Hubbry Logo
Follow-onFollow-onMain
Open search
Follow-on
Community hub
Follow-on
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Follow-on
Follow-on
Follow-on
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

In cricket, a team who batted second and scored significantly fewer runs than the team who batted first may be forced to follow-on: to take their second innings immediately after their first. The follow-on can be enforced by the team who batted first, and is intended to reduce the probability of a drawn result, by allowing the second team's second innings to be completed sooner and to avoid a team who were significantly better in their first innings from having to declare their second innings closed so they can attempt to win the match, giving the inferior team an undeserved advantage.

Normal sequence Follow-on sequence
1. Team A's first innings 1. Team A's first innings
2. Team B's first innings 2. Team B's first innings
3. Team A's second innings 3. Team B's second innings
4. Team B's second innings (if required) 4. Team A's second innings (if required)

The follow-on occurs only in those forms of cricket where each team normally bats twice: notably in domestic first class cricket and international Test cricket. In these forms of cricket, a team cannot win a match unless at least three innings have been completed. If fewer than three innings are completed by the scheduled end of play, the result of the match can only be a draw.

The decision to enforce the follow-on is made by the captain of the team who batted first, who considers the score, the apparent strength of the two sides, the conditions of weather and the pitch, and the time remaining.

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]

During the India national cricket team's 2017 tour of Sri Lanka, in the Second Test, India won the toss and batted first. Sri Lanka batted second, failed to score within 200 runs of India's first innings score, and were forced to follow-on. India won the match by an innings and 53 runs.

  1. India scored 622/9, dec
  2. Sri Lanka scored 183, all out
  3. Sri Lanka scored 386, all out

This contrasts with the order of innings batted in the First Test of the same series, where Indian captain Virat Kohli had the right to enforce the follow-on, but declined. India won the match by 304 runs.

  1. India scored 600
  2. Sri Lanka scored 291, all out
  3. India scored 240/3, dec
  4. Sri Lanka scored 245, all out

Minimum lead

[edit]

Law 14 of the Laws of Cricket[1] considers the length of the match in defining the minimum lead required for the defending team to enforce the follow-on:

  • 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.[a]
  • In a match of three or four days, a lead of at least 150 runs.
  • In a match of two days, a lead of at least 100 runs.
  • In a one-day match, a lead of at least 75 runs.

When the start of a match is delayed by one or more full days, e.g., due to bad weather, the score lead required to enforce the follow-on is reduced accordingly. However, when a match duration is shortened after it has started, the score lead required to enforce the follow-on remains unchanged.

Enforcement

[edit]

The follow-on is not automatic; the captain of the leading team decides whether to enforce it. Conventional theory suggests 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 overwhelming.[2]

  1. The main reason to enforce the follow-on is to prevent a draw. Batting last, the chasing side can bat cautiously and use up time to draw the match rather than lose, and the follow-on gives them more time, making that strategy more difficult.
  2. Enforcing the follow-on can also increase the pressure on the chasing team, since they have already posted an inferior score, and the state of the pitch often deteriorates as a match progresses.

However, there are several reasons for not enforcing the follow-on:

  1. Most simply, it is tiring for bowlers to bowl for two consecutive innings, and it can be more difficult to dismiss a team in their second innings than it was in their first innings. 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 all out. After 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]
  2. Declining to enforce the follow-on reduces the defending team's probability of losing. Already with a substantial lead in the first innings, the defending team can score enough runs and/or use up enough time to give the chasing team no chance of victory. This does increase the probability of a drawn result, but it can also demotivate the chasing team who have nothing to play for.
  3. Refusing to enforce the follow-on can be a strategic decision based on the current situation of a multi-game series such as The Ashes. A team who only needs a draw to achieve their series goal may refuse to enforce the follow-on so they can bat out the remaining time when a draw is sufficient to win or retain the series trophy. This can happen when a team is leading the series by the number of games left to play including the current game, e.g. leading an Ashes series by one win during the fifth and final game of a series.
  4. It is usually a disadvantage to bat last, when the pitch has deteriorated and favours spin bowling.

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 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.

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]

First-class matches

[edit]

Irani Cup, Rest of India v Mumbai, 2016

Mumbai won the toss and chose to bat, scoring 603 in their first innings and bowling out Rest of India for 306. This gave Mumbai a first-innings lead of 297 runs. However, they declined to enforce the follow on, and were bowled out for 182 in their second innings. Rest of India, set 479 to win, chased down the total with 4 wickets to spare. Faiz Fazal, the opener for Rest of India, made 127 in the winning effort.[5]

Victories by sides following-on

[edit]

Test matches

[edit]

There have been only four occasions in Test cricket where a team that was forced to follow-on won the match. Australia lost the first three of these matches. New Zealand defeated England in the fourth.

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 the next morning, England's slow left-arm bowlers, Bobby Peel and Johnny Briggs, were unplayable on the sticky wicket. England dismissed Australia for 166, winning by 10 runs,[6] 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 fifty 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. 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.[7]

India v Australia, Eden Gardens, 2001

[edit]
Main article: Second Test, 2000–01 Border–Gavaskar Trophy

Australia, who had won their 16 previous Test matches, including the first of the three-Test series between the two teams,[8] 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.[9] India's 171-run victory was by far the largest of the four 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 Sourav 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.[10]

New Zealand v England, Wellington, 2023

[edit]

New Zealand became only the third team in history to win a Test after following on, winning by one run after wrestling the game away from England on a dramatic final day in Wellington. Neil Wagner was the catalyst with a short-ball assault during the afternoon session, and he capped the comeback by taking the final wicket amid rising tension at Basin Reserve. England declared at 435/8 in their first innings with Joe Root and Harry Brook scoring 150+ each. New Zealand's first innings ended at 209 with a rear guard action from Tom Blundell and Captain Tim Southee limiting the damage to a 226 run deficit. Following on, New Zealand scored a mammoth 483 in 162 overs, with 4 half-centuries and a Kane Williamson 132, leaving England with a target of 258. England had trouble putting together a significant partnership, and when Ben Foakes departed at 251/9, the tailenders Jack Leach and James Anderson could only add 5 more runs before Anderson glanced a leg side delivery through to the keeper to lose the game. Controversially, the ball prior should have been called a wide, as a bouncer flew well over the batsman's head, and one run extra could have potentially seen the match end as the third ever tied Test.[11]

First-class matches

[edit]

22-24 July 1847 match between MCC and Surrey

[edit]

In 1847 at The Oval, the MCC were bowled out for 91 in reply to Surrey's 197 in a three-day match. Under the Laws in force, the MCC were required to follow-on, and scored 216 before bowling Surrey out for 101 to win by nine runs.[12] This was the first occasion in first-class cricket of victory by a team following-on.[13]

County Championship – Warwickshire v Hampshire, 1922

[edit]

In 1922 at Edgbaston, Hampshire were bowled out for 15 in just 53 balls and 40 minutes in reply to Warwickshire's 223 in a three-day match; Hampshire's total is the seventh-lowest score for a completed first-class innings. After Warwickshire enforced the follow-on, Hampshire famously scored a mammoth 521 before bowling Warwickshire out for 158 to win by 155 runs.[14] Hampshire's first innings total of 15 remains the lowest score in the county's history, and the lowest for a completed innings by a team that won the match as of 2022.

History

[edit]
  • 1744: No provision existed.
  • 1787: First known instance; at that time, it was the custom for any side behind on first innings to bat again regardless of the deficit (follow-on in the case of the side batting second).
  • 1835: Added to Laws, made 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 three-day match, 100 runs in a two-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 the County Championship, but restored in 1963.[15]
  • 1980: Optional after a deficit of 200 runs in a five-day match, 150 runs in a three- or four-day match, 100 runs in a two-day match, and 75 runs in a one-day match.

In other sports

[edit]

Some informal baseball games use variations of the follow-on.[16]

Bibliography

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Follow-on

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
In , the follow-on is a regulation under Law 14 of the (MCC) that allows the team batting first in a match of five or more days to enforce the opposing team to bat their second immediately upon completing their first, if the leading side holds a first-innings advantage of at least 200 runs. This rule aims to prevent time-wasting and drawn matches by accelerating play when one team dominates, though the decision to enforce it rests solely with the of the leading team, who must notify the umpires and opposing before the concludes, with no option to retract once declared. The follow-on originated as an informal custom in English cricket as early as 1787 but was formalized as a mandatory in , requiring teams with substantial leads to compel the opposition to follow on, though it evolved into an optional strategy in 1900 to balance risk and reward. In modern , the 200-run threshold applies universally for multi-day formats, with reduced margins for shorter matches—150 runs for three- or four-day games, 100 runs for two-day contests, and 75 runs for one-day matches—to account for limited playing time. Enforcing the follow-on carries strategic risks, as it exposes the bowling side to fatigue and potential collapse if the trailing team mounts a recovery, leading captains to invoke it less frequently in recent decades despite its potential to secure victories. Notable instances highlight the rule's drama: only three teams have ever won a Test after being forced to follow on, across four instances, with the most famous being India's historic 2001 victory over at , , where they overcame a 274-run deficit to chase an improbable 384 in the fourth innings. The other instances include England's victories in 1894 () and 1981 (), and New Zealand's 2023 win over England at by one run. High-profile losses after enforcement, such as 's 1981 defeat at despite enforcing the follow-on, underscore the gamble involved. The rule remains a cornerstone of Test 's tactical depth, influencing match outcomes in over 300 instances since the format's inception in 1877, though its use has declined with the rise of aggressive batting and pitch deterioration factors.

Rules and Mechanics

Definition and Purpose

In , matches are structured such that each team has the opportunity to bat twice, known as two per side, allowing for a comprehensive contest over multiple days. This format underpins the game's strategic depth, where outcomes can range from outright wins to draws if time expires without a decisive result. The follow-on is a specific rule in that permits the team batting first, upon achieving a substantial lead in their first , to compel the opposing team—batting second—to commence their second immediately, without the leading team batting again in between. This enforcement skips the leading team's second temporarily, effectively compressing the match timeline by requiring the trailing side to continue batting right away after being dismissed in their first . The primary purpose of the follow-on rule is to accelerate the match toward a definitive result, preventing scenarios where a trailing team might employ time-wasting tactics to secure a due to the fixed duration of first-class games. By forcing the weaker batting side back to the crease promptly, it increases the likelihood of the leading team taking the remaining 10 wickets needed for an innings victory, thereby conserving match time and resources that would otherwise be spent on unnecessary batting. For instance, if Team A scores 400 runs in their first and Team B manages only 150 before being , Team A could enforce the follow-on, requiring Team B to bat their second immediately; this setup allows Team A to potentially bowl twice in succession, heightening pressure and often concluding the match in fewer days than the full allotted time.

Minimum Lead Requirement

In cricket's two-innings matches, the minimum lead required to enforce the follow-on is governed by Law 14 of the (MCC) and varies according to the scheduled duration of the match to ensure proportionality and fairness. For Test matches and other five-day or longer first-class games, the batting side must achieve a first-innings lead of at least 200 runs to gain the option of enforcing the follow-on. In three- or four-day first-class matches, this threshold decreases to 150 runs, reflecting the reduced playing time available. Shorter formats have further adjusted margins: 100 runs for two-day matches and 75 runs for one-day two-innings encounters, though the latter is uncommon in modern professional play. The lead is calculated simply as the difference between the first total of the team batting first and the first total of the team batting second; the follow-on becomes enforceable only if this margin equals or exceeds the relevant threshold. For example, if the first team scores 450 and the second scores 240, the 210-run lead in a match would qualify, but a 180-run lead would not. Even when the threshold is met, enforcement remains optional for the of the leading , who must notify the opposing and umpires of the decision before the start of the next ; umpires verify the scores at the close of the second 's first and inform both if the condition applies. An additional variation occurs if the entire first day is lost to or other causes: the applicable lead threshold then adjusts based on the remaining scheduled days, treating the first full day of play as equivalent to a complete day for calculation purposes. These provisions balance the rule's intent to accelerate potential results against equitable considerations in time-constrained or disrupted matches.

Enforcement Procedure

In cricket matches governed by the Laws of the (MCC), the enforcement of the follow-on occurs after the first of the batting second has concluded, provided the leading meets the required margin. The of the leading must notify the opposing and the umpires of their intention to enforce the follow-on as soon as practicable following the end of the trailing 's . This notification is irrevocable once made, ensuring the decision cannot be altered. The umpires then immediately inform both teams of the enforcement, and the trailing team is required to commence their second innings without delay, foregoing the leading team's second innings at that stage. If the trailing team's first innings ends close to the scheduled close of play or stumps, the decision is typically made the following morning before the resumption of play, with umpires confirming enforceability based on the lead. Should the leading team choose not to enforce, they proceed to bat their second innings in the normal order. Upon enforcement, the trailing team must complete their second innings unless they surpass the target to win the match or the game is otherwise concluded. If dismissed in this second innings without overtaking the lead, the leading team secures victory by an innings and a specified number of runs, without needing to bat again. This procedure is outlined in Law 14 of the MCC , specifically under provisions for the follow-on.

Strategic Considerations

Reasons to Enforce

Enforcing the follow-on in offers several tactical advantages, primarily aimed at accelerating a potential while capitalizing on the opposition's vulnerabilities. One key benefit is the ability to save time and push for a decisive result, particularly in matches where days may be lost to or when the leading team seeks to avoid a draw. By forcing the trailing side to bat again immediately, the enforcing team can bowl more overs in the remaining time, increasing the likelihood of taking the 10 wickets needed for an innings without having to bat a second time themselves. This time-saving aspect was historically emphasized in longer-format cricket to ensure outcomes, though its strategic value persists in modern Tests. Psychological on the opposition is another significant reason captains opt to enforce the follow-on, as it compels the trailing team to bat under duress right after a , often when their is low and players are physically fatigued from fielding. This can disrupt the batsmen's rhythm and heighten error rates, especially if the pitch is deteriorating or assisting bowlers. For instance, captains may choose this tactic to exploit tired opposition batsmen, maintaining momentum from the first dismissals and reducing the trailing team's ability to rebuild effectively. Such has contributed to high rates for enforcing teams, with showing an 82% win rate since 2001 and only four losses ever in history. Common scenarios for enforcement include a substantial first- lead, typically exceeding 300 runs, which minimizes the risk of the opposition recovering and sets up a dominant position. Captains are more likely to enforce when the forecast predicts poor weather, as it allows them to compress the timeline and secure a win before interruptions like rain. Additionally, if the trailing team's batting lineup is perceived as weak—evidenced by a low first- total—enforcing maximizes the chance of an innings defeat by continuing to target vulnerabilities without giving the opposition time to regroup. In such cases, the strategy aligns with fitting in a potential later, should the second innings collapse quickly, further pressuring the opposition in their final chase. While risks exist, such as the rare recovery by the trailing side leading to a loss, these instances are statistically infrequent and often outweighed by the tactical gains in favorable conditions.

Reasons Not to Enforce

Captains may opt against enforcing the follow-on to mitigate risks associated with bowler fatigue and match dynamics, even when eligible under . This choice contrasts with the pressure tactics of immediate enforcement by prioritizing team recovery and strategic buildup. A primary reason for not enforcing is to preserve resources, particularly when fast bowlers have already delivered a high volume of overs in the first innings. In modern , congested international schedules increase injury risks, prompting captains to rest key pacers to ensure their effectiveness later. Enforcement rates drop notably when teams have bowled more than 60 overs, from 90% in lighter workloads to around 73% in heavier ones. This approach also allows time to wear down the opposition's bowlers through extended batting. Batting-friendly conditions further discourage , such as when the pitch is expected to improve or remain flat, reducing the advantage of immediate pressure. On venues like Wellington's , where surfaces flatten over time, captains avoid exposing weary to prolonged resistance in the second . By batting again, teams can exacerbate pitch deterioration for their own fourth- stint, minimizing the need for a high-pressure chase. Building a larger lead provides a safety margin, especially with a narrow advantage just exceeding the 200-run threshold in non-overcast conditions. Captains often forgo enforcement when leads are under 300 runs, a trend more pronounced since 2001, to compile a substantial total that psychologically crushes the opposition and secures the match without over-reliance on tired resources. This tactic surprises opponents and disrupts their recovery plans. Time management plays a crucial role in drawn-prone matches, where higher scoring rates leave less time to the opposition twice. Not enforcing allows the batting side to consume overs strategically, preserving match-winning opportunities while avoiding stalemates. In considerations, modern trends like England's "Bazball" approach under emphasize aggressive second-innings batting to accelerate leads, reflecting a shift toward positive momentum over conservative pressure. This style avoids demotivating the team by enforcing on fatigued bowlers and aligns with broader tactical evolution away from the follow-on. Such decisions often yield victories, with teams succeeding in approximately 92% of cases without enforcement since , though rare losses—such as narrow defeats after bold calls—intensify debates on risk versus reward.

Historical Development

Origins in Early Cricket

The follow-on rule originated in the late amid the evolving structure of English cricket matches. The first recorded mention dates to , when it was customary for a team trailing after the first innings to bat again immediately, regardless of the deficit, enforced by mutual agreement rather than formal regulation. During the 1830s and 1840s, the practice gained informal traction in English club and , often applied in multi-day fixtures to curb time-wasting tactics by trailing teams that extended their unnecessarily. This usage addressed the prevalence of drawn results due to time constraints, aligning with the sport's increasing and spectator expectations for decisive conclusions in an era when matches could span several days without resolution. The rule achieved formal status in 1835 through the (), cricket's law-making authority, during a comprehensive revision of the . It was rendered compulsory for the batting side if they trailed by 100 runs or more after the first in a three-day match, specifically to prevent the weaker team from prolonging play when a win was improbable. The 100-run threshold was tailored for shorter games common at the time, predating the introduction of in 1877 and marking the rule's integration into standardized play. In 1854, the threshold was reduced to 80 runs.

Evolution and Rule Changes

The follow-on rule saw key adjustments in the late to accommodate varying match durations and promote fairer play. In , the compulsory threshold was raised to 120 runs for three-day matches, reflecting the need for larger leads in longer games. By 1900, enforcement became optional, with standardized deficits of 150 runs for three-day matches, 100 runs for two-day matches, and 75 runs for one-day matches. These changes aimed to give captains strategic flexibility while preventing automatic impositions in shorter formats. The 20th century brought further refinements through major MCC Laws revisions. The 1947 Code, approved at an MCC Special General Meeting, provided comprehensive clarifications across the Laws, including on optional enforcement procedures for the follow-on to ensure uniform interpretation by umpires and players. Subsequent updates in introduced differentiated thresholds based on match length: 200 runs for five-day or longer matches (increasing from the previous 150 runs used in Tests), 150 runs for three- or four-day first-class games, 100 runs for two-day matches, and 75 runs for one-day matches. These adjustments accounted for time constraints in non-Test while elevating the bar for Tests to align with extended play. No substantive changes to the follow-on rule have occurred since the Code of Laws. However, broader evolutions in cricket infrastructure and formats have indirectly shaped its application. The widespread adoption of covered pitches from the onward has minimized deterioration, reducing the traditional benefit of a worsening surface for the enforcing team's bowlers in the opponent's second innings. Additionally, the dominance of limited-overs —such as ODIs since 1971 and T20 since 2003—has emphasized aggressive, result-oriented strategies in Tests, making follow-on enforcement rarer as captains prioritize batting depth over pitch exploitation. Occasional debates have surfaced on modifying or abolishing the rule to enhance decisive outcomes in modern Tests, though no formal proposals have advanced.

Statistical Overview

Frequency of Enforcement in Tests

The follow-on has been enforced in 346 Test matches since the format's inception in 1877, representing approximately 14% of the more than 2,500 Tests played up to November 2025. This overall frequency reflects a strategic tool used when a team secures a substantial first-innings lead, though its application has varied significantly across eras. In the early years of , enforcement was more commonplace, occurring in 20-25% of matches before 1950, driven by uncovered pitches that deteriorated rapidly and favored the bowling side. Historical trends indicate peaks in enforcement during the through amid variable playing conditions that often led to decisive collapses. However, the frequency has declined since 2000, dropping to under 10% of opportunities in recent Tests, attributed to flatter pitches, advanced batting techniques, and captains' preferences for resting bowlers to maintain freshness for the fourth . This shift is evident in data showing only 47 enforcements in the so far, compared to 81 in the , despite an increase in total matches played. Among teams, leads with 108 enforcements, followed closely by with 92, reflecting their historical dominance and higher volume of Tests played. Other major enforcers include (39), India (37), and (34). Regional factors influence usage: enforcement is more frequent in , where pitches tend to deteriorate over time due to spin-friendly surfaces, compared to , where consistent seaming conditions and true bounce often allow batting recoveries without immediate pressure.

Success Rates and Outcomes

When the follow-on is enforced in , the enforcing team secures victory in approximately 78% of cases, with 269 wins recorded out of 346 total instances as of November 2025. Draws account for about 21% (73 matches), while losses by the enforcing side remain exceptionally rare at roughly 1% (4 matches). These outcomes underscore the follow-on's effectiveness as a strategic tool for forcing a result, though it does not guarantee success. The four documented losses for teams enforcing the follow-on occurred in 1894 (Australia vs. England at ), 1981 ( vs. at ), 2001 ( vs. at ), and 2023 ( vs. at ), yielding a historical probability of approximately 1.16%. Each case involved remarkable comebacks by the trailing team, often highlighted for their dramatic nature in lore. Draws following follow-on enforcement frequently stem from weather disruptions that limit playing time or from resilient second-innings batting by the team forced to follow on, allowing them to build a substantial score and consume overs defensively. Such scenarios prevent the enforcing team from taking the remaining 10 wickets within the available time. Overall trends indicate that the enforcing team's success rate has remained stable at around 78% across eras, though it has dipped slightly in the post-2000 period—correlating with advancements in batting techniques that enable stronger recoveries from large deficits. This subtle shift reflects evolving player skills and match conditions in modern .

Victories by Teams Forced to Follow On

In Test Matches

In , victories by teams forced to follow on are exceedingly rare, with only four such instances recorded as of 2025. These comebacks often involve exceptional batting recoveries and bowling efforts, turning substantial deficits into wins. The first occurred during the 1894–95 series at , where , trailing by 261 runs after scoring 325 to 's 586, followed on and posted 437 in their second innings. managed only 166 in reply, falling short by 10 runs. Nearly a century later, in the 1981 at , England followed on 227 runs behind after Australia's 401 and England's 174. Ian Botham's 149 not out propelled England to 356 for 9, setting Australia 130, which they fell short of by 18 runs with 111 all out. achieved the third such victory in 2001 against at , . Forced to follow on 274 runs behind (171 to Australia's 445), (281) and (180) added 376 for the fourth wicket, helping declare at 657 for 7. collapsed to 212, losing by 171 runs. The most recent came in 2023 at , where , following on 226 runs behind (209 to 's 435 for 8 dec), reached 483 in their second innings. , needing 258, were bowled out for 256, losing by 1 run—'s first such win.

In First-Class Matches

Such victories are also uncommon in first-class cricket, with historical records noting only a handful, often from the 19th and early 20th centuries when conditions were more variable. One early example was in 1847 at , where (MCC) faced . MCC scored 91 to 's 197, following on 106 runs behind, but replied with 216. managed 101 in their second , losing by 9 runs. In 1922, during a match at , bowled out for 223 and 158, while scoring only 15 in their first but 521 in the second after following on 208 runs behind. 's second of 158 resulted in a 155-run defeat. This remains notable for 's record-low first-innings total in a victory.

Victories by Teams Not Enforcing Follow-On

In Test Matches

In , teams eligible to enforce the follow-on have occasionally opted against it, particularly when leads range from 200 to 300 runs, with such decisions becoming more common in modern eras due to concerns over bowler workload and match strategy. Up to , there have been approximately 50 documented instances of non-enforcement in scenarios with leads under 300 runs, though the overall eligible opportunities exceed 100 across history. These choices often stem from pitch conditions that may favor batting later or the need to rest fatigued bowlers after extended spells, allowing the team to build an even larger second-innings total and apply pressure through a daunting target. Notable examples illustrate successful outcomes from this approach. In the 1968-69 Sydney Test, , leading by 340 runs after dismissing for 279 in reply to their 619, chose not to enforce the follow-on to conserve their bowlers and extend their advantage; they declared at 394 for 8 in their second innings, setting 734 to win, and bowled out for 352 to secure victory by 382 runs. Similarly, during the 2006-07 Brisbane Test against , posted 602 for 9 declared in their first innings to 's 157, creating a 445-run lead, but captain declined the follow-on citing bowler fatigue on a wearing pitch; added 202 for 1 declared in their second innings before dismissing for 370 to win by 277 runs. Such decisions have proven highly effective, with teams not enforcing the follow-on since winning 91% of those , compared to about 84% for those who did enforce it.

In First-Class Matches

In , captains have frequently opted not to enforce the follow-on when the opportunity arose, leading to victory in a substantial number of cases—far more common than the handful recorded in matches. This is particularly evident in domestic competitions like the English , where the four-day format and bowler workload considerations often influence the decision. The choice allows teams to rest their bowlers, provide batting practice, and set up a for a large target, minimizing risks associated with immediate re-bowling. A representative example from the occurred in 2025, when faced at . amassed 456 in their first , securing a lead of 294 runs after were bowled out for 162. Captain elected not to enforce the follow-on, instead batting again to post a at 315 for 4, before dismissing for 105 in their second to secure a 504-run victory—the largest margin in Championship history. This outcome highlighted the benefits of batting a second time to extend the lead and conserve bowling resources. In the Australian during the 1950s, similar tactical choices were made in several matches, reflecting the era's conditions where captains balanced aggressive pursuits with practical concerns like player fatigue. For instance, in multi-day domestic fixtures, teams often avoided re-bowling immediately after long spells, opting instead to build insurmountable totals that led to outright wins without risking a or collapse. These decisions were influenced by the physical demands of the time, including longer bowling stints on varied pitches. Patterns of not enforcing the follow-on were more prevalent before the , when uncovered pitches increased the unpredictability of second-innings batting due to potential damage, prompting captains to bat again for safety. In contrast, modern four-day first-class games emphasize caution, with declarations timed to maximize overs while protecting bowlers from overuse amid packed schedules. This evolution aligns with broader trends in workload management observed across longer-format . Overall, teams forgoing the follow-on have achieved in approximately 92% of such opportunities in extended , a rate nearly 10 percentage points higher than when enforcing it, reinforcing the decision as a sound strategic option when conditions favor batting stability over immediate pressure.

Follow-On in Broader Contexts

In Other Cricket Formats

The follow-on rule does not apply to limited-overs formats such as One Day Internationals (ODIs) and Twenty20 Internationals (T20Is), which feature a single per team restricted to a maximum of 50 overs and 20 overs, respectively. This structure precludes the need for a second by the trailing side, making enforcement of the follow-on impossible under standard playing conditions. The define a follow-on threshold of 75 runs for one-day matches, though this applies theoretically to two- contests and is not used in practice for modern limited-overs formats that emphasize single- play and time efficiency. Instead, limited-overs cricket relies on alternative mechanisms to resolve disruptions or close contests. The Duckworth-Lewis-Stern method recalculates targets in rain-interrupted matches based on overs remaining and wickets lost, maintaining equity without invoking additional . Ties are settled via super overs, where each team faces a one-over mini- to produce decisive results. Overall, these formats stress run rates, powerplays, and batting momentum over lead-based deficits, fostering high-scoring, aggressive encounters. By confining the follow-on to first-class and , the rule preserves the tactical complexity and stamina demands of multi-day games, underscoring the distinct identity of limited-overs variants within the sport.

In Other Sports

In , particularly at and youth levels, the mercy rule—also known as the run-ahead or —allows a game to end early if one team leads by a substantial margin, such as 10 or more runs after a specified number of , to prevent prolonged defeats and promote . This mechanism shares conceptual parallels with the cricket follow-on by accelerating the conclusion of a lopsided contest, though it applies to the trailing team's inability to catch up rather than a direct re-innings mandate, and it is absent in professional leagues like where full games are played regardless of score. In , there is no formal follow-on equivalent, but debates over "" arise when a leading team continues aggressive plays to widen an already decisive margin, often viewed as unsportsmanlike in and contexts while more routinely accepted in the as part of competitive play. strategies, such as kneeling to run out the final minutes, serve a similar time-saving function by avoiding unnecessary extension of the game, differing from cricket's follow-on in lacking a rule-enforced second phase and emphasizing ethical discretion over mandatory enforcement. Tennis employs tie-breaks to expedite set resolutions when scores reach 6-6, replacing the need for a two-game lead with a shorter, decisive mini-game to first-to-seven points (with a two-point margin), thereby shortening matches without altering the overall structure. This accelerates play in closely contested scenarios, contrasting the follow-on's focus on dominance by shortening potential marathons rather than enforcing a repeat effort from a disadvantaged position. In golf's match-play format, players may concede putts, holes, or the entire match at any time, frequently done when a lead exceeds the remaining holes to concede insurmountable deficits and conserve time or energy. Such concessions embody principles akin to the follow-on's efficiency in multi-phase sports but rely on voluntary agreement rather than imposition, highlighting a universal emphasis on time-saving amid lopsided outcomes across disciplines with minimal direct borrowing from traditions.

References

  1. https://www.lords.org/mcc/the-laws-of-cricket-2d35b4b95a4a67ae8f9c76f258a84aa8/the-follow-on
  2. https://www.criczip.com/game-explained/the-follow-on-rule-crickets-boldest-gamble
  3. https://mysterycricket.com/blogs/the-mystery-cricket-blog/follow-on-rule-in-cricket
  4. https://khelnow.com/cricket/when-teams-won-follow-on-test-cricket-202510
  5. https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/england-tour-of-new-zealand-2022-23-1328819/england-vs-new-zealand-2nd-test-1342518/match-report
  6. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/cricket/india-in-australia/explained-how-follow-on-rule-works-in-test-cricket/articleshow/116396488.cms
  7. https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/kartikeya-date-does-the-follow-on-work-in-its-current-form-797859
  8. https://www.icc-cricket.com/news/mens-test-match-clause-14-the-follow-on
  9. https://www.wisden.com/cricket-news/how-are-the-follow-on-rules-different-for-the-world-test-championship-final
  10. https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/why-captains-choose-not-to-follow-on-these-days-1112995
  11. https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/what-is-follow-on-rule-in-test-cricket-1734417305-1
  12. https://cricketira.com/follow-on-in-cricket-explained
  13. https://cricketman2.com/cricket/how-to-calculate-follow-on-in-test-cricket-12564/
  14. https://www.business-standard.com/cricket/news/what-are-follow-on-rules-why-won-t-australia-enforce-follow-on-vs-india-124121700289_1.html
  15. https://www.sportskeeda.com/cricket/5-reasons-why-captains-reluctant-enforce-follow-on
  16. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2023/02/27/not-even-bazball-can-resurrect-dying-art-follow-on/
  17. https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/rare-follow-on-law-applied-in-lord-s-test-106446
  18. https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/espncricinfo-xi-cricketers-who-have-by-accident-or-design-changed-the-laws-629720
  19. https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/dates-in-cricket-history-153476
  20. https://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/page/408035.html
  21. https://archive.acscricket.com/research/Laws_of_Cricket/1980/Law_13.html
  22. https://oldebor.wordpress.com/2022/05/17/the-extinction-of-the-sticky-wicket-the-confusing-history-of-pitch-covering/
  23. https://www.howstat.com/cricket/statistics/matches/MatchFollowOn.asp
  24. https://medium.com/the-sports-scientist/follow-on-strategies-in-cricket-d0c3259ef228
  25. https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/ricky-ponting-australia-need-to-learn-the-asian-tempo-796369
  26. https://www.howstat.com/cricket/statistics/matches/MatchFollowOn.asp?FollowOn=T
  27. https://www.espncricinfo.com/records/victory-after-a-follow-on-283938
  28. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49120392_An_analysis_of_strategy_in_the_first_three_innings_in_test_cricket_Declaration_and_the_follow-on
  29. https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/england-tour-of-australia-1894-95-17678/australia-vs-england-1st-test-62437/full-scorecard
  30. https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/australia-tour-of-england-1981-17031/australia-vs-england-3rd-test-63291/full-scorecard
  31. https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/australia-tour-of-india-2000-01-15565/india-vs-australia-2nd-test-63920/full-scorecard
  32. https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/new-zealand-vs-england-2022-23-1346344/new-zealand-vs-england-2nd-test-1346975/full-scorecard
  33. https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/county-match-1847-385668/surrey-vs-mcc-1st-match-624/full-scorecard
  34. https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/county-championship-1922-385670/hampshire-vs-warwickshire-12th-match-626/full-scorecard
  35. https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/shunning-the-follow-on-306946
  36. https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/five-reasons-why-virat-kohli-didn-t-enforce-the-follow-on-1170167
  37. https://www.wisden.com/series/county-championship-2025/cricket-news/county-side-break-record-for-biggest-ever-championship-victory-with-504-run-thrashing
  38. https://www.sportstats.com.au/blognov04tojun05.html
  39. https://blog.cricheroes.com/follow-on-rule-test-cricket/
  40. https://www.littleleague.org/university/articles/the-10-run-rule-what-parents-need-to-know/
  41. https://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Mercy_rule
  42. https://www.si.com/nfl/2010/11/18/nfl-runningupscore
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.