|
By:
It was blatantly the correct decision to not enforce the follow on. I havent always agreed with Cooks(or Strausses) conservative captaincy at times, but of course you have a bat.
|
|
By:
Not a commercial decision...England's ONE OBJECTIVE is to win the Ashes...and here they are 1-0 up and sitting pretty here.
|
|
By:
purely an simply england didn't want to risk batting last on a worn turning wicket why take a risk
|
|
By:
BJT
Apart from the fact that Aus bowling is better than England. Australia only need to click with the bat and England do themselves in. Enforce the follow on, they pretty much guarantee a win. Don't and you give up some of your hard work. It seems you make a compelling case for not enforcing the follow on and then undo your logic by saying that enforcing the follow on guarantee's the win. If your logic is right that the Aus bowling is better than England's then they only needed to click with the bat to give themselves a real chance in the game had they been asked to follow on. If they are now capable of scoring 500 on a wearing pitch in the last innings it still won't be enough. Had they got 500 after having the follow on forced on them then the pressure would have all been on England and they could have come up short. Especially seeing as in your view Australia have the better bowling attack. |