1st Test: Australia v Pakistan at Brisbane on Dec 15-19, 2016

[tomdl]

And Maddinson. Smfh

 

[undertaker]

It is partly CA's thinking due to their "managing bowlers workload" stuff, but also partly as a backlash from the 2nd test against India in Kolkata. Australia enforced the follow on, India got a huchampionus score thanks to VVS Laksman and Rahul Dravid in their second dig and then with Harbijhan Singh taking 6 wickets, bowled Australia out cheaply in their second innings to win the test by 171 runs. Since that time I can't recall Australia enforcing the follow on in any test.

It's a common myth that Australia have been reluctant to enforce the follow on since that 2001 Kolkata test (being only one out of 3 in test history where a team has won after being forced to follow-on). Steve Waugh continued using the follow-on afterwards, with a 100% success rate:

2001 vs England at The Oval
2002 vs South Africa at SCG
2002 vs South Africa at Johannesburg
2002 vs Pakistan at Sharjah
2002 vs England at MCG
2003 vs West Indies at Barbados
2003 vs Zimbabwe at WACA

It was when Ponting became captain in 2004 that the follow-on concept was put on the scrapheap, only utilising it 4 times out of 13 opportunities. Clarke only used it once out of 5 times (that being in his final test last year at The Oval, due to the the possibility of day 5 being a washout).

The largest 1st innings deficit overcome to win a test match has been 291 runs (by Australia vs Sri Lanka in 1992):

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ausvpak09/content/story/442690.html

IMO, Steve Smith should've enforced the follow-on as the Pakistan innings was only 55 overs (so this whole talk about bowler burnout and giving them a rest is nonsense), and any chance of losing a test with a lead over 250 runs (in Australia's case this test, 287 runs) is extremely unlikely and has only occurred 3 times.

 

[El Diablo]

Australia win - home track bullies; skin of their teeth; blah blah blah; NZ mumble mumble...

Pakistan lose - Australia are shit.

Even when you win you lose.

Not bad for a 'new-is' team playing the #1 team in the world.

the minnows will always be jealous of us

 

[Rabbits20]

He was probably taking the piss.

Nope he wasn't.

 

[Pete Cash]

Gould was waiting for an appeal. Good on him

I know this is moot but i just watched the replay of it and illingworth gives it out immediately and then jogs in to do whatever the umpire does at the end of the game.

The confusion i think was gould didnt know if illingworth had given it out on the ground or gone to the video umpire.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

It's a common myth that Australia have been reluctant to enforce the follow on since that 2001 Kolkata test (being only one out of 3 in test history where a team has won after being forced to follow-on). Steve Waugh continued using the follow-on afterwards, with a 100% success rate:

2001 vs England at The Oval
2002 vs South Africa at SCG
2002 vs South Africa at Johannesburg
2002 vs Pakistan at Sharjah
2002 vs England at MCG
2003 vs West Indies at Barbados
2003 vs Zimbabwe at WACA

It was when Ponting became captain in 2004 that the follow-on concept was put on the scrapheap, only utilising it 4 times out of 13 opportunities. Clarke only used it once out of 5 times (that being in his final test last year at The Oval, due to the the possibility of day 5 being a washout).

The largest 1st innings deficit overcome to win a test match has been 291 runs (by Australia vs Sri Lanka in 1992):

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ausvpak09/content/story/442690.html

IMO, Steve Smith should've enforced the follow-on as the Pakistan innings was only 55 overs (so this whole talk about bowler burnout and giving them a rest is nonsense), and any chance of losing a test with a lead over 250 runs (in Australia's case this test, 287 runs) is extremely unlikely and has only occurred 3 times.

Smith explicitly stated that he didn't enforce the follow on because he wanted Pakistan to start their innings in the night session.

 

[Pete Cash]

Outside of the specific goal of trying to expose Pakistan to the new ball at night there are three reasons why teams are reluctant to enforce the follow on.

1. Test series are jammed together now. We play out the Australian test summer over one less month than we used to. Throw on the fact they are playing cricket like 80 days over the year and then add touring etc they are either traveling to play cricket, preparing to play cricket or playing cricket. Obviously Australian cricketers are paid handsomely to do this but it does mean they will manage workloads.

2. Pitches hold together better for whatever reason. I'm no pitch scientist but something I've noticed is that it seems a lot easier to bat on day 4 and 5 than it used to. Throw in the fact Lyon is pretty shit and it means when a pitch loses its "juice" it means a lot of toil for our bowlers. I thought the gabba played pretty good but there was warning signs on day 3 that it had pretty much died. According to Mitchell starc the pink ball got soft pretty quick.

3. Tails in general bat better.

Now to me it's pretty obvious the brains trust took a look at the pitch on day 3 and thought f**k it's got pretty flat. We really need to make the new ball do the business and they thought putting Pakistan in under lights would give them maximum gain with the new ball

Now with hindsight should they have enforced the follow on ? Who can say but there was certainly logic involved. Maybe they were wrong but that's the beauty of test cricket. Lots of tricky decisions need to be made.

 

[Twizzle]

talk in the media this morning about which players will be "rested" for the second test, or they want to add an all rounder to give the bowlers some respite

f**k me, please make it go away

how are these players ever going to harden up ?

 

[tomdl]

talk in the media this morning about which players will be "rested" for the second test, or they want to add an all rounder to give the bowlers some respite

f**k me, please make it go away

how are these players ever going to harden up ?

They had better not rest Starc or Haze.

If they bring in Levers to replace Maddo I will be annoyed. A batting all rounder like Hilton Cartwright would be a huge step up from Ploddinson though and he is more than capable of picking up a wicket or two.

 

[Twizzle]

Madison has been picked in the squad, he could prolly replace Lyon in the 11

 

[JJ]

It'll only be fast bowlers they'd rest, surely?

Maddinson and Wade should be rested permanently (or in the former's case for a spell)

Dangerous opposition to rest players against - would be pretty arrogant imo

 

[Twizzle]

its not arrogance, its stupidity from our so called high performance director

 

[hineyrulz]

talk in the media this morning about which players will be "rested" for the second test, or they want to add an all rounder to give the bowlers some respite

f**k me, please make it go away

how are these players ever going to harden up ?

Rested??? There is a week between tests. That f**kwit Pat Howard's finger prints are all over this.

The quicks wouldn't be so tired if we had a spinner capable of bowling a side out in the 4th innings.

 

[hineyrulz]

Nope he wasn't.

Maybe you should ask him?? Dopey merkin.

 

[JJ]

its not arrogance, its stupidity from our so called high performance director

Fair enough - I'd only be resting a quick if they weren't fit - because I am a kiwi you'll hate this, but at the end of the day your team really relies on Smith, Starc and Hazelwood - they are all elite test players, the rest either inconsistent, unproven, or just rubbish (Wade, Lyon, Maddinson)

 

[vvvrulz]

Fair enough - I'd only be resting a quick if they weren't fit - because I am a kiwi you'll hate this, but at the end of the day your team really relies on Smith, Starc and Hazelwood - they are all elite test players, the rest either inconsistent, unproven, or just rubbish (Wade, Lyon, Maddinson)

I'm pretty sure all the Aussie fans here know this.

 

[Pete Cash]

Fair enough - I'd only be resting a quick if they weren't fit - because I am a kiwi you'll hate this, but at the end of the day your team really relies on Smith, Starc and Hazelwood - they are all elite test players, the rest either inconsistent, unproven, or just rubbish (Wade, Lyon, Maddinson)

Wow what a hot take

 

[JJ]

Wow what a hot take

Cheers, just doing my bit

 

[Barkley]

Is it not obvious that with the increased gym work and decreased bowling time has lead to more bowler injuries? If they want to give the bowlers a rest give them a rest from the training.

Between the Head Coach, Batting coach, Bowling coach, Fielding coach, Strength and conditioning coach, Physio's, Massage Therapist and Dietitians, we still cannot produce a durable fast bowler like we did 10-20 years ago.

 

[JJ]

Hindsight might be confusing people a bit though, Lillee had significant issues, missed about 2 seasons from memory, Thommo missed a lot of cricket, as did Gillespie, Fleming, McDermott, and Bruce Reid career was completely wrecked (internationally much the same - Waqar and Imran missed a lot, in NZ Bond, Brendon Bracewell and others) - same the world over, fast bowling is diabolical on the body, the likes of McGrath, Hadlee and others that managed to play through injuries and were fortunate to avoid the sort of very serious things the likes of Lillee, Reid, Bond, etc faced - were I guess a combination of very professional and very lucky?