Sport Today

by **vijaykum..** » Fri, 05 Apr 2013 13:28:11

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/62983.html

In this Brisbane Test, Aus finished 163 runs ahead on I1 and
Eng was asked to follow-on.

Day 2 was washed out. As far as I know, the limit for follow-on
was 200 for 5 day games and 150 for 4-day games. By this time
most Tests were 5-day affairs and in the I v WI instance in 71,
Wadekar was able to enforce the follow-on despite being only
170 ahead because the entire first day was washed out and
the game had been effectively reduced to a 4-day match.

What were the rules in force at the time of this Brisbane test
which allowed Aus to enforce the follow-on?

England saved the game, as did WI in the latter instance.

Vijay

by **Mad Hamis** » Fri, 05 Apr 2013 17:25:01

Quote:

>http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/62983.html

>In this Brisbane Test, Aus finished 163 runs ahead on I1 and
>Eng was asked to follow-on.

>Day 2 was washed out. As far as I know, the limit for follow-on
>was 200 for 5 day games and 150 for 4-day games. By this time
>most Tests were 5-day affairs and in the I v WI instance in 71,
>Wadekar was able to enforce the follow-on despite being only
>170 ahead because the entire first day was washed out and
>the game had been effectively reduced to a 4-day match.

>What were the rules in force at the time of this Brisbane test
>which allowed Aus to enforce the follow-on?

If wikipedia is to be believed the follow on rule at the time was
still
1900 Made optional, after a deficit of 150 runs.
I suspect that the current rules were brought in with the 1980 code
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001

Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws

by **John Hal** » Fri, 05 Apr 2013 18:37:54

In article

Quote:

>http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/62983.html

>In this Brisbane Test, Aus finished 163 runs ahead on I1 and
>Eng was asked to follow-on.

>Day 2 was washed out. As far as I know, the limit for follow-on
>was 200 for 5 day games and 150 for 4-day games. By this time
>most Tests were 5-day affairs and in the I v WI instance in 71,
>Wadekar was able to enforce the follow-on despite being only
>170 ahead because the entire first day was washed out and
>the game had been effectively reduced to a 4-day match.

>What were the rules in force at the time of this Brisbane test
>which allowed Aus to enforce the follow-on?

That's a very good question. Like you, I had thought that by 1965-6 the
200 run margin was in force for 5 day Tests. However checking the Laws
in force at the time (the 1947 code, second edition) they don't specify
a 200 run margin. But looking in my 1967 edition of Wisden at the
Regulations for 1st-class matches (including Tests) used in England in
1966, on page 996 it says that an "experimental" Law 14 applied, with
the margin being 200 runs for a match of four days or more. It looks as
if for the 1965-6 series that experimental change - which of course was
later fully adopted - wasn't in force.
--
John Hall
"Madam, you have between your legs an instrument capable
of giving pleasure to thousands and all you can do is scratch it."
Sir Thomas Beecham (1879-1961) to a lady cellist

by **tendulkar.co** » Sat, 06 Apr 2013 00:27:23

Quote:

> http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/62983.html

> In this Brisbane Test, Aus finished 163 runs ahead on I1 and

> Eng was asked to follow-on.

> Day 2 was washed out. As far as I know, the limit for follow-on

> was 200 for 5 day games and 150 for 4-day games. By this time

> most Tests were 5-day affairs and in the I v WI instance in 71,

> Wadekar was able to enforce the follow-on despite being only

> 170 ahead because the entire first day was washed out and

> the game had been effectively reduced to a 4-day match.

> What were the rules in force at the time of this Brisbane test

> which allowed Aus to enforce the follow-on?

> England saved the game, as did WI in the latter instance.

> Vijay

Actually the more important question is, did the rest day rain out too or did they take the rest day even though the previous day was washed out?

Rest Day -- What a quaint concept.
And I know test matches where a complete day was washed out and the teams still took the rest day option.

Why were they so stupid and inflexible in those days?
Is it do with MCC and the British?
One thing for sure, ever since BCCI became important, ICC have become extremely flexible & Agile (right from a quick facilitation of RSA's re-entry). The rate at which innovations & flexibility are incorporated into the game is pretty good.

by **John Hal** » Sat, 06 Apr 2013 02:28:55

Quote:

>Actually the more important question is, did the rest day rain out
>too or did they take the rest day even though the previous day was
>washed out?

They would have taken the rest day anyway. I imagine that the problems
of arranging for security and catering staff and so forth being
available at short notice would have been too great. Also you can bet
that whichever team perceived themselves to be at a disadvantage had
they played on the rest day would have objected to a change in the match
conditions.

Of course you can argue that they should have had contingency plans in
place agreed before the tour started.
--
John Hall
"Madam, you have between your legs an instrument capable
of giving pleasure to thousands and all you can do is scratch it."
Sir Thomas Beecham (1879-1961) to a lady cellist

by **Andrew** » Sat, 06 Apr 2013 03:56:22

Quote:

>> http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/62983.html

>> In this Brisbane Test, Aus finished 163 runs ahead on I1 and
>> Eng was asked to follow-on.

>> Day 2 was washed out. As far as I know, the limit for follow-on
>> was 200 for 5 day games and 150 for 4-day games. By this time
>> most Tests were 5-day affairs and in the I v WI instance in 71,
>> Wadekar was able to enforce the follow-on despite being only
>> 170 ahead because the entire first day was washed out and
>> the game had been effectively reduced to a 4-day match.

>> What were the rules in force at the time of this Brisbane test
>> which allowed Aus to enforce the follow-on?

> If wikipedia is to be believed the follow on rule at the time was
> still
> 1900 Made optional, after a deficit of 150 runs.
> I suspect that the current rules were brought in with the 1980 code

In the 1947 Laws:

"The side which bats first and leads by 150 runs in a match of three
days or more, by 100 runs in a two-day match, or by 75 runs in a one-day
match, shall have the option of requiring the other side to follow their
innings.

NOTE ON LAW 14

In Australia the lead necessary to enforce a follow-on in a match
lasting three days or more is 200 runs.

Amendment

In September 1951 the Australian Cricket Board of Control agreed that
the follow-on margin should be 150 rather than 200. Subsequent to that
date, the Note was no longer published with the Laws."

The note "In Australia" dates back to the 1922 revision of the 1884
code. I have a vague recollection that in the 5th Test in 1954-5, the
Australians hadn't realised (or had forgotten) that the Law had changed
and were surprised to be following on 150 behind.

There were a few follow-ons in 1960s (5-day) Tests where the side
batting first had a lead of 150-199, and no days were washed out, e.g.
(following-on side given first):

Aus v SA at Durban 1967 (lead 153)
SA v Aus at Cape Town 1966 (lead 189)
PK v Ind at Delhi 1961 (lead 177)

Can't see any (excluding the Ind v WI match given above) in the 1970s.
The Wisden report on that match makes no reference to the follow-on
score changing due to a day being rained off.

by **Andrew** » Sun, 07 Apr 2013 09:25:02

Quote:

> Can't see any (excluding the Ind v WI match given above) in the 1970s.

And in fact the report on the England v India match at Old Trafford in
1971 says "India struggled to avoid the follow-on, a task they
accomplished with their eight-wicket pair together"; as the 8th wicket
pair took the deficit from 222 to 192, the required margin was clearly 200.

by **Jaye** » Sun, 07 Apr 2013 10:22:17

Quote:

> >>http://SportToday.org/

> >> In this Brisbane Test, Aus finished 163 runs ahead on I1 and
> >> Eng was asked to follow-on.

> >> Day 2 was washed out. As far as I know, the limit for follow-on
> >> was 200 for 5 day games and 150 for 4-day games. By this time
> >> most Tests were 5-day affairs and in the I v WI instance in 71,
> >> Wadekar was able to enforce the follow-on despite being only
> >> 170 ahead because the entire first day was washed out and
> >> the game had been effectively reduced to a 4-day match.

<snip>

Quote:

> There were a few follow-ons in 1960s (5-day) Tests where the side
> batting first had a lead of 150-199, and no days were washed out, e.g.
> (following-on side given first):

> Aus v SA at Durban 1967 (lead 153)
> SA v Aus at Cape Town 1966 (lead 189)
> PK v Ind at Delhi 1961 (lead 177)

> Can't see any (excluding the Ind v WI match given above) in the 1970s.
> The Wisden report on that match makes no reference to the follow-on
> score changing due to a day being rained off.

"There was a stunned silence in the West Indies dressing-room when I
asked them to follow on," notes Ajit Wadekar in My Cricketing Years.
"Sobers was blissfully unaware that rain had reduced that first Test
to a four-day match! Consequently the follow-on margin fell from 200
to 150. Umpire Sang-Hue confirmed that the decision was in order."

If you have an inclination towards ***, you can read the entire
Raju Bharatan article here ("Televisionary Indians", *wince*).

http://SportToday.org/

Regards,
Jayen

by **Mike Goodin** » Tue, 09 Apr 2013 19:53:04

Rest day was Sunday, so possibly no professional sport was allowed then?

Your 'Stupid and Inflexible' may be someone else's regard for tradition and lack of willingness to fiddle with the laws without good reason.

As for the rate at which innovations & flexibility are incorporated into the game being pretty good since the BCCI increased influence - is this a wind-up?

Mike Gooding
--------------

Sport Today

Follow-on question A v E 65/66

Follow-on question A v E 65/66

Follow-on question A v E 65/66

Follow-on question A v E 65/66

Follow-on question A v E 65/66

Follow-on question A v E 65/66

Follow-on question A v E 65/66

Follow-on question A v E 65/66

Follow-on question A v E 65/66

Follow-on question A v E 65/66