Follow-on

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

In cricket, the follow-on is where a team batting second is forced to take its second innings immediately after its first, after having failed to reach close enough to the score achieved by the team who batted first (in that team's first innings).

The order of innings in a match where the follow-on is enforced is as follows:

  1. team batting first,
  2. team batting second,
  3. team batting second,
  4. team batting first.

This contrasts with the conventional order of innings (when the follow-on is not available or not enforced):

  1. team batting first,
  2. team batting second,
  3. team batting first,
  4. team batting second.

The decision to enforce the follow-on is made by the captain of the team that batted first, who are in an advantageous position. Enforcing is intended to reduce the chance of the match being drawn, as the follow-on means that both of the trailing team's innings will be completed sooner. This decision to enforce or decline the follow-on is made after considering the state of the game, the conditions of weather and pitch, the apparent strength of the two sides, and the time remaining.

The follow-on only occurs in forms of cricket where both teams bat twice (for example domestic first class cricket or international Test cricket). The rules governing the circumstances in which the follow-on may be enforced are found in Law 14 of the Laws of Cricket.

Example[edit]

An example can be seen in the Second Test of the India national cricket team's tour of Sri Lanka in 2017. In this Test, India won the toss and chose to bat first. Sri Lanka batted second, and were then forced to follow-on, after failing to reach within 200 runs of India's first inning score. Therefore, the order of innings in this Test (which India won by an innings and 53 runs) was:

  1. India India (scoring 622/9d)
  2. Sri Lanka Sri Lanka (scoring 183)
  3. Sri Lanka Sri Lanka (scoring 386)

This contrasts with the order of innings in the First Test of the same series (which India won by 304 runs), where Indian captain Virat Kohli had the option to enforce the follow-on, but declined:

  1. India India (scoring 600)
  2. Sri Lanka Sri Lanka (scoring 291)
  3. India India (scoring 240/3d)
  4. Sri Lanka Sri Lanka (scoring 245)

Minimum lead[edit]

The number of runs by which a team must lead to enforce the follow-on upon its opponent is determined by Law 14 of the Laws of cricket, which takes the length of the match into consideration:[1]

  • In a match of five days or more, a side which bats first and leads by at least 200 runs has the option of requiring the other side to follow-on.
  • in a match of three or four days, 150 runs;
  • in a two-day match, 100;
  • in a one-day match with two innings per side, 75.

Where a match is shortened, the leads required to have the option of enforcing the follow-on are determined by how many days' (or part-days') play remain when the match starts. For example, suppose a match is scheduled for five days, but the first day is washed out because of rain. If the match then begins on the second scheduled day of the match, the team batting first needs a first innings lead of 150 runs or more to have the option of enforcing the follow-on. For instance, Ireland's debut test match in 2018 vs Pakistan, the former was made to follow on with a trail of only 180 runs, due to the first day being washed out by rain in Dublin. This only applies to time lost before the first ball has been bowled: if a five-day match starts on the scheduled first day but, say, the second day is completely lost, it still counts as a five-day match for the purposes of calculating the follow-on target.

Enforcing[edit]

The follow-on is not automatic; the captain of the leading team decides whether to enforce it. Conventional theory argues that the follow-on is almost always enforced. In his classic text The Art of Captaincy, Mike Brearley deals with the issue in a single paragraph and finds the advantages of doing so overwhelming.[2] Certainly there are strong reasons for enforcing the follow on. The main reason is one of time. In two innings games, for a team batting first to win, it usually needs to dismiss the opposition twice. If it fails to do so, the game will end in a draw. It is a common tactic for a side which appears to be well-beaten to bat cautiously in its second innings and use up the remaining time so that the game ends in this way. Enforcing the follow-on means that the trailing side takes its second innings earlier and will therefore find it much harder to play for a draw by using up time. Another reason for enforcing the follow-on is the positive effect it can have on a team's morale, and the negative effect on that of the other.

However, there are several reasons for not enforcing. Firstly and most simply, it is tiring for bowlers to bowl for two consecutive innings, and it may not be as easy to dismiss a side in its second innings as it was in its first. During the first test of the 1958 series between Pakistan and West Indies on 17–23 January, West Indies batting first declared at 579/9 and Pakistan replied with 106 runs. Pakistan was asked to follow-on on the third day of the six-day match. Mohammed Hanif held his ground for 970 minutes, scoring 337 runs, forcing a draw.[3]

Secondly, not enforcing the follow-on is a tactic which, at the least, prevents a team from possibly losing. If the side batting first has a substantial lead on first innings, it can add to that by taking its second innings straight away and either scoring enough runs and/or using up enough time to give the side batting second no chance of victory at all. While this does increase the chances of a game ending in a draw, it can also be demotivating for the side batting second to have nothing to play for. Finally, it is usually considered a disadvantage to bat last, when the pitch has deteriorated by wear and there are more natural variations to its bounce and ability to take spin. A captain who does not enforce the follow-on avoids this risk and allows his own bowlers to take advantage of the worn pitch.

In recent years there has perhaps been a trend against enforcing the follow-on in Test cricket. Former England captain Andrew Strauss on several occasions took his second innings straight away. It has, though, had some notable successes, for instance at Lord's in the 2009 Ashes series. Here, Australia were 210 behind on first innings but did not follow on; England batted again, set Australia a highly unlikely victory target of 522, and won the game easily. For their part, Australian captains Steve Waugh and Ricky Ponting were also notably reluctant to enforce the follow-on, although that was perhaps more to do with wanting to allow Shane Warne to bowl on a deteriorating pitch later in the game. Michael Clarke has only enforced the follow-on once in his career as a captain (during his final match in the 2015 Ashes), even when holding a substantial first innings lead due to the risk of tiring his fast bowlers.

Victories by sides not made to follow on[edit]

Test matches[edit]

South Africa v Australia, Kingsmead, 1950: In a four-day Test (with one rest day in the middle of the match), South Africa won the toss, chose to bat, and posted 311. The offspinner Hugh Tayfield took 7–23, helping to bundle out Australia for 75, giving South Africa a first-innings lead of 236. South African captain Dudley Nourse elected not to enforce the follow-on owing to forecasts of rain, but in their second innings South Africa folded for 99. Thanks largely to an unbeaten 151 from Neil Harvey, Australia made 336 in 123.6 overs to win by 5 wickets.

First-class matches[edit]

ICC Intercontinental Cup – Afghanistan v Canada, Sharjah, 2010: Canada won the toss and chose to bat, scoring 566 in their first innings and bowling out Afghanistan for 264 in reply, giving Canada a first-innings lead of 302 runs. Wicketkeeper-captain Ashish Bagai, who retired hurt in Canada's second innings, declared with Canada on 191–4 after 40 overs to set Afghanistan a target of 494. The wicketkeeper Mohammad Shahzad made 214* as Afghanistan scored 494–4 to win by 6 wickets.[4]

Victories by sides following-on[edit]

Although it is not impossible for a side following-on to win a game, it happens rarely. It has happened on only three occasions in Test cricket, with Australia losing on all three occasions.

Test matches[edit]

1894–95 Ashes[edit]

In the first innings of the First Test at Sydney, Australia had scored a massive 586 (Syd Gregory 201, George Giffen 161) and then dismissed England for 325. England responded with 437, leaving them ahead by 176. However, at stumps on the fourth day, Australia were 113 for 2 and looked to be the winners. But heavy rain fell overnight (in this era, pitches were not covered between days of play), and next morning England's slow left-arm bowlers, Bobby Peel and Johnny Briggs, were all but unplayable. England dismissed Australia for 166, winning by 10 runs,[5] and went on to win the series 3–2.

Botham's Test: England v Australia, Headingley, 1981[edit]

In 1981, England's Ian Botham was performing poorly as captain against the touring Australians. The Australian team was rated as second only to the great West Indies team of the time, and contained a formidable pace attack in the form of Dennis Lillee, Terry Alderman and Geoff Lawson. After a loss and a draw in the first two Test matches of the summer's six-test Ashes series, Botham resigned the captaincy.

Mike Brearley, the captain Botham had replaced, resumed the reins for the third Test, at Headingley. This started out very badly: Australia scored 401 (John Dyson 102; Kim Hughes 89; but Botham took 6–95), and asked England to follow on after bowling them out for 174 (Lillee took 4–49; Lawson 3–32). The one bright point in the innings came from Botham, who top scored with 50 (his first since he had been made captain 13 matches earlier). In the second innings, Botham came to the crease with England on 105 for 5, still 126 behind. Matters did not improve: Geoffrey Boycott and Bob Taylor soon followed, and with England 135 for 7 and still 92 runs behind an innings defeat looked likely.

By all accounts, everyone on both sides thought the game was lost. Ladbrokes famously offered 500–1 against England winning the Headingley Test. When Graham Dilley joined him at the crease, Botham reportedly said, "Right then, let's have a bit of fun." Botham, with able support from the lower order, went on to make 149 not out, and gave England a slender lead of 129. The next day a fired-up Bob Willis took 8 for 43, and Australia slumped to 111 all out.[6]

India v Australia, Eden Gardens, 2001[edit]

Australia, who had won their 16 previous Test matches, including the first of the three-Test series between the two teams,[7] had scored 445 in the first innings of the second Test and restricted India to 171; only V. V. S. Laxman (59) and Rahul Dravid reached 25 runs. The only other bright spot for India was the bowling of Harbhajan Singh, who took 7 for 123, including a hat-trick (Ricky Ponting, Adam Gilchrist, Shane Warne). Australia then enforced the follow-on.

Laxman came to the crease just before the end of Day 3 and proceeded to change the course of both the match and the series by hitting 281, at that time the record for an Indian Test batsman. He did most of his damage partnered with Dravid, who hit 180; the two were at the crease for the entire fourth day. India progressed to 657/7 in their second innings (a lead of 383), declared shortly before lunch on the final day (giving Australia insufficient time to reach the total, thus securing at least a draw). By tea, Australia had scored 161/3, and a draw appeared the most likely result. Then, within minutes, Australia lost five wickets for 8 runs in a span of 31 balls. Harbhajan took the first two wickets in the same over, followed quickly by three wickets from Sachin Tendulkar. Australia proceeded to fall for 212 in the second innings and India won the match. Despite Harbhajan's prodigious bowling—6 for 73 to go with his seven-wicket haul from the first innings—Laxman was named man of the match.[8] India's 171-run victory was by far the largest of the three Test victories by the team following on (both of England's winning margins had been fewer than 20 runs), and it was the only time in history that a side has been able to declare the follow-on innings and still win. India under the captaincy of Saurav Ganguly went on to win the 3rd test, and hence the series, with Laxman contributing half-centuries in both innings and Harbhajan, who was named as man of the series for taking 32 wickets.[9]

First-class matches[edit]

County Championship – Warwickshire v Hampshire, 1922[edit]

In 1922 at Edgbaston, Hampshire were bowled out for 15 in just nine overs in reply to Warwickshire's 223 in a 3-day match. Hampshire's total is the seventh-lowest score for a completed first-class innings. Hampshire were put back in to bat, and then famously scored a mammoth 521 before dismissing Warwickshire for 158 to win by a comfortable 155 runs.[10] Hampshire's first innings total of 15 remains the lowest score for a completed innings by a winning team.

History[edit]

  • 1744: No provision.
  • 1787: First known instance; at that time, it was the custom for a side behind on 1st innings to follow-on no matter what the deficit.
  • 1835: Compulsory after a deficit of 100 runs.
  • 1854: Compulsory after a deficit of 80 runs.
  • 1894: Compulsory after a deficit of 120 runs.
  • 1900: Made optional, after a deficit of 150 runs in a 3-day match, 100 runs in a 2-day match, and 75 runs in a one-day match.
  • 1946: Experimental law allowed declaration on the first day after batting side had scored 300.
  • 1951: A side could declare at any time.
  • 1957: Above made law. Declarations were not to be made as a result of agreement with the opposing captain.
  • 1961: In abeyance in County Championship, but restored in 1963.[11]
  • 1980: In the new laws, optional after a deficit of 200 runs in a 5-day match, 150 runs in a 3- or 4-day match, 100 runs in a 2-day match and 75 runs in a 1-day match.

Bibliography[edit]

  • Birley, Derek (1999). A Social History of English Cricket. London: Aurum Press. ISBN 1-85410-941-3.
  • Brodribb, Gerald (1995). Next Man In: A Survey of Cricket Laws and Customs. London: Souvenir Press. ISBN 0-285-63294-9.

References[edit]