What would australia or england have done?

[Gambit]

Look at this game Gambo: http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ausveng/engine/match/249222.html With a 450 run lead, they choose to bat on. Donny you listening ?

I dunno what Donny said but whenever they opted to bat again, Australia batted quickly. Had India done the same, Dravid would not have received as much criticism as he has.

[King]

Anyone remember how slow Australia batted against West Indies in the 1999 world cup to keep NZ out of the tourney to carry over extra point and there by enhancing their chances to win the world cup? The Aussie cricketers were booed as they blocked each ball without intent to score a run for a long period of time in a ODI. Aussies would do anything to keep their winning streak alive. This huge drama about Aussies would do that and do this is only wishful thinking. As for England, less said about them the better. Vaughan himself admitted he would have done what Rahul Dravid did. Now where is the problem?

[talksport]

It also depends how many times the Team gets a chance to enforce follow on and their performances..... Its Dravids first time with the current lot of Bowlers and they are allowed for a bad day at office .... ( Moreover Zaheer is notorious for 2nd innings break downs, Trentbridge is an aberration) Another factor to consider is how well they know the ground.....Home they would , Away they wouldnt I would have thought.

[Bumper]

Bumps the stats you asked for ... All tests after "Kolkatta" excluding yesterdays match ... sorted by the first team Aussies did not enforce the follow on 6 times. :haha:

[B]Date                                 Teams              T1       T2     Diff[/B]
2005 Nov 3              Australia vs West Indies    435    210    225
2004 Oct 6              Australia vs India             474    246    228
2004 Nov 26             Australia vs New Zealand    575    251    324
2004 Oct 26             Australia vs India             398    185    213
2006 Nov 23             Australia vs England    602    157    445
2004 Dec 16             Australia vs Pakistan    381    179    202
2004 Jul 29             England vs West Indies    566    336    230
2002 Jul 25             England vs India             487    221    266
2004 Jan 2              India vs Australia             705    474    231
2002 Jun 21             New Zealand vs West Indies    337    107    230
2002 Feb 7              Pakistan vs West Indies    472    264    208
2005 Jan 2              South Africa vs England    441    163    278
2004 Aug 11             Sri Lanka vs South Africa    470    189    281
2002 Jul 28             Sri Lanka vs Bangladesh    373    164    209
2005 May 26             West Indies vs Pakistan    345    144    201
2006 Jun 22             West Indies vs India    581    362    219
2002 May 18             West Indies vs India    422    212    210

Thanks, wonderful stats. VVS has had a permanent effect on follow ons:haha: Can you get a percentage of games when the follow ons were enforced as opposed to the ones when teams batted on (dont worry about it, if its too much work)

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Donny]

Look at this game Gambo: http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ausveng/engine/match/249222.html With a 450 run lead, they choose to bat on. Donny you listening ?

Well, I'm reading. What's the question ? Or, more to the point, what's it to do with me ? I haven't posted in this thread.

[chanakya]

England and Australia would not have enforced the follow on. But they would have batted faster no doubt.

[King Tendulkar]

Well, I'm reading. What's the question ? Or, more to the point, what's it to do with me ? I haven't posted in this thread.

So what would ponting do if ashes are on the line. You know he would have batted. Go on Donny be a man, admit it!

[monkeyfood]

I think they would follow on

[Bumper]

Well, I'm reading. What's the question ? Or, more to the point, what's it to do with me ? I haven't posted in this thread.

This was your post from another thread, where u claimed that follow on was such an obvious decision. My point is that follow on wasnt such a straight forward decision. The numerous games listed on this thread where followon wasnt enforced are testimony to that

Dravid (and whoever else involved in the decision) completely missed the boat. The one thing India could've taken from what really was a hollow series victory - considering the escape in the first Test and 2 crucial toss wins - was to finish on a high note with a possible resounding victory. Let's look at the follow on scenario. India had a 319 lead with 81 overs left on day 4. Singh had bowled just 3 overs and Zaheer and Sreesanth, none. England could not have gone out there and hit a quick 469 (to get a 150 lead) - certainly not early on. So let's say they batted overall @ 4 r.p.o., there's 117 overs out of the 171 left. Take off 2 more for an innings change and India would've had 52 overs to either score @ under 3 r.p.o. for a win or bat out a draw. Considering the 469 @ 4 r.p.o. was extremely unlikely, India would have had more overs to get less runs and Dravid would be a hero. He would also have avoided the (self imposed) humiliation of his 96 ball 12 runs. That he had such little faith/confidence in his bowlers and a batting team containing 4 of India's best ever batsmen and a keeper and #8 who had hit 200 between them in the first innings, was appallingly negative. A 2-0 series win would've seen them challenging for second place instead of now being equal third place, 4 points adrift of England. Vaughan and his team would have been happy, if not delighted, at Dravid's decision to bat again. Yes, I know MV 'said' he would've done the same thing but I simply don't believe him. He could hardly conceal his grin. Footnote: If all the other teams keep playing with this sort of attitude, Australia's position on top of the ICC Test Championship table is quite safe - for years to come. The Aussies are now 30 points clear of 6 teams playing for second. There are only 12 points between England, India, Sri Lanka, Sth. Africa, Pakistan and New Zealand.

Apparently Aussies themselves under Ponting have not been enforcing followons. Wonder why ?

[Donny]

What Ponting has or has not done has no bearing on the post you quoted. What do his decisions have to do with me ?

[King Tendulkar]

So what would ponting do if ashes are on the line. You know he would have batted. Go on Donny be a man' date=' admit it![/quote'] Any answer to this?

[King Tendulkar]

bump?

[Donny]

Answered in the Murali thread.

[King Tendulkar]

:hysterical::hysterical:Coward:hysterical:

[King Tendulkar]

still no answer donny?

[Donny]

Answered in the Murali thread.

[observer1]

To be fair to RSD, I am sure India wanted to score 200 or so runs at 4 per over. Karthik showed a lot of intent in Tremlett's first over - I think he scored 2 boundaries. However, the Indians had not taken Howell into the equation, and then when Karthik and Tendulkar fell, Dravid didnt want to take any further chances and decided to bat for time rather than runs.

[King Tendulkar]

Still witing for an answer to the question on this thread Donny! Go on Donny type something slightly criticising the australian cricket team. You can do it! You know what your beloved Ponting would have done! Just type it and admit it:haha:

[Donny]

Ok, you win. I think Punter and Pup have silly hairstyles.