2006-11-27 11:28:04 · 9 answers · asked by dchanultimo 1 in Sports ➔ Cricket
Psychological and physiological. With some tests back to back it gave the Australian bowlers a chance to have a rest and regroup for the next test (and beyond). It also said that the wicket was not that bad to bat or bowl on. As the Australians made 600+ in the first innings and devastated the English batsmen, then batted again with no-one getting out (except via a run-out)...which isn't pitch related. Then they showed them how to bowl again, by getting out for around 350 runs again. Although some of them made runs, the English team may regroup, but must be feeling slightly if not totally on edge for the next game (and maybe the series).
2006-11-27 16:08:49 · answer #1 · answered by swill 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To prove me wrong, I had predicted that the ashes matches will be over in 3-4 days.
Jokes apart.
He only knows the reason for this type of a decision. For sure the bowlers were not tired as they had hardly bowled 60 overs.
He surely missed a chance of humiliating england of loosing it by innings and score that psychological advantage.
England can now bounce back as they scored more than 350 runs in the last innings of the match. This will allow them a lot of confidence. This game is nothing but confidence.
2006-11-28 00:28:46 · answer #2 · answered by shrimal_sandeep 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If I had Shane Warne I'd always want the opposition to bat last. Also, their bowlers and fielders probably needed a break - Brisbane isn't the easiest place to field, what with the humidity and heat. I think there have only ever been 3 follow-ons enforced in all tests at Brisbane.
2006-11-28 08:06:06 · answer #3 · answered by rosbif 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was a strange decision and cannot be justified. By not enforcing the follow-on, Ponting did a favour to England to
avoid the embarrassment of innings defeat.
2006-11-27 22:56:17 · answer #4 · answered by vakayil k 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It was good captaincy for Punter not in-force the follow on... With Australia smashing a quick 202 ( nice 100) we put the game in our favour with England no chance to win... The Australia can take allot from the first test were English doesn't have much to take...Great win...
2006-11-27 20:09:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I got to bat and score a 100. Why would I dispute Punter's decision in that case?
2006-11-27 22:02:29 · answer #6 · answered by pressurekooker 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
i think coz the calcutta test was in ponting's mind(when his team follow on and let india bat and india made a huge score and went on to win),so he took a safety approach and let his side bat.
2006-11-27 21:42:26 · answer #7 · answered by minhaj 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
pionting should have enforced the follow on
2006-11-28 00:45:35 · answer #8 · answered by john 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
well i think he wanted to challenge all former Australian cricketers
2006-11-27 19:46:39 · answer #9 · answered by hardik p 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋