Great knock DRS.
not sure what you're really complaining about.
S Marsh got a decent stride in and it him knee roll.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Great knock DRS.
Anyway, what a pleasure to see Shaun Marsh shove it up the doubters again. He really hasn't let us down much at all in his later incarnations as an international cricketer.
Why the **** do Australia never enforce the follow on anymore?! Not bowling to England at night with a 200 run lead is the height of stupidity.
Why the **** do Australia never enforce the follow on anymore?! Not bowling to England at night with a 200 run lead is the height of stupidity.
Kolkata 2001 is whyWhy the **** do Australia never enforce the follow on anymore?! Not bowling to England at night with a 200 run lead is the height of stupidity.
yeah I think its something like about 5 follow ons and 20 non follow ons for Australia since VVS and Dravid had that amazing partnership in Kolkata.Kolkata 2001 is why
As a kid I don't recall not seeing the follow-on. I was 10 when the Windies were here in 1984-85. They were ruthless. Chappelli would have been ruthless.....enforcing it is the aggressive thing to do.yeah I think its something like about 5 follow ons and 20 non follow ons for Australia since VVS and Dravid had that amazing partnership in Kolkata.
Well there you have it. It's only our memories affected post 2001.Follow on stats are better than I remembered since the VVS effect. This story after Clarke didn't make poms follow on at Lords in 2015.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-...-no-follow-on-does-not-mean-defensive/6631964
Most of us who watch cricket love nothing more than giving advice to a Test captain. This uninvited counsel flowed on day three at Lord's, when Michael Clarke declined to enforce the follow-on after his Australian side bowled out England 254 runs behind. Plenty of comments described Clarke's move as defensive, and as has become standard in these situations, a popular theory began a new round of circulation. It even has a name, with many citing 'the VVS Effect.' Cricket Australia writer Andrew Ramsay subscribed to it, explaining in Twitter shorthand, "Last time team came from further behind than Eng's deficit of 254 to win Test was India Kolkata 2001. Aust barely enforced follow-on since".
.....
It is a great theory. It makes sense. It is just not remotely true.
.....
Waugh puts the lie to VVS effect
Exhibit A for the prosecution comes from the stat columns. Before Eden Gardens, Australian teams almost uniformly enforced the follow-on. After Eden Gardens, it suddenly dropped to 11 times out of 26, or 42 per cent of the time.
Compelling, right? Except the man who should have been most burned by the Kolkata defeat - the captain who made the fateful mid-game decision - was not affected at all.
After Eden Gardens, Steve Waugh took every opportunity to enforce the follow-on for the rest of his career. In fact, Eden Gardens was Waugh's first ever chance to enforce the follow on. Afterwards, he went on to make the same call on each of his seven subsequent opportunities. He won seven of them.
The first was in Waugh's very next series. Only months after Kolkata, he had no hesitation forcing England to follow on at The Oval. His bowlers rolled them for 184. Rather than a primate on Waugh's back, it was more akin to a sea monkey. Australia's follow-on rate didn't drop after Kolkata. It rose to one hundred per cent, with a winning rate of one hundred per cent. It only dropped after 2004 with a change in captaincy.
Ricky Ponting, a far more defensive and conservative leader, was the one who killed off the tactic, enforcing it four times from thirteen chances. Michael Clarke, perhaps taking Ponting's approach as orthodoxy, is currently none from four.
....
The follow-on used to be more ruthlessly applied: in 1948 Don Bradman had his bowlers send down 123 of the era's eight-ball overs against India, then butter up again as soon as that innings closed.
Changes in game explain different approach
But in Bradman's day plenty of other things were different. Test matches had rest days. Fielding and running between wickets were less physically intense. There were often weeks between Tests, meaning players could run themselves into the ground and still resurface for next time.
The current era is one of sports scientists, bowling workloads and constant medical observation. Stories of stress fractures, hot spots, scans and soft-tissue tears. Management of valuable sporting assets. We have three-day turnarounds between games, in high-stakes series that rely on first-choice attacks. Frankly it would be remarkable and risky if a captain with time up one sleeve did enforce the follow-on, unless the other side's first innings was finished in a handful of overs.
The VVS Effect does not stack up. If Waugh shrugged off that game so soon, why would his successors 15 years later be concerned? Clarke's decision on day three was about choosing the best method to win a game and take a series lead. Any other connection is a convenient fantasy.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-...-no-follow-on-does-not-mean-defensive/6631964
I remembered Waugh did it a lot after VVS and Ponting and Clarke rarely did. I reckon its the no Warne and McGrath effect to go with the other stuff mentioned in that article about short break to tests. You knew as a skipper Warne and McGrath were good for another 60 overs after a follow on.Well there you have it. It's only our memories affected post 2001.