-
-
-
I dunno, but that makes the decision to bowl again even more misjudged if he did. Something about it felt wrong at the time (which I voiced earlier on the thread). For me, if you're enforcing a follow-on, you don't want to bat again or, at the very least, only bat for a few overs to get 40-odd. They were only 224 behind and were invited to bat again on a day three pitch. Against old bowlers and potentially one part-time bowler (Stokes) down. It made for a terrific test match, but I don't think it was tactically a great move versus, I dunno, going in to bat again and teeing off royally to stick another 350 runs on the board.
E2a: I'm usually the first to criticise a side for not enforcing a follow-on, but this time felt like the time Flintoff did it in Australia.
-
The other factor against the follow-on (assuming they're trying to win and not just entertain) is the fact Broad and Anderson have a combined age of over 75, which can't have helped. I think if they'd skittled NZ out for 130 in 35 overs, that's one thing. But 200+ in more than 50 overs potentially was too many in the legs. Neither of them had much impact in the second innings.
-
Hindsight and all that, but enforcing the follow-on was a mistake. Which is a shame as I'm normally all for it, but Williamson was due a score and I'd have preferred to see him try and make that score with some scoreboard pressure to deal with rather than the 'nothing to lose' situation he was in. Also think you need 300 or so in the bank to properly enforce a follow-on with that much time left in the game. Hopefully it doesn't put them off follow-ons in future.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Great knock from Malan, that. Ably supported by Rashid, who's continuing to prove a terrific asset down the order.