Post by eugene in [ Poll ] Enforce follow on or not?

ZCF OriginalZCF Hall of Famer

19 Apr 2013 15:01 (UTC)

Opening post

It would have been nice for Zimbabwe to win a test match by an innings. That certainly is a rare occurrence.

My All-time Zimbabwe XI
Neil Johnson, Brendan Taylor, Murray Goodwin, Andy Flower (w), David Houghton, Sean Williams, Heath Streak (c), Andy Blignaut, Paul Strang, Eddo Brandes, Blessing Muzarabani

19 Apr 2013 17:15 (UTC)

Yorker wrote:Edd said ZIM didn't enforce the follow-on so they could cash in on the weekend gate takings by 'extending' the match.

Correction. That was Jeremy Freidricks.

It was a 50/50 decision. I didn't see Bangladesh scoring 255 on that wicket, the seamers could have used the momentum that they had and extract some of the assistance still left on the wicket, game could have been wrapped by now which would in turn have asserted some authority going into the second Test. On the other hand, I can see the reasoning behind batting again - cashing in on the tired bowlers as well as avoiding chasing in the 4th innings - even a small total was going to be tricky.

ZCF OriginalVeteran

19 Apr 2013 18:08 (UTC)

We should have enforced the follow on. The bowlers were coming from a lunch break and had momentum. Moreover, nothing like an innings win. Having said that, it was good to see Taylor approaching back to back tons. It also gave us an opportunity to think about our top 3 batsmen in next test who failed here.

Zim fanatic since 1987

[ Poll ] Enforce follow on or not?

Reply