|
Dictionary:
fol·low-on (fŏl'ō-ŏn', -ôn') |
| 5min Related Video: follow-on |
| WordNet: follow-on |
The noun has one meaning:
Meaning #1:
an immediate second innings forced on a cricket team scoring a prescribed number of runs fewer than it opponents in the first innings
| Wikipedia: Follow-on |
Follow-on is a term used in the sport of cricket to describe a situation where the team that bats second is forced to take its second batting innings immediately after its first, because the team was not able to get close enough (within 200 runs for a five-day match) to the score achieved by the first team batting in the first innings.
In matches when each team has only one innings of batting; follow-on in such a case is obviously not applicable - it is found only in the longer (more traditional) two-innings-each match.
If the second team to bat scores substantially fewer runs than the first team, the first team can enforce (at their captain's discretion) follow-on, instructing the second team to bat again immediately. In this case the sequence of batting innings will be first team, second team, second team and then (if needed) first team, so the second team is said to be "following on". This is in contrast to the normal progression of batting innings which is first team, second team, first team, second team.
This rules governing the circumstances in which follow-on may be enforced are found in Law 13 of the Laws of cricket.
Follow-on has two major purposes. Firstly it helps prevent unnecessary play. If the first team to bat is winning after the other side has batted, and is likely to win even after the other side has batted again, there is no need for this team to bat a second time. If the team following on does actually pass the first team score, the first team can then come back for their second innings. Either way the length of the match is usually reduced and lowers the chances of a drawn match.
Secondly, matches are limited (typically to five days) and if the first team is made to bat again, again scoring a high score, they may not have enough time to take 10 wickets in the final innings, resulting the match being a draw, even though one team could have scored hundreds of runs more than the other. The team batting first and winning would then face a potentially very agonizing decision in its second innings — at what point should it declare and forfeit the remainder of its innings to save precious time, to ensure it can bowl the other team out.
Because cricket pitches deteriorate as a match continues, follow on is not always enforced. This is because the team who enforced the follow on may be required to bat last, when the pitch is most difficult to bat on. If a team believes the pitch is still good (or has become good) for batting, they may elect not to enforce the follow-on, instead they will return to bat and increase their already existing lead.
Contents |
The number of runs by which a team must lead to enforce follow-on upon its opponent is determined by Law 13 of the Laws of cricket, which takes the length of the match into consideration:
Where a match is shortened, the leads required to have the option of enforcing the follow-on are determined by how many days' (or part-days') play remain when the match starts. For example, suppose a match is scheduled for five days, but the first day is washed out because of rain. If the match then begins on the second scheduled day of the match, the team batting first needs a first innings lead of 150 runs or more to have the option of enforcing the follow-on. This only applies to time lost before the first ball has been bowled: if a five-day match starts on the scheduled first day but, say, the second day is completely lost, it still counts as a five-day match for the purposes of calculating the follow-on target.
Captains do not automatically choose to enforce the follow-on when they are entitled to. In two innings games, for a team batting first to win, it usually needs to dismiss the opposition twice. If it fails to do so, the game may end in a draw. So, when there is limited time available so that a team does not think it had enough time to bat again and then dismiss the opposing side, the follow-on will almost invariably be enforced. Another reason for enforcing the follow-on is the positive effect it can have on a team's morale, and the equal negative effect on that of the other.
When time is not an issue, the follow-on is often not enforced. This is partly because it is tiring for bowlers to bowl for two consecutive innings. It is also usually considered a disadvantage to bat last, when the cricket pitch had deteriorated by wear and there are more natural variations to its bounce and ability to take spin.
Although it is not impossible for a side following-on to win a game, it happens rarely. When it happens in first class games, it is a notable occurrence, with that match being remembered for many years afterwards. Australia have been the losing side on all three occasions where a following-on team has won a test match.
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 (this was in the era when pitches were not covered overnight), and next morning England's slow left-arm bowlers, Bobby Peel and Johnny Briggs, were all but unplayable. England dismissed Australia for 166, winning by 10 runs,[1] and went on to win the series 3-2.
In 1922 at Edgbaston, Hampshire were bowled out for 15 in just nine overs in reply to Warwickshire's 223 in a 3-day match. Hampshire's total is the seventh lowest score for a completed first class innings. Hampshire were put back in to bat, and then famously scored a mammoth 521 before dismissing Warwickshire for 158 to win by a comfortable 155 runs. [2] Hampshire's first innings total of 15 remains the lowest score for a completed innings by a winning team.
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, took the reins for the third Test, at Headingley. This started out very badly: Australia scored 401 (John Dyson 102; Kim Hughes 89), and asked England to follow on after bowling them out for 174 (Lillee took 4 for 49; Lawson 3 for 32). The one bright point in the innings came from Botham, who top scored with 50 (his first 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: Geoff 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 the Headingley Test. (Equally famously, and controversially, two Australian players, Rod Marsh and Dennis Lillee, placed a bet on England to win, claiming that 500-1 were silly odds on any two-horse race.[citation needed]) 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.[3] It was the first time since the 1894-95 Ashes that a side following on had gone on to win a Test match.
Australia, who had won the first of the three-Test series between the two teams,[4] had scored 445 in the first innings of the second Test and restricted India to a 171; only V. V. S. Laxman (59) scored more than 25. 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 Rahul 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), and then on the final day had to declared shortly before lunch (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 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.[5] This was only the third test match (and last to date) to have been won by a side following on, as well as being the only time in history that a side has been able to declare the follow-on innings and still win. India 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, taking 15 wickets.[6]
Longest period without being forced to follow-on in test cricket is held by Australia, who after being asked to follow on by Pakistan in Karachi in 1988, went 190 matches without being forced to follow on until being asked to do so in the fourth test of the 2005 Ashes series against England in 2005.
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
| Translations: Follow-on |
Dansk (Danish)
n. - noget der følger efter
adj. - efterfølgende
Nederlands (Dutch)
het opnieuw moeten batten (cricket), voortzetting
Français (French)
n. - suite, continuation, suivi, prolongement, (Sport) second tour de batte à la défense du guichet (cricket)
adj. - suivant, ultérieur, à venir
Deutsch (German)
n. - Weiterführung, Anschluss(auftrag)
adj. - weiterführend, Fortsetzungs...
Ελληνική (Greek)
n. - επακόλουθο
v. - ακολουθώ εν συνεχεία
Italiano (Italian)
proseguimento
Português (Portuguese)
n. - perseguição (f)
v. - resultar
Español (Spanish)
n. - seguir el juego (criquet)
adj. - subsecuente, subsiguiente
Svenska (Swedish)
n. - ett lags andra innings (cricket)
adj. - följande, fortlöpande
中文(简体)(Chinese (Simplified))
第二代产品, 后继的事情, 第二代产品的, 后继的
中文(繁體)(Chinese (Traditional))
n. - 第二代產品, 後繼的事情
adj. - 第二代產品的, 後繼的
한국어 (Korean)
n. - 속행, 제 2회전
adj. - 계속되는
العربيه (Arabic)
(الاسم) متابعه (صفه) لاحق
עברית (Hebrew)
n. - המשך, המשכה
adj. - בא אחרי כצעד ההגיוני הבא
If you are unable to view some languages clearly, click here.
To select your translation preferences click here.
| Shopping: follow-on |
| non sequitur (philosophy) | |
| lay | |
| boss |
| What the following? | |
| Does a will have to be followed? | |
| Details are as follows or details are as follow? |
Copyrights:
![]() | Dictionary. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2007, 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Read more | |
![]() | WordNet. WordNet 1.7.1 Copyright © 2001 by Princeton University. All rights reserved. Read more | |
![]() | Wikipedia. This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Follow-on". Read more | |
![]() | Translations. Copyright © 2007, WizCom Technologies Ltd. All rights reserved. Read more |