Yes, no great surprise that Cummins, being a bowler didn't enforce the follow on.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Cricket
- Thread starter mb64
- Start date
yeah and then watch VVS Laxman and Dravid score double centuries and win the game against all odds. Which in the case of the sub continent betting nothing would surprise
Australia 1/81 , stumps day 3, Kwahaja & Labuschagne batting comfortably, leading by 489.
i wonder how many sides have won after being forced to follow on, and how many sides have cost themselves victory by not enforcing the follow on and then having enough time to bowl the opposition out again?
Cummins made 100% the right call to make hay while the sun shone and the pitch was at its best. When he declared there were still 250+ overs left in the game. We will have 150 overs to bowl them out the second time. He did the right thing.
Isa Guha was saying it's the longest we've batted in the first innings of a Test for more than 30 years. If it's the match I'm thinking of it was the 1988/89 Sydney Test against the Windies when Border took 11 wickets. We took 191.5 overs to make 401 (Boon 149 off 425 balls; Border 75 off 330) and we won our only match of the series by 7 wickets.
The justification will be in the victory. I see the likes of Brad Haddin have changed their tune and now say it was the right call.
Isa Guha was saying it's the longest we've batted in the first innings of a Test for more than 30 years. If it's the match I'm thinking of it was the 1988/89 Sydney Test against the Windies when Border took 11 wickets. We took 191.5 overs to make 401 (Boon 149 off 425 balls; Border 75 off 330) and we won our only match of the series by 7 wickets.
The justification will be in the victory. I see the likes of Brad Haddin have changed their tune and now say it was the right call.
Tugga enforced a follow on in India years ago n we got absolutely reamed, not 100% sure but it's probably the last time we forced a follow on. Obviously there's a need to ensure you have enough overs left to bowl the opposition out after, but there's nothing wrong with having a second bat for a session or two especially if you can get the over night break. Just to refresh the bowlers n also to further demoralise the opposing bats by making that mountain just a little harder to climb. Takes a massive fight by the oppo to survive for a draw n sometimes it's a worthy result, but generally victory is little more than a formality.
Q1.
Three times in Test history. Australia the offender each time. https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/283938.html
Q2.
This would take some research because follow on rules have varied over the years.
Found the following but it's from 2009. Australia the beneficiaries this time.
www.espncricinfo.com
Not enforcing the follow-on and losing, and old bowlers
When teams paid for not forcing the issue, the oldest to take five- and 10-fors, Charlie Griffith's book, the fearsome foursome, and Bradman the bowler
In all fairness the Paki's are renowned as being not the most urgent in the field, so more often than not it'd likely come off
Yeh, his batting isn't what it was and his catching the same
Swepson bowling well this session after starting the day poorly. Deserves a change of luck & wicket or 2. More threatening than Lyon.
