*Official* England in NZ 2023

[Brook's side]

Yes. Yes there most certainly is

Is it something to do with Stan Laurel?

 

[Burgey]

No

 

[Ashes81]

Was former England batsman Paul Collingwood at the post-match gathering or was he otherwise engaged that evening?

You've lost me mate - is Colly known for being otherwise engaged - not heard that before - care to expand

 

[Binkley]

I am guessing the @Burgey comment was meant to be a reference to this. Which happened 15 years ago, was forgiven almost instantly, and didn’t involve any of the same players.

 

[Burgey]

Nope

 

[the big bambino]

Seriously put off follow ons since 1981. Never really a fan of them before that either. Seems like an invitation to concede a dominant position just for the opportunity to bat last in usually the worst conditions after cooking your bowlers.

 

[NZTailender]

Nope

I feel like you'll need to DM me on insta

 

[Molehill]

Seriously put off follow ons since 1981. Never really a fan of them before that either. Seems like an invitation to concede a dominant position just for the opportunity to bat last in usually the worst conditions after cooking your bowlers.

2005 Trent Bridge for me, England so nearly blew the series with that follow on decision. The follow on should only be used really in weather affected matches where time is running short and you need to get bowling again to have a chance of winning. In Wellington, that just wasn't a factor.

 

[Zinzan]

No

Anything to do with his MBE?

 

[The Hutt Rec]

People are so anti the follow on when sides had lost after enforcing it 3 times in 150 years lol

 

[Molehill]

People are so anti the follow on when sides had lost after enforcing it 3 times in 150 years lol

I'm not 100% sure on the stats, but I don't think any team has ever lost when batting again (choosing not to enforce the follow on). There is also a greater win rate for teams batting again than those enforcing the follow on too.

England managed to give themselves the two hardest days to bat on in that match. One was via the toss, but the other entirely of their own doing. I'm all for Bazball, but as Root at last showed in that Test, apply a bit of common sense to it too.

 

[Bahnz]

Yeah, it’s really something you should only do when you’re at risk of running out of time. Having said that, the Basin is a bit peculiar, in that typically batting only gets easier and easier. NZ usually enforce the follow-on there for that reason. England’s bowlers had their first innings bowling load broken up by an early finish on day 2 so they should’ve been pretty fresh for the start of the second innings.

 

[Molehill]

Yeah, it’s really something you should only do when you’re at risk of running out of time. Having said that, the Basin is a bit peculiar, in that typically batting only gets easier and easier. NZ usually enforce the follow-on there for that reason. England’s bowlers had their first innings bowling load broken up by an early finish on day 2 so they should’ve been pretty fresh for the start of the second innings.

I think the difference is that because England scored their runs so quickly, we were still in the first session of Day 3 when the decision needed to be made. I'm guessing that when NZ have enforced it, it's probably Day 4 and the chance of actually losing the Test is all but removed.

 

[Bahnz]

I think the difference is that because England scored their runs so quickly, we were still in the first session of Day 3 when the decision needed to be made. I'm guessing that when NZ have enforced it, it's probably Day 4 and the chance of actually losing the Test is all but removed.

Nah, NZ have been in the position to enforce it early on day 3. Did it v WI a couple of years ago after scoring 450 in the first innings and running through them for 130. Having said that, NZ at home are a much more intimidating prospect for a bowling side than WI touring NZ. They might well opt for the safe option if it were v India or Australia

 

[Molehill]

Nah, NZ have been in the position to enforce it early on day 3. Did it v WI a couple of years ago after scoring 450 in the first innings and running through them for 130. Having said that, NZ at home are a much more intimidating prospect for a bowling side than WI touring NZ. They might well opt for the safe option if it were v India or Australia

Well yeah, it's the Windies, who don't generally travel well. Presumably they already had golf booked for Day 5.

 

[The Hutt Rec]

I'm not 100% sure on the stats, but I don't think any team has ever lost when batting again (choosing not to enforce the follow on). There is also a greater win rate for teams batting again than those enforcing the follow on too.

England managed to give themselves the two hardest days to bat on in that match. One was via the toss, but the other entirely of their own doing. I'm all for Bazball, but as Root at last showed in that Test, apply a bit of common sense to it too.

Fourth and fifth say are usually the best to bat on at the Basin ... and McCullum would have had plenty of experience of that. I'm sure that's why they didn't want to set a target which NZ would probably have had two days to chase.

 

[Bahnz]

Fourth and fifth say are usually the best to bat on at the Basin ... and McCullum would have had plenty of experience of that. I'm sure that's why they didn't want to set a target which NZ would probably have had two days to chase.

Of course they didn’t really need to do that. Could’ve batted until half an hour before lunch on day 4 and set NZ 600 to win. Probably still would’ve won the game that way too.

 

[the big bambino]

I'm not 100% sure on the stats, but I don't think any team has ever lost when batting again (choosing not to enforce the follow on). There is also a greater win rate for teams batting again than those enforcing the follow on too.

England managed to give themselves the two hardest days to bat on in that match. One was via the toss, but the other entirely of their own doing. I'm all for Bazball, but as Root at last showed in that Test, apply a bit of common sense to it too.

From Howstat

Teams not enforcing the follow on

W 86.49%
L 1.8%
D 11.71%
Total occasions 111

Teams enforcing follow on

W 78.38%
L 1.35%
D 20.27%

Total occasions 296

Seems you win more % wise not enforcing while you draw more enforcing the follow on. Which seems strange since one of the criticisms of not enforcing the f/o is that it increases the likelihood of a draw.

There were 2 times when a team lost not enforcing but one of those seems to be a quirk caught up in the statistics when Eng and SA appear to have forfeited the 2nd and 3rd innings of the match. Cronje later admitting he took a bribe to ensure a result. So you could say it doesn't really count as an instance. The only other time happened in SA in 1950. SA batted first in the best conditions then got Australia out for 75. SA chose to bat again and were dismissed for 99. The pitch was bad and spinners from both sides did well. However Neil Harvey played probably his best innings (151*) and piloted Australia to a 5 wicket win.

 

[Molehill]

There were 2 times when a team lost not enforcing but one of those seems to be a quirk caught up in the statistics when Eng and SA appear to have forfeited the 2nd and 3rd innings of the match. Cronje later admitting he took a bribe to ensure a result. So you could say it doesn't really count as an instance. The only other time happened in SA in 1950. SA batted first in the best conditions then got Australia out for 75. SA chose to bat again and were dismissed for 99. The pitch was bad and spinners from both sides did well. However Neil Harvey played probably his best innings (151*) and piloted Australia to a 5 wicket win.

That first one shouldn't count. Both teams forfeited an innings, it wasn't a follow on.

Teams forced to follow on have often batted badly after being in the field for a while. But a day later they are better rested and now have half decent batting conditions to make use of. I think this match is the perfect example and one that sadly had a pretty severe effect on Flintoff's knee as a result.

Full Scorecard of England vs Sri Lanka 1st Test 2006 - Score Report | ESPNcricinfo.com

Complete Scorecard of England vs Sri Lanka 1st Test 2006, Sri Lanka tour of England only on ESPNcricinfo.com. Find the complete scorecard of England vs Sri Lanka 1st Test Online

www.espncricinfo.com

 

[Brook's side]

Teams forced to follow on have often batted badly after being in the field for a while.

If they're following on then they shouldn't have been in the field!