Cricket Betting: When to enforce the follow-on?

England Cricket / Andrew Hughes / 12 March 2009 / Leave a Comment

As Andrew Strauss discovered to his cost in the West Indies, the question of whether or not to enforce the follow-on is one of the most awkward dilemmas for Test captains. Andrew Hughes discusses the factors involved and consequences of getting it wrong.

With less than an hour's play left in the Third Test in Antigua, Andrew Strauss had a tricky decision to make. The West Indies had just been dismissed for 285 and England had a commanding first innings lead. Would he put Chris Gayle's side in again to face a few overs in the gathering gloom? He decided against it. England batted again but couldn't quite winkle out the last wicket on the final evening and the West Indies escaped with a draw. Inevitably, Strauss attracted some criticism for his decision. Hindsight, as they say, is always 20:20.

Whether or not to enforce the follow-on can be a ticklish problem. Get it right and the game is wrapped up in double quick time. Get it wrong, your opponent escapes, the momentum of a series is changed and an enormous dent inflicted on your reputation. Ever since the follow-on became optional in 1900, captains have faced this dilemma. The current rules are laid out in Law 13 of the Laws of Cricket. Any team batting first and gaining a first innings lead of 200 or more 'shall have the option of requiring the other side to follow their innings'.

So what does a captain like Strauss have to weigh up when considering whether to enforce the follow-on? The overriding consideration is time. If the overs are running out, you have to press your advantage to secure the win. Too cautious an approach here can make it easy for your opponents to escape. Sourav Ganguly was guilty of this at Sydney in 2004. Having amassed 705-7 declared, India then dismissed Australia for 474 on the fourth afternoon. A day and a half was the minimum required to bowl the Aussies out, but Ganguly batted again and even though India rattled up a quick 211-2, the Aussies batted out the game on the last day with some ease.

Where time is not an issue, other factors come into play, such as the wellbeing of the bowling attack and the state of the pitch. On that third evening in Antigua, Andrew Flintoff was hobbling, Steve Harmison was sick and Graeme Swann had a sore elbow. On top of that, the pitch was not deteriorating as quickly as people had predicted. In the circumstances, Strauss wanted to give his bowlers time to recuperate and maximise what little assistance might be available by bowling on a fifth day pitch. It's hard to argue with his logic, even if the final result went against him.

Another factor that has to be considered is the relatively high scoring rates in Test cricket these days. In the days where teams scored at two an over, there simply wasn't enough time to bat again and still win the game. It was Australia under Alan Border and then Mark Taylor who started a trend towards not enforcing the follow-on and these days, it has become the norm. Indeed, in two consecutive Tests recently, Ricky Ponting has decided not to enforce the follow-on and instead to amass an unassailable lead before allowing his bowlers to dismantle South Africa at their leisure.

Mind you, Ponting might also have had in mind the inglorious history of Australian captains who have enforced the follow-on. Three times in Test history, a team has won after being made to follow-on. On each occasion, the losing captain wore a baggy green cap. J M Blackham at Sydney in 1894, Kim Hughes at Headingley in 1981 and Steve Waugh in Kolkata in 2001 have all suffered that particular indignity.

But these were rare examples. History tells us that enforcing the follow-on is almost always the sensible option. A study in 2004 found that it resulted in victory 92% of the time, compared with the 69% success rate for captains who opted not to do so. And the psychological effect of enforcing the follow-on should not be underestimated. When Michael Vaughan put the Aussies in again at Trent Bridge in 2005, it was the first time since 1988 that they had been asked to do so, a blow to their pride and a clear statement from a newly dominant England team. Let's hope Andrew Strauss is in a similar position at some point this summer.