What's new

Were Australia right not to enforce the follow on in the 2nd Test against Pakistan?

S

silentkiller187

First Class Captain
Joined
Nov 9, 2014
Runs
5,483
Have Australia got their tactics right not to enforce the follow on, or is it a defensive tactic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Right move. They are keeping their bowlers fresh so that they can attack a demoralized Pakistan team at a hundred percent
 
How is it defensive with 2 days left? Cummins is preserving his fast bowlers and making sure that if Pakistan do bat deep they do so in the worst possible conditions.
 
I think it’s more of an aggressive tactic. Score another 100/150 runs bat Pakistan out the game. We know how the Pakistani team take to scoreboard pressure. They will ball them out.
 
180 overs should be enough to take 10 Pak wickets, but you never know. We will know over the next two days. I think the idea was to give rest to their bowlers in this heat and tire Pakistani batsmen physically and mentally
 
They could’ve done it but I guess they want to choke any possibility of batting 4th on this wicket that will deteriorate pretty badly very soon.

Perhaps it is the right decision.
 
Enough runs on the board already, we all know how fragile this Pakistani batting unit is, gives Pakistan less time to have to bat out.
 
Doesn't matter one bit. Game was already over for Pakistan when they bowled out below 150
 
Smart ploy by Cummins,

they are hoping for some injuries from the Pakistani bowlers

Mental disintegration at it's best on display in this game.
 
Good move by Aussies

1) Demoralize pakistan more in the field
2) Keep bowlers fresh
3) Show gratitude to PCB by making test last 4 or 5 days
4) 180 overs left which is more then enough time to take 10 wickets.
 
It's a brilliant decision. pakistan were knocked over in 53 overs. Why bother bowling again when you can grind pakistan further into the dust and mentally and physicall exhaust them. 100-120 overs is enough to bowl pakistan out on a pitch that would deteriorate even further.

This would help keep OZ fresh for the next test as well.
 
Ruthless cricket.

No mucking about, no laughing and smiling needlessly, no bonhomie, plain old rubbing the nose in the dirt kind of cricket.

I'll never see Pakistan do this ever so I'll just be passive aggressive internally.
 
Lol I get frustrations are high, but people are trying to criticise Australia since day 1 about being defensive. yet they are 500 runs ahead with 2 days to go in the test.

Embarrassing take tbh.
 
Interesting replies in this thread which have made me think.

I still say that with such a huge lead then IMO the final nail in the coffin here would have been to enforce the follow on and make Pak bat under horrendous scoreboard pressure.

Would have been truly ruthless and resulted in a monumental innings loss.
 
Cricfan4eva said:
Lol I get frustrations are high, but people are trying to criticise Australia since day 1 about being defensive. yet they are 500 runs ahead with 2 days to go in the test.

Embarrassing take tbh.
Click to expand...

It’s not a “take”, OP was asking a question.
 
James said:
It’s not a “take”, OP was asking a question.
Click to expand...

My bad for assuming it was a take in guise of a question, but I had seen a thread about their day 1 batting on here, criticising their approach.

IMO if this was the exact scenario but venue was Aus. They probably would've enforced follow-on. There is something about home-conditions where you simply don't take the home side lightly no matter how far ahead you are.

Aus could've gone for a massive innings win or could've handed Pak a slight advantage by allowing them to bat again against a tired attack and if Pak had batted anything like they did in 1st test, it would've headed towards a draw.

Aus runrate probably indicates they bat max till lunch tomorrow and give themselves 5 sessions to let the massive target do the job + fresh, rested bowlers are always an advantage.
 
Mitchell Starc "There's still two days. There's still going to be 10 wickets we have got to take.

"I know we have got a healthy lead, no doubt.

"But if you look at Test matches gone-by in both Pakistan and the UAE and on the subcontinent, you don't see too many home sides enforce the follow-on."
 
I think it was the right decision.

Giving bowlers rest is very important. Also, they have lots of time.

Very few teams go for follow-on nowadays.
 
Unsporting :P

On serious note, it can allow Pak to get a draw here
 
Well we ll see what the result is but with such a huge lead and pakistan demoralised youd have thought they wouldve kept them down

Im my opinion its the wrong decision Its taking time out of the game for pakistan and letting them regroup

The last thing i wouldve wanted as a pakistani batter is to bat again on day 3
 
Smart and well thought out decision. This pitch still seems a little on the flatter side before it becomes an absolute minefield on day 5. All signs point to that.

Maybe argument can be made that Aussies are probably over rating Pakistan batting.

However if some how Pakistan get to a 75-100 lead and Aussies have to bat say 1-1.5 sessions on day 5, it can get a little tricky.

Pak spinners might be mediocre but in home conditions just like 99% of spinners from SC, they will be more than handful in home conditions on day 5 pitches.

I don’t know much about these 2 spinners but looking at them they seem like seasoned domestic veterans rather than some u-19 kid who is the flavor of the month.

If Aus gets a lead of 500-550, 150 overs are enough for them to go full intensity and not worry about leaking som runs and pick up 10 more wickets with a peace of mind.

I am not sure why people are so confused by this decision.

This is a safe and logical decision. Obviously We enjoy the bravado in the name of “aggressive” cricket but bravado shouldn’t be in the place of common sense and logic.
 
At first I was surprised that the follow-on was not enforced. But when you look at the number of overs left and the time left and also the Pakistan batting line-up then one understands why Australia has batted again.

Bat quickly in the 2nd innings, give their bowlers a breather and then put Pakistan back in to face the music.
 
As someone on this board always says:

Pakistan deserves this humiliation.
 
Zaz said:
Well we ll see what the result is but with such a huge lead and pakistan demoralised youd have thought they wouldve kept them down

Im my opinion its the wrong decision Its taking time out of the game for pakistan and letting them regroup

The last thing i wouldve wanted as a pakistani batter is to bat again on day 3
Click to expand...

I agree.
I believe that enforcing the follow-on in this match situation would have been the more aggressive move and would have absolutely guaranteed the win.
 
Saj said:
At first I was surprised that the follow-on was not enforced. But when you look at the number of overs left and the time left and also the Pakistan batting line-up then one understands why Australia has batted again.

Bat quickly in the 2nd innings, give their bowlers a breather and then put Pakistan back in to face the music.
Click to expand...

Grinding pakistan into the dirt. unless drastic changes are made to team and pitch for final test it will be a series defeat.
 
transparent opacity said:
Mitchell Starc "There's still two days. There's still going to be 10 wickets we have got to take.

"I know we have got a healthy lead, no doubt.

"But if you look at Test matches gone-by in both Pakistan and the UAE and on the subcontinent, you don't see too many home sides enforce the follow-on."
Click to expand...

They know they've got the mental edge over the Pakistani batters and it would be a miracle for Pakistan to escape with a draw.
 
Amjid Javed said:
Grinding pakistan into the dirt. unless drastic changes are made to team and pitch for final test it will be a series defeat.
Click to expand...

lol, that's funny.

What drastic changes can we introduce? :D

If we make rank turners, we will only poise Lyon, while Starc n co will keep ripping through us, just as they did on non a supportive pitch.

If we make sporting pitches that support seamers - then the test will end within two days.

Fact of the matter is, what we see on the ground depicts the reality.

Both on the paper and on the field, Australia is a far superior team.

We only had a little advantage of home crowd cheering for us, but we totally failed to exploit it. We never wanted to take the offensive and put pressure on the Aussies. EVERY top order batsman is hell bent to cement his spot in the team. A little scoreboard pressure, and it didn't take them long to expose their true talent and skill.

The only thing our Think Tanks may need to update is to take out their heads from their read ends, and realize that personal milestones, if not turned into victories - should NOT be considered as basis of an automatic selection for the future.

Second, we relied way too much on Shaheen Afridi - but we were scared to create any wickets to support him because , you know, "lenay k deynay parr jaatey".

If we are scared and if we have fear - then there is a genuine reason behind it. We are tentative to take the risks because we will lose - and a loss would mean bad reputation, both for the players and the new chairman - who is more suited to run a circus rather than a cricket board.

Seriously. the highest post Ramiz could've gotten in the board was some sort of a media person, press secretary or something. He doesn't have the mental intellect do anything above that.

We need an intelligent and a well experienced professional with a strongly, intimidating and authoritative personality as the board chairman. The "tatt poonjiyas" that we have for the last decade or two won't do it.
 
Colorblind Genius said:
lol, that's funny.

What drastic changes can we introduce? :D

If we make rank turners, we will only poise Lyon, while Starc n co will keep ripping through us, just as they did on non a supportive pitch.

If we make sporting pitches that support seamers - then the test will end within two days.

Fact of the matter is, what we see on the ground depicts the reality.

Both on the paper and on the field, Australia is a far superior team.

We only had a little advantage of home crowd cheering for us, but we totally failed to exploit it. We never wanted to take the offensive and put pressure on the Aussies. EVERY top order batsman is hell bent to cement his spot in the team. A little scoreboard pressure, and it didn't take them long to expose their true talent and skill.

The only thing our Think Tanks may need to update is to take out their heads from their read ends, and realize that personal milestones, if not turned into victories - should NOT be considered as basis of an automatic selection for the future.

Second, we relied way too much on Shaheen Afridi - but we were scared to create any wickets to support him because , you know, "lenay k deynay parr jaatey".

If we are scared and if we have fear - then there is a genuine reason behind it. We are tentative to take the risks because we will lose - and a loss would mean bad reputation, both for the players and the new chairman - who is more suited to run a circus rather than a cricket board.

Seriously. the highest post Ramiz could've gotten in the board was some sort of a media person, press secretary or something. He doesn't have the mental intellect do anything above that.

We need an intelligent and a well experienced professional with a strongly, intimidating and authoritative personality as the board chairman. The "tatt poonjiyas" that we have for the last decade or two won't do it.
Click to expand...

The drastic changes we can make are the following:-

Theres no guarantees that we will but we need to give ourselves a chance of trying to win. Look at the pitches we had for SA and SL series, they offered decent bounce, seamers got reverse of the abrasive surface and spinners got turn.

India, SL and bangladesh produce these tracks and back themselves. if we get beaten by better side, just hold ur hands up and say well done Australia.

1) Azhar and fawad need to go. We have 8 tests in Asia left in current WTC.

1 more vs Aus, 2 in SL, 3 vs Eng (H) and 2 vs (NZ) at home. Ideal time to blood saud shakeel and kamran ghulam as it gives them 8 tests to see if they can perform in these conditions.

2) Sajid and nauman together are not good enough. Sajid has zero control and nauman either needs to be sole main spinner as a container. Or you bring a leg spinner in and give them ago for next 8 tests.

3)Bulk up the pace attack by bringing in Dhani or rauf no harm in trying new faces.

if misbah can get bowlers like imran khan jnr, rahat to out bowl Aussies in UAE it can be done here. There has been no game plans used by out bowlers in this series. The whole negative mindset is killing the minimal chances we had of positive results.

its better to improve on wickets like we got for SA series as atleast there will be positive results either way. Instead playing on roads like at pindi just prolongs selections like imam and Azhars in team who go missing oncd going gets tough.
 
Amjid Javed said:
The drastic changes we can make are the following:-

Theres no guarantees that we will but we need to give ourselves a chance of trying to win. Look at the pitches we had for SA and SL series, they offered decent bounce, seamers got reverse of the abrasive surface and spinners got turn.

India, SL and bangladesh produce these tracks and back themselves. if we get beaten by better side, just hold ur hands up and say well done Australia.

1) Azhar and fawad need to go. We have 8 tests in Asia left in current WTC.

1 more vs Aus, 2 in SL, 3 vs Eng (H) and 2 vs (NZ) at home. Ideal time to blood saud shakeel and kamran ghulam as it gives them 8 tests to see if they can perform in these conditions.

2) Sajid and nauman together are not good enough. Sajid has zero control and nauman either needs to be sole main spinner as a container. Or you bring a leg spinner in and give them ago for next 8 tests.

3)Bulk up the pace attack by bringing in Dhani or rauf no harm in trying new faces.

if misbah can get bowlers like imran khan jnr, rahat to out bowl Aussies in UAE it can be done here. There has been no game plans used by out bowlers in this series. The whole negative mindset is killing the minimal chances we had of positive results.

its better to improve on wickets like we got for SA series as atleast there will be positive results either way. Instead playing on roads like at pindi just prolongs selections like imam and Azhars in team who go missing oncd going gets tough.
Click to expand...

Bulk up the paces by bringing either Rauf or Dahani as the enforcer role but also include some who can actually open the bowling for example Irfanullah,Khurram Shezard,Sameen gull.
 
Most likely saved them the embarrassment of losing the game even earlier. Was on the wall though with the last two matches, we aren’t a team that goes through the motions and then just gets up. We carry through with our momentum and power.

A lot has been missing so far in these two Test matches.
 
Aussies did the right thing. Batting the second time has completely put Pak out of the competition.
 
Will this decision turn out to be the wrong one when the dust settles on the 2nd Test?
 
Could be a point of regret for Aus depending on what happens tomorrow !
 
The reaction was just as predictable as the decision itself.

As Australia knocked over Pakistan for 148 to take a 408-run lead heading into the third innings at Karachi, skipper Pat Cummins gave the nod to his top-order to head back into the change rooms to pad up.

Despite being well within in their rights to make Pakistan bat again and shoot for the most humiliating of results in cricket — an outright victory — Australia played it safe.

Bat again, build up the lead early on day four, and hope the star-studded Australian bowling line up could topple the Pakistanis in a day and half.

Australia is 489 runs ahead after day three of the second Test in Karachi, thanks largely to a session of devastating reverse-swing bowling that skittled Pakistan for just 148 runs.

Australia bowler Mitchell Starc shouts and raises a hand in the air as he celebrates a wicket against Pakistan.
Read more
It has become the apparent modus operandi of Australian captains for the better part of 20 years, and the inevitable criticism from cricket pundits and fans alike always comes back to one place.

Kolkata.

What is the follow-on in cricket?

First of all, a quick run down on the follow-on for those who haven't been playing along at home.

The option of enforcing a follow-on is offered to a team who bats first, and then dismisses the opposition in the second innings for 200 or more runs fewer than the first team scored. The captain of the team that batted first can then tell the other team to 'follow-on' — meaning, to bat again.

Should the opposition lose all their wickets a second time without reaching the total of the first innings, it's a humiliating loss. Should they surpass the first innings score, the team that has only batted once thus far can then go out again and attempt to chase down those runs, if there's enough time left in the match.

So using this Test as an example, Australia scored 556 in the first innings. Pakistan would need to score 356 or more to avoid the question being asked of Cummins around whether he wanted to make them bat again. They scored 148.

But Cummins decided not to send Pakistan back out to the crease, instead choosing to build on Australia's run lead further.

It's a decision that was always going to elicit criticism.

Why would a team enforce the follow-on?

Former England captain Mike Brearley was adamant that making the opposition bat again, should you have the option, was the right decision to make.

"The main reason to enforce the follow-on is to prevent a draw," Brearley wrote in his 1985 book The Art of Captaincy.

When Australia lost the unlosable Test

With the home side facing odds of 500-1 to win at Headingley in 1981, two stoic Englishmen stood in the way of Kim Hughes leading his Australians to a famous victory — and it's a string of events the former captain has been trying to forget since.

"Batting last, the chasing side can bat cautiously and use up time to draw the match rather than lose, and the follow-on gives them more time, making that strategy more difficult.

"Enforcing the follow-on can also increase the pressure on the chasing team, since they have already posted an inferior score, and the state of the pitch often deteriorates as a match progresses."

On only three occasions has a team that has been forced to follow-on gone on to win the Test match.

The first, in 1894, came after Australia needed just 63 runs to win with eight wickets in hand heading into the final day at the SCG. As Sydney is wont to do during cricket season, the heavens opened over night, and given this was an era when pitches were not covered when it rained, the turf became unplayable on day five, with the Australians falling short by 10 runs.

The second time was the Ian Botham Test at Headingley, which has gone down in history as one of the greatest moments in Test cricket, and which you can read about here.

And the third ... well, the third we will get to.

From 1980 (when the 200-run rule was introduced) to 2001, the follow-on was enforced 89 times from 852 Test matches — that's about 10.4 per cent of all Tests. Since then, the percentage has actually increased across the board to 11.2 per cent.

Australia, for what it's worth, called for the follow-on in about 7 per cent of their Tests from 1980 to 2001, however that includes matches where the follow-on was not an option. When you condense the stats to only matches where the option was present, Aussie captains almost uniformly decided to send their opponents back in.

And then Kolkata happened.

What happened with the follow-on in Kolkata, 2001?

After the soggy pitch Test and the Ian Botham Test, the Kolkata Test is the only other match in which the following-on team came away with victory.

It sparked what some pundits call the VVS Effect.

It came after Steve Waugh's all-conquering Australians headed to the sub-continent on the greatest Test roll in history, destroying India in their first clash of the series to set a world record 16 wins in a row.

Batting first in the second Test, Matthew Hayden (97 from 157 balls), Waugh (110 from 203) and Jason Gillespie (46 from 147) helped the Aussies to a total of 445, before rolling the Indians for 171.

Naturally, Waugh sent India back in.

It didn't go well.

VVS Laxman and Rahul Dravid combined to score 461 runs between them, facing 805 balls along the way as Australia gave nine of their 11 players a trundle with the ball, with only wicketkeeper Adam Gilchrist and all-rounder Waugh not rolling the arm over.

Chasing 384 to win on a deteriorating pitch, the Australian scorecard read as a really one-dimensional game of dodgeball, with Mark Waugh (duck), Ponting (duck), Gilchrist (duck) and Shane Warne (duck) all going without scoring, while Hayden (67) and Michael Slater (43) were the only batters who decided some dipping and diving was in order.

Australia would go all out for 212, lose their first Test in 17 matches, and then fall again in the series decider as Harbhajan Singh took 15 wickets to decimate the Aussies in Chennai.

And, it would mean Australia would never enforce the follow on again ... right?

Wrong.

Does Australia still enforce the follow on?

The Kolkata Test was the first opportunity Waugh ever had as captain to enforce the follow-on, and while it didn't go well, he did not shy away from sending his opponents back in during future matches.

On seven occasions, Waugh had the opportunity to force his opponent back out to bat, and he took the option every time, winning all seven Tests.

While the narrative that Australia's reluctance to enforce the follow-on points to a stat that the Aussies only use the option about 30 per cent of the time post-Kolkata, it had less to do with the ghosts of Laxman and Dravid and more to do with a captaincy change, with the less aggressive Ponting taking charge in 2004 and using the follow-on option just four times in 13 opportunities.

Since Ponting's time at the top, future Australian captains have taken a similar approach, although the last time Australia enforced the follow on came in 2019, when David Warner scored 335 in the first innings against Pakistan to lead the Aussies to an outright victory.

Why did Pat Cummins not enforce the follow-on against Pakistan?

Without looking too deeply into the hows and whys, the follow-on works. In the 292 times it has been used in Test cricket history, 230 follow-ons have led to victory, 59 have ended in draws, and there's been the three aforementioned losses, all to Australia.

So with the weight of history on his side, why would Cummins not decide to get things over and done with right there and then?

Commentator Mike Haysman left viewers in no doubt as to what he thought.

"Australia are batting again. I am astonished by that," he said.

"Pakistan trail by 408, and Australia are batting again. I don’t understand that at all.

"And the workload has not been anything substantial whatsoever. I am stunned, I’m afraid. I am astounded that Australia are batting again. Astounded."

Haysman was right about the workload, with Australia bowling just 53 overs to skittle Pakistan. But while history suggests the follow-on was the right move, history is just that — a thing of the past.

In seasons gone, players might have had weeks to recover between Test matches. In this series, the third Test starts just four days after the second Test concludes.

In seasons gone, about 30 years ago, the annual mean temperature in Pakistan was a full degree less than it is now, and another half day spent in 32C heat rather than air conditioned change rooms will likely sap the energy of Pakistani batters.

And, in seasons gone, pitches tended to break down quicker than they do now, with another half day of Pakistani boots pounding into the wicket helping form those divots and cracks that will assist Australian bowlers in toppling the batting order again.

Australia took just 53 overs to see off Pakistan in the first innings. With 120-odd overs, an energy-sapped Pakistani team, and a pitch breaking down by the minute, Cummins's decision to not side with the weight of history and instead follow the path of his more recent predecessors should pay dividends not only in this Test, but in this history-making series.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-15/australia-pakistan-when-follow-on-was-last-used/100910002
 
A loss or a draw most likely. This is not an ODI. If AU sensed game going out of hand, they WILL do what Pak did in the first inning - negative legside bowling which would be a poetic justice.
 
I must say I was surprised by the decision - it is not as if they had been in the field for 100 overs, we crumbled in 50 overs. They had an astronomical lead so even if we scored 500 they would have needed 100 off the last session. They played into our hands a little, I must say.
 
Babeikh said:
I must say I was surprised by the decision - it is not as if they had been in the field for 100 overs, we crumbled in 50 overs. They had an astronomical lead so even if we scored 500 they would have needed 100 off the last session. They played into our hands a little, I must say.
Click to expand...

Perhaps Babar has left his charm on Cummins.

On a serious note, follow-ons have become very uncommon. Teams like to give a little break for themselves. Either way, AU in all likelihood will be on top and Pak playing to save the game.
 
Last edited:
Anything upto a 250 lead yes i can understand you dont enforce the follow on because aus may have had to bat again last on the pitch but with a lead of 400 Pak would have to score 550 for the aussies to bat last and chase 150 Which youd have thought is very very unlikely

So to me it looks like it may have been the wrong decision

As thing stand aus took time out of the game and pak go into the last day only 2wkts down
 
I really hope one of these days this modern play of not enforcing follow-ons really bites someone.

Extremely defensive since Steve Waugh got burnt in 2001
 
Clearly the ghosts of Kolkata still haunt the Australian team.

Didn't think it was a good decision when they didn't enforce the follow-on. And Pakistan's batting has only reinforced that for me.

Australia only added 97 runs which isn't alot but they took up essentially an entire session. At that point, the position Pakistan were in....as demoralized as they were, I feel like they easily could have collapsed again. And even if they didn't Pakistan would have two barriers to deal with: hunting down the lead and giving a target.

By not enforcing the follow-on, Australia took out an extra session they could have bowled at Pakistan and simplified the situation for Pakistan who now simply had to bat for the draw.

Seems Australia's entire decision-making was based on the idea that the pitch will become a minefield on Day 4-5. Which was defensive cricket on their part because that means they were scared of the prospect of even chasing down 50-100 in the last innings.

They may still end up winning...too early to say otherwise. But if they don't they will look back at this decision.
 
Last edited:
The knives will be out if they don't win the Karachi Test match and that decision not to enforce the follow on will be under the microscope.

It could come back to haunt them.
 
James said:
I agree.
I believe that enforcing the follow-on in this match situation would have been the more aggressive move and would have absolutely guaranteed the win.
Click to expand...

I posted this last night and I stand by it.

I was surprised to see such broad support for the Australian decision to bat again. It immediately struck me as a very defensive move.

They then declared on 97/2, which felt like it was a strange use of time and a waste of an innings.

Not well thought through imo.
It’s given Pak a chance of an unlikely escape.
 
Saj said:
The knives will be out if they don't win the Karachi Test match and that decision not to enforce the follow on will be under the microscope.

It could come back to haunt them.
Click to expand...

Told you it would go to day 5 :)
 
Cummins made a decision, there is no right or wrong decision, just a decision.

If he did enforce the follow on then there would be those that would have said he should have given his bowlers a rest and if he didn't enforce the follow on there will those that say he should have enforced the follow on.

At the end of the day nobody knows if he made the best decision.
 
It was wired decision , if u bat again at least make 200, or just enforce follow on , what's the point of only making 97 and declaring. Or just play like t20. They could have made more if they came with that mindset to make ,close to 100
 
It's simple really and I don't think Kolkata or anywhere else influenced their decision - you can't compare Pak's team with that Indian team especially the batting. And this leads me to why they didn't enforce the f/o.

1) Give their bowlers a rest, it's really hot and uncomfortable out there.

2) A lot of time left in the game to bowl out Pak again, they would have rolled about laughing at Azhar's dismissal and thought they'd bowl out Pak in not time seeing how fragile their batting is.

Australia are still well in the driving seat and have the new ball. One early wicket tomorrow and its probably curtains.
 
Whilst we don’t know for definite that Australia would have won the Test match had they enforced the follow on straight away when Pakistan were 400+ runs behind and on their knees psychologically, they surely would have taken more than a meagre four wickets across 150 overs of play.
 
Playing 20 overs and declaring obviously don't make sense much in the third inning but then who would have thought that Pakistan would bat over 150 overs and score 400+ runs in final inning, especially after the 148 all out performance.

They would have probably thought of closing on by first hour of day 5.
 
Gilly said:
Cummins made a decision, there is no right or wrong decision, just a decision.

If he did enforce the follow on then there would be those that would have said he should have given his bowlers a rest and if he didn't enforce the follow on there will those that say he should have enforced the follow on.

At the end of the day nobody knows if he made the best decision.
Click to expand...

This is too much logic/stoicism for PP.
 
a follow on could have ended up in many possible scenarios but would have given aus a higher chance of winning as they would not have to chase much.
 
Not sure how people are calling the decision wrong now. Pak did exactly what everyone thought they were capable of including Pat Cummins, they batted brilliantly in 2nd innings. Except Aus by batting again ensured that even if it happened, it ruled out a Pak win.

Aus simply didn't want to bat fourth chasing a tricky 80-120.
 
Gilly said:
Cummins made a decision, there is no right or wrong decision, just a decision.

If he did enforce the follow on then there would be those that would have said he should have given his bowlers a rest and if he didn't enforce the follow on there will those that say he should have enforced the follow on.

At the end of the day nobody knows if he made the best decision.
Click to expand...

Disagree. It was the best decision because of the reasons you mentioned. He wanted his bowlers to have a break, nothing about the weather or pitch merited Aus to enforce follow on and there was enough time left in the test for Pak to put up a tricky target for Aus to chase.

By batting just 20 overs he ensured that it simply doesn't happen. He gave himself 171 overs, if you can't bowl out a side inside that, you simply appreciate the opposition and move on.

Only thing Aus can look back and regret are some of the drops.
 
Australia dropped 6 catches and missed run out chances. Thats what is to blame, nothing to do with follow on.
 
They were right not to enforce the follow-on. Very few teams enforce it nowadays.

They had 170 overs to bowl Pakistan out. They couldn't. Pakistan were simply superb.
 
Cricfan4eva said:
Disagree. It was the best decision because of the reasons you mentioned. He wanted his bowlers to have a break, nothing about the weather or pitch merited Aus to enforce follow on and there was enough time left in the test for Pak to put up a tricky target for Aus to chase.

By batting just 20 overs he ensured that it simply doesn't happen. He gave himself 171 overs, if you can't bowl out a side inside that, you simply appreciate the opposition and move on.

Only thing Aus can look back and regret are some of the drops.
Click to expand...

He also gave Pakistan a chance to win the game. It was a very stupid decision.
 
Gilly said:
Cummins made a decision, there is no right or wrong decision, just a decision.

If he did enforce the follow on then there would be those that would have said he should have given his bowlers a rest and if he didn't enforce the follow on there will those that say he should have enforced the follow on.

At the end of the day nobody knows if he made the best decision.
Click to expand...

Well we are all here to comment and share opinions.

Usually I'm all for the follow on. In this case, the pitch was showing some signs of wear and cracking at last (unlike previous) so I'm ok with Pat wanting to bat a bit to give that slightly more chance to develop + rest the bowlers etc.

He's shown he's a decent captain already. More interested in how he develops across the year in various challenges than harping on a single either/way call.
 
silentkiller187 said:
Have Australia got their tactics right not to enforce the follow on, or is it a defensive tactic.
Click to expand...



In hindsight I can now say it was a bad move...having said that, for any long time fans who have watched test cricket for a while, they will agree when I say this 'Whenever a team skittles the other out for less than 150 (or a very low score) and having 300+ lead, it is always a defensive and safety first sort of a decision to not enforce the follow-on'

To me it always comes across as not very aggressive, rather gives the vibe that the captain does not have enough confidence in their ability to take the match from the jugular despite being in the driving seat!
 
Karachi has been very hot. The pitch hasn't been easy for the faster bowlers. Cummins made the right call. They had plenty of time to bowl Pakistan out.
 
If you can't bowl out the opposition in 170 plus overs then the problem is not with the decision about follow-on. The problem is somewhere else.
 
I still believe it was the wrong decision He had pakistan down with a knife at their throat and decided not to finish them off

Totally the wrong decision
 
Absolutely the wrong decision as proven by day 4 and 5. This is a match Australia let slip massively.
 
It was a terrible decision. If you base your follow on decision on being scared the opposition is going to make 500 in the second innings of a match where they haven’t got 150 in the first innings, then you might aswell give up.

It’s not as if your bowlers have been toiling in the field for days either so “keeping bowlers fresh” is another poor excuse.
 
Cricfan4eva said:
Not sure how people are calling the decision wrong now. Pak did exactly what everyone thought they were capable of including Pat Cummins, they batted brilliantly in 2nd innings. Except Aus by batting again ensured that even if it happened, it ruled out a Pak win.

Aus simply didn't want to bat fourth chasing a tricky 80-120.
Click to expand...

Cricfan4eva said:
Disagree. It was the best decision because of the reasons you mentioned. He wanted his bowlers to have a break, nothing about the weather or pitch merited Aus to enforce follow on and there was enough time left in the test for Pak to put up a tricky target for Aus to chase.

By batting just 20 overs he ensured that it simply doesn't happen. He gave himself 171 overs, if you can't bowl out a side inside that, you simply appreciate the opposition and move on.

Only thing Aus can look back and regret are some of the drops.
Click to expand...

This is the fourth time they have failed to bowl out opposition on the last day the other 3 times have been at home as well. Australia need to look at their spinners they do not create enough chances. Lyon is accurate but he does not produce wicket taking deliveries often enough.

In light of the above perhaps it was a wrong decision to take the match into 5th day. It was reversing on the 3rd day and maybe they should have gone for the kill their and then. But the main issue is their spinners if they had decent spinner Pakistan would have been bowled out at lunch MAX.

This pitch had enough for say someone like Ashwin and Co to run through a line up.
 
Only thing I will remember from this decision is Babar could have scored a Tripple if Cummins had enforced the follow on.
 
Pakhs said:
This is the fourth time they have failed to bowl out opposition on the last day the other 3 times have been at home as well. Australia need to look at their spinners they do not create enough chances. Lyon is accurate but he does not produce wicket taking deliveries often enough.

In light of the above perhaps it was a wrong decision to take the match into 5th day. It was reversing on the 3rd day and maybe they should have gone for the kill their and then. But the main issue is their spinners if they had decent spinner Pakistan would have been bowled out at lunch MAX.

This pitch had enough for say someone like Ashwin and Co to run through a line up.
Click to expand...

This is a problem yes. They have not found an attack that is well rounded.

However I don't agree with the bit where you suggest since it reversed in 1st innings, they should've followed on. Reverse swing isn't conditions based but how they managed the ball, there is absolutely no guarantee that had they enforced follow on, they would have gotten it to reverse the same way in 15-20 overs.

At the end you look at number of overs Aus gave themselves to bowl out Pak. 170 overs. In most close games, sides give themselves anywhere between 100-120 overs, yet here Aus had so much time, but conditions + Pak batting well + Aus lack of depth in bowling showed.

So the decision to not follow isn't to blame, rather their inability to pick 10 wickets in 170 overs on a pitch that wasn't road is the problem.
 
If steve smith had caught Shaffique early on pakistan would have been 38/3 in the 28th over, Huge difference to 245/3 in the 108th.

That drop not only cost runs but also a partnetship that spanned 80 over almost a full days play.

If pakistan were 38/3 with fawad in next i highly doubt pakistan would have batted 170 overs to draw the game.

follow on decision wasnt the issue. 6+ dropped catches was.
 
Cricfan4eva said:
This is a problem yes. They have not found an attack that is well rounded.

However I don't agree with the bit where you suggest since it reversed in 1st innings, they should've followed on. Reverse swing isn't conditions based but how they managed the ball, there is absolutely no guarantee that had they enforced follow on, they would have gotten it to reverse the same way in 15-20 overs.

At the end you look at number of overs Aus gave themselves to bowl out Pak. 170 overs. In most close games, sides give themselves anywhere between 100-120 overs, yet here Aus had so much time, but conditions + Pak batting well + Aus lack of depth in bowling showed.

So the decision to not follow isn't to blame, rather their inability to pick 10 wickets in 170 overs on a pitch that wasn't road is the problem.
Click to expand...

Yes Australia do not have a spin attack which can run through a batting line up. And that has costed them big in the past including this game.
 
They won't admit to it, but looking back now they are probably regretting the decision not to enforce the follow on at a time when Pakistan were in turmoil.
 
In my opinion, the outcome of the game could have been different if Aus had enforced the follow on. So yes, mistake from Cummins. But I don't blame him. Frankly he gave enough time for his bowlers to take 10 wickets on most pitches. Just so happens he faced a determined Babar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Savak
Why were Nauman Ali and Sajid Khan ineffective in the 2nd test match in comparison to Keshav Maharaj and Simon Harmer?
Replies
28
Views
532
jnaveen1980
J
A
Why on earth has the PCB not scheduled any home Test matches against Australia on spin-friendly pitches?
Replies
7
Views
402
BouncerGuy
BouncerGuy
BouncerGuy
"We don’t want the outcome of a Test match to hinge solely on the toss": Azhar Mahmood
Replies
1
Views
279
Abid Z
A
The Bald Eagle
  • Locked
India tour of Australia 2025: 2nd ODI | Adelaide | October 23 | Pre-Match Discussion
Replies
43
Views
516
The Bald Eagle
The Bald Eagle
The Bald Eagle
Will India also crush Australia in ODI series in Australia or will they again fall victim to the "Aussie tag" despite being the stronger side?
2
Replies
153
Views
3K
Devadwal
Devadwal
Back
Top