Learn the lesson: Never ask India to follow on

[bharat297]

I think the follow on makes sense if there is still life in the wicket and you are looking to exploit it. On a flat track such as this one ... it made little sense to give India another crack on it after theyd already made 300.

[Ram]

How would they know whether they are wasting time in setting up an out of reach target or not? Their first necessity was to take 10 more Indian wickets. On a flat pitch like that' date= it would need time. The Indian batsmen were not going to repeat their mistakes in the second innings. After taking the 10 Indian wickets, they would try to wipe off whatever lead India would have taken. But if they had batted again, they would have wasted quite a bit of time precious time in ensuring a large lead. There are valid arguments both ways. Dan took a decision that looked right to him at that time.

Generically speaking, consuming some time to score some runs in the 3rd innings and asking a team that followed on to bat 4th is not a waste of time because it is always much much harder for a team, that has already followed on and then gone onto spend another 60-65 overs in the field, to bat 4th and save the test, even if it means facing considerably lesser number of overs. And if you go through the history books of teams that batted last and collapsed facing a massive target, you'll see that most times, their innings would not have lasted more than 100 overs. I am basing my entire premise of asking teams to bat 4th on the fact that if you cannot dismiss teams batting 4th in 135 overs, you cannot dismiss them at all. I dont think you should simplify this to a numbers game of 'batting third means they have to face 180 overs Vs Batting 4th means they have to face only 135 overs'.. You have to factor in the effects due to both mental and physical fatigue caused by the cumulative actions of following on and then spending more time on the field. Most times, it isnt good bowling that gets out batsman, its just bad and reckless batting. And the more time you keep a side on the field in the 3rd innings, the more careless and reckless their batting will be, in the 4th.

[Ram]

There are situations when it's good to give a follow on and situations where it isn't good. It's not fundamentally flawed. It gives you a chance to beat a team by an innings, which is the ultimate slap to the face. Kolkatta 2001, the decision to give the follow on was a decent one. the innigns spanned just 58 overs, and they were all out early in the morning. Unfortunatly VVS and Dravid spoiled the party, but the decision was still good. What your negating is the pressure of following on after failing the first time. If you have a classy bowling attack going around, the Aussie attack of the 90s, the Paki attack of the 90s, then your fairly confident that they can get out batsmen even on a flat deck. But if you have a strictly "good" bowling lineup, ie ours, or average, like NZ, then maybe it's not such a good idea. Your completely right that this was the wrong decision from NZ though. Should have batted for another 40 overs, scored another 170 runs, given India to chase it in 160 overs. But seeing our batting lineup, I wouldn't be surprised if we chased that.

My criteria for asking a team to follow-on is really really simple; a) The pitch is not flat and good for batting and there's enough assistance for the bowlers. (or) b) Your lead is in excess of 300 In that sense, I am not surprised that NZ enforced it.

[bharat297]

^ Well said