The Follow On...

[Ernest]

After this first Test at Lords against Sri Lanka, does anyone think Flintoff was right to enforce the follow on?.

The pitch was playing well, England had scored their 500+ with ease, so why on earth did Flintoff put Sri Lanca in again, because they had failed in one innings, it did not follow it would happen again on that pitch.

The bowlers did not get a rest, the fieling was horrible but that could in part be down to lack of concentration with being in the field to long, I rather think the fielding was just poor.

But this has happened time and time again, inseting the opposition often leads to a boring rearguard action, and can even go more pearshaped.

Had England been set 190 in 35 overs, it might not have been gettable like Australia found out at Headingly in the "Bothams Ashes" series.

In short on a good pitch is enforcing the follow on just depriving the bowlers and fielders of a much needed rest, and also when the bowling is so down, makes for a poor spectacle for the paying spectators.

I am not belittling Sri Lankan efforts to save the match, I just thisnk it can lead to poorer cricket.
The way Sri Lanka batted it would have been more fun watching then having a go at a large total, on that pitch they may have got near.

Does anyone else think the follow on is not often a good option?.

[Occasional Fan]

There's a lot of factors involved in that decision, I guess, including the amount of time remaining in the game and the likelihood or otherwise of it being played out. Certainly in hindsight we can see that this one backfired - England's players must be as good as dead having been in the field since Friday tea time. But at the time the call was made, they'd only been there for two sessions, so exhaustion was hardly an issue (especially in southern England's rather untrying spring weather) and there was ample time left in the game for England to make a small score in the unlikely event of having to bat again.

I think at the time Flintoff made the right decision - I'm sure Vaughan would have done the same, and perhaps any current test captain would have done so. It won't always be right, as we have seen, but on Saturday it looked a pretty straightforward call to me.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Ernest

After this first Test at Lords against Sri Lanka, does anyone think Flintoff was right to enforce the follow on?

By the time of the collapse Flintoff had no option: his error was in not batting long enough in the first innings - the declaration should probably have been delayed until just before the close (if the light was good enough) or else until just before lunch on day 3.

Sri Lanka would have batted with less ease today had they still been facing an innings defeat!

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

I think at the time Flintoff made the right decision - I'm sure Vaughan would have done the same, and perhaps any current test captain would have done so. It won't always be right, as we have seen, but on Saturday it looked a pretty straightforward call to me.

It seems to me that a team always bats to save the follow on, and I think in this case it came to Sri Lanka's aid, I don't boubt that a lot of captains would have done what Flintoff did, but I have seen lots of matches when it don't work, you get a weary bowling side, that's not good to watch.
When a captain enforces the follow on, I think he hopes the team will collapse again, and his bowlers will still be fired up, but it's a different gameplan, the opposition is they just batting for a draw, and the shuttiers go up, and this wears the bowling down.Just my opinion, but I have never liked the use of the follow on, it might have worked at Headlingly.

Originally Posted by Rachael 98756

his error was in not batting long enough in the first innings - the declaration should probably have been delayed until just before the close (if the light was good enough) or else until just before lunch on day 3.

Well I can't argue against this, most of the TMS crew thought the same think, but to be honest I agreed with Flintoff for the reason that England had to take 20 Sri Lanka wickets, and the longer England batted, the harder that would be.
England had got the 550 with ease, and could have got 600 - 650, but to me that shows that batting was easy, and 20 wickets would not come with ease.
But had England got the 600+, they would then have had no option but to enforce the follow on.

[Mike]

I'm not a great fan of enforcing the follow on. Bowlers need rest. Not only that, you also run the risk of being forced to bat on a fifth day pitch. Why gamble? As it happens, England used their seamers far too much in this match. Had Flintoff not enforced the follow on, the seamers would have been rested and Flintoff also had the option of bowling Panesar on a fifth day wicket. He should have batted again and declared if necessary. I reckon Sri Lanka could have been bowled out in 6 sessions. The fielders were dropping catches because of poor concentration brought about by the amount of time they were in the field. Enforcing the follow on is a bad option all around.

As far as the 1st innings declaration is concerned. I thought that was correct because the bowlers came on fresh in the last session which is always a difficult session for batsmen with the light fading.

[John]

Originally Posted by Ernest

In short on a good pitch is enforcing the follow on just depriving the bowlers and fielders of a much needed rest, and also when the bowling is so down, makes for a poor spectacle for the paying spectators.

I disagree with this. Although I didn't see the cricket I kept on going into the internet on work, in my tea break of course. It looked quiet close for most of the day.
The most boring bit of the Test match was when England amassed 500 + and Sri Lanka were all out for under 200. It seemed very one sided. Whose interested in one sided bores.
So if England had batted again added another 200 and declared. Sri Lanka would have had to get 500 and been more than likely blown away by a fresh England attack. All in all a forgotten Test match.
Now we have had a memorable draw.

[Mike]

Nice to have a non-English perspective John but we'll take boring wins any day. From an English perspective this will be remembered as a match where England engineered a draw from a certain win. They snatched a draw from certain victory. Only England could do that.

[Moss]

I don't think the declaration was too early. If we'd gone on, we would still see the same result.
We bowled out SL for very little in the first innings, and who was to know how they'd stick in for the first, even with such a big total just to catch up?

Let's face it, we didn't even take 20 wickets in the match, and that was the problem.

As for the follow on, had it not been enforced, I think there would have been the possibility of a SL victory, however slim.
Hindsight is wonderful...

[Moss]

Originally Posted by Mike

Nice to have a non-English perspective John but we'll take boring wins any day. From an English perspective this will be remembered as a match where England engineered a draw from a certain win. They snatched a draw from certain victory. Only England could do that.

To quote my husband, as I asked him the score at 5.30: "Yet again we have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory..." It's not a defeat, but it certainly feels like one. The game should have been over Sunday lunchtime.

[John]

Originally Posted by Mike

Nice to have a non-English perspective John but we'll take boring wins any day.

I was being objective of course for the good of the game. But to be quiet honest I thought Flintoff had little choice to ask Sri Lanka to bat again. I am also against enforcing the follow on but under those circumstances I would expect every current Test captain to do the same.