• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

*Official* England in NZ 2023

S

SteveNZ

Cricketer Of The Year
Honestly, it feels as if having a hit of golf played its part in the follow on decision. I think I'm being slightly facetious, but it just didn't feel like a decision Stokes and Baz would've made under other circumstances. Potentially over-confidence as well, which was always bound to happen with their approach at some stage.

Having said that, when they enforced it, the general vibe in commentary and certainly from myself (and on here) was that it was a sound decision that was going to pay off 999 times out of 1000. The thing they probably underestimated the most was the effect of being on their feet in the field so long.
 
Skyliner

Skyliner

State Captain
A very strange test match. Memorable match for the players and spectators. England certainly contributed to their demise with the approach they took, lots of catches from mistimed slogs and top edges. The win has put a veneer over NZ’s problems, giving the coaching team and older players some breathing space. No changes to the NZ squad for the Sri Lanka series.
 
Brook's side

Brook's side

International Regular
SteveNZ said:
Honestly, it feels as if having a hit of golf played its part in the follow on decision. I think I'm being slightly facetious, but it just didn't feel like a decision Stokes and Baz would've made under other circumstances. Potentially over-confidence as well, which was always bound to happen with their approach at some stage.

Having said that, when they enforced it, the general vibe in commentary and certainly from myself (and on here) was that it was a sound decision that was going to pay off 999 times out of 1000. The thing they probably underestimated the most was the effect of being on their feet in the field so long.
Click to expand...
The bowlers didn't seem particularly knackered to me (certainly seen far more knackered England bowlers). The one that bore the brunt was Leach and he was still going strong at the end.

Either way, all a learning/development curve, which I think's an important element of Bazball.
 
the big bambino

the big bambino

Cricketer Of The Year
Molehill said:
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.

www.espncricinfo.com

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 www.espncricinfo.com
Click to expand...
The stats show there is no real benefit enforcing a follow. In fact you are less likely to win so why do it? It's hard enough taking 10 wickets but to expect your bowlers to now take 20 in a row is a burden that shouldn't be put on them. As you your example shows the follow on innings can really cook your bowlers and that alone is a reason for being against it.
 
Shady Slim

Shady Slim

International Coach
the big bambino said:
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.
Click to expand...
what's missing from these stats is when the decision is made though
because if the average follow on is enforced say midway through day four whereas the average decision to bat again is made after lunch of day three it would stand to reason there are more draws with that as another factor (in addition to bowler tiredness)
 
Starfighter

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Shady Slim said:
what's missing from these stats is when the decision is made though
because if the average follow on is enforced say midway through day four whereas the average decision to bat again is made after lunch of day three it would stand to reason there are more draws with that as another factor (in addition to bowler tiredness)
Click to expand...
Scroll down to the 10 September 2015 entry: http://www.sportstats.com.au/BlogArchiveApr15toDec15.htm

Might mention that Davis also noted some time around 2006 that teams enforcing the follow were lees likely to win despite having a much bigger average lead (327 vs 254 in his sample).
 
the big bambino

the big bambino

Cricketer Of The Year
Shady Slim said:
what's missing from these stats is when the decision is made though
because if the average follow on is enforced say midway through day four whereas the average decision to bat again is made after lunch of day three it would stand to reason there are more draws with that as another factor (in addition to bowler tiredness)
Click to expand...
Trouble is I'm not going to interrogate 400 matches to understand the circumstances in each. You don't mention the circumstances that may have prevented a bat again team winning. Lets just say for example weather being an issue. There are approximately 3x the occasion a f/o is enforced versus when it isn't. An excuse adjusting the former's percentages has to occur around 4 or 5 times for it to make any difference to the win percentage between the choices. Say 5 instances when weather (or something else) prevented a f/o win for every 1 it prevented a bat again win. Can you find enough excuses for f/o to turn things around? Maybe but I'm not confident. If you shift a draw to a win in bat again column it moves the win percent up by almost 1%. If you move 5 from the draw column to the win column for f/o, the win percent goes up by 1.68%. I think I'd need to repeat that scenario many times to get a break even. Teams wouldn't want to cook their bowlers so they'd need an even greater return for f/o to enforce them.

But I think it's highly unlikely a f/o loss occurred under the contrived circumstances of the Cronje match so really the loss ratio for bat again is 0.9%.
 
Days of Grace

Days of Grace

International Captain
These days with a packed schedule I would only enforce the follow-on if the weather forecast was particularly bleak. And I recall that at the time they enforced it the prospects of uninterrupted play for the remainder of the match were not great.

But three thing were against England, two of which they were in control of:

1. The ages of Anderson and Broad.
2. Perhaps the understated reason: The inability of Stokee to bowl. How many times have we seen Stokes take a few poles in the second innings when the main bowlers are struggling for a breakthrough.

3.The Latham/Conway opening partnership. If one or both openers were dismissed cheaply, it was England’s game imo.
 
Molehill

Molehill

Cricketer Of The Year
Having seen Broad's Instagram pictures of his 'holiday' in NZ, I'm also now coming to the conclusion that the Follow On decision was made in the hope of grabbing another round of golf on Day 5!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top