391 ahead and the opportunity to enforce the follow-on, so why the hell as Cook chosen to bat again.
I've never played cricket at any level so obviously Cook knows more about the sport than I do but surely he should've enforced the follow-on.
Printable View
391 ahead and the opportunity to enforce the follow-on, so why the hell as Cook chosen to bat again.
I've never played cricket at any level so obviously Cook knows more about the sport than I do but surely he should've enforced the follow-on.
Yes, and Michael Vaughan shares the same opinion too! I rate Vaughany as one of the best England cricket captains re tactics - he rarely made the wrong decision in any test match.
Reason for Cook's decision? - has one of the bowlers picked up an injury? Either that or the gate receipts for the last two days!
Looking at comments on the BBC website everyone is puzzled with reasons of giving the bowlers a rest, having some batting practice or not wanting to potentially have to bat last and maybe need ~100 if Pakistan bat well.
However I just saw Cook's betting slip and he has England winning by 227 runs and not by an innings and 56 runs XD
England game has just resumed in the last few minutes after rain. By the way Yorkshire have thrashed Leics in the One Day Cup, Head (the young Aussie) and Leaning both got tons for us, then Rashid and Rafiq quickly finished of the Leics batsmen
Joking apart, CAM. In the 90's the South African captain Hansie Cronje didn't enforce the follow-on against England from a similar position and England went on to win the match. A few years later Cronje got banned from all forms of cricket for match fixing and if memory serves the defeat against England was one of the games highlighted.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAMiller