Why the follow-on has become a burning issue

[King]

Rahul Dravid's decision not to enforce the follow-on tells us that Calcutta 2001 burnt the players' fingers badly enough for them to rage against perceived wisdom on the subject, writes Mark Nicholas. More... Why the follow-on has become a burning issue By Mark Nicholas Last Updated: 2:11am BST 13/08/2007 Have your say Read comments Did you notice that Shane Warne's Hampshire, having made 455 batting first last week, then bowled out Worcestershire for 86 but chose not to enforce the follow-on? That, and Rahul Dravid's same decision yesterday morning, tells us that Calcutta 2001 burnt the players' fingers badly enough for them to rage against perceived wisdom on the subject. Video: The Analyst on Day 4 | India content to play safe in Test of nerve Scoreboard: England v India, third Test In pics: England make solid start Australians have become petrified of the follow-on, India reluctant. You may remember that Australia asked India to bat again in Calcutta, suffered grievously as Dravid and V V S Laxman put on 376 in a total of 657 for seven declared, and then got knocked over for 212 to lose the game comfortably. God help you when you drop the words "follow-on" in a Bondi bar. India saw the down side too and paid the price three years later. Sourav Ganguly's team, as it was then, amassed 705 at the Sydney Cricket Ground, bowled the Aussies out for 474, did not enforce the follow-on and failed to win the match or the series because of it. Makes you want to weep. Hampshire won last week, easily. India may win here but yesterday was a follow-on morning for fresh bowlers. By taking his second innings immediately, Dravid allowed England the luxury of two things. First, fewer overs and a finite time to bat to save the game. Second, the chance to bowl India out for next to nothing and dream of winning it with a thrilling run chase. Clearly, England were buoyed by these thoughts and came skipping out to play some of the best cricket in the match. In contrast, India's batsmen were nonplussed by the challenge of batting again with a lead of 320 already in the bag. They couldn't get up for it and were suddenly three down. Dravid had thrown the dice at a negative, the denial of any chance for England to win the game, and they so nearly rebounded on him. He will tell us he was giving his own team the best chance of winning the game by bowling last on a worn pitch, but that's spin and not of the Kumble kind. This was a needs-must decision from the perspective of one-up in the series with just a couple of days left of it to play. This is how desperate India are. You could see it in the captain's face as he tortured himself through 96 balls for 12 runs. His only thought was the ticking clock. The longer he could hang on, the closer the series win became. One day he will admit this but not now, not when the world is there to be his enemy if it so chooses. Secretly, there was something to admire in Dravid's hard-nosed approach but not quite enough to vindicate it. Only another win and two-nil victory will do that. There is an art to saving a game with the bat and now that England have been offered the chance to do so, it will be fascinating to see if they appreciate it. The motivation is obvious enough because Lord's was their game in all but fact and the series is level in all but name. Fate has denied us an irresistible final day of the series but the team may not see it like that. The modern player tends to bat with an eye on run rate rather than time. Thus the question: how many overs are left, not how long is there to go? The most essential thing is to play a natural game but with careful attention to the sucker balls that cost them in the first innings. Alastair Cook and Andrew Strauss set a fine example last evening. If the others follow, a sense of justice will have prevailed.

[King]

Did you notice that Shane Warne's Hampshire, having made 455 batting first last week, then bowled out Worcestershire for 86 but chose not to enforce the follow-on?

That is one strange issue.

[Cricketics]

whatz with bringing a english county cricket game as an example.. m

[Chandan]

whatz with bringing a english county cricket game as an example.. m

That even counties are willing to play safe first rather than torture themselves with a 'once in a lifetime performance' of the opposition!!! My only grievance is that Dravid could have bowled again yesterday seeing that it was the most helpful condition for bowlers in the entire match, with a cool day, a cloud cover and ball swinging everywhere!!