First of all, I am flabbergasted that England is even in a position that it could tell Australia to follow on. How many people would have bet on that before this game? Especially after they just managed to hang on to save the Cardiff Test.
There were good reasons for England to have enforced the follow-on. There is the possibility of rain. The pitch will remain playable on the last two days. A huge England target with less time (5 sessions) may get Australia playing for a draw on a dead pitch.
That is all true, but I think it misses the big picture. England are the underdogs in this contest and, regardless of all the PR talk, they probably never backed themselves to be in a winning position against the Australians. While the 2005 series was great, that team was coming off a high with several victories in hand, while the present team could not even beat the West Indies in their away tour.
So now, they find themselves dominant. The important thing is to preserve and protect the gains and ensure that there is no likelihood of a loss. If England manage to bat till lunch tomorrow, the chances of Australia winning are infinitesimal. Even if Australia manage to draw, that is okay.
It is different with a team like Australia, who are natural-born winners. When they are ahead, they have the confidence to back them. If Australia were in the same situation, they would have asked England to bat on, and then bowled them out in no time.
But England will always have Adelaide – the match they should never have lost. As long as those memories remain, they will never attempt any risk from a winning position. Safety first. Whether that is right or wrong is a different matter.
If Australia were in the same situation, they would asked England to bat on, and then bowled them out in no time.
I’m not sure why you would think that. Ponting hardly ever enforces the follow-on (unless time is short) – in the 2006/7 Ashes series he even batted again with a lead of over 400.
It is one aspect of Ponting’s general inept captaincy that I like a lot – batting again is almost risk-free (no Test team has lost doing so since 1950/1), and leads to victory more than 90% of the time*. It is not “defensive” by any means. It also gives the bowlers some rest, which is handy with all the cramped Test series these days (and especially so if you have Flintoff in your side).
*As opposed to about 80% when enforcing the follow-on. Even if you allow that there’ll be more draws enforcing because they are done disproportionately often when time is short, there’s clearly not much between the two options in terms of achieving victory, and the memories of Headingley and Kolkata still haunt.
David, I should have been clearer. You are right that Australia have not enforced follow-ons in recent times. But I guess the general principle (in theory) was that a more confident team may have sent the batting team again for another round.
It is interesting that a lot of English commentators and former cricketers have blasted Strauss for not enforcing the follow-on for that same reason, though as you suggest, even a confident team like Australia, in practice, doesn’t do that.
All that is moot now. England made 311 for 6 after throwing their bat around. I wonder if Australia would have made 250 for 2 and erased the deficit by playing carefully and then having an entire day to post a target for the England batsmen with 8 wickets remaining. And then we see a collapse on the final day purely on nerves. A demoralizing loss on the way to a 0-4 bloodbath.
It is certainly a mind game when you have a huge target in mind and chase down pressure will be more than that of having a 217 runs behind in first innings. Also england can bat without pressure in third innings rather than 4..
England missed a trick, Pramod. They should have batted another session. Now they look very likely to lose.
Of course they should!