When Alex Hales took the catch on the deep midwicket boundary that ended Pakistan’s first innings then sprinted directly to the dressing room, there was a collective groan of disbelief in the media centre, surely matched by those in the ground or following the Test elsewhere. In dismissing Pakistan for 198, England had ensured a first-innings lead of 391 and had their opponents on the ropes. Hales’s swift departure was an indication that England were intent on batting again rather than enforcing the follow-on, as might reasonably be expected.
With the figure set at a minimum of 200 runs, unless the game has been reduced by the loss of days before the start, the decision is often not a clear-cut one. But to put this one into perspective, there have been only four previous occasions when a side has gained a first-innings lead greater than England had over Pakistan but opted against enforcing the follow-on. Two of these were in timeless Tests, where there was no imperative, while the other two occasions involved Australia and England: at Brisbane in 2006, when the Australian lead was 445 and in Adelaide in 2013 when it was 398, and all it did was prolong England agony.
Against this, at the other extreme almost, this current Test is number 2,208 and of the previous 2,207 only three have been won by the team asked to follow-on, most famously England against Australia at Headingley in 1981 and India against Australia at Eden Gardens in 2001. If not all, then some of Australia’s reticence to do so under Ricky Ponting has been felt to contain an element of paranoia after the trauma of Kolkata.
There was a time, more than a century ago, when the follow-on was compulsory. These days there are some perfectly legitimate reasons why a captain might choose not to enforce, leaving aside that of Colin Cowdrey against India on this ground in 1959 when, with a lead of 282, he declined to ask the visitors to bat again in order to ensure there was cricket for a holiday crowd on the Monday (England still won by 171 runs). Matches come thick and fast, often back-to-back with little respite for bowlers who put their feet up when they can. In addition, too many pitches these days either fail to get worse in the latter stages of a match or even get flatter. When Sri Lanka followed on 359 runs behind England at Lord’s a decade ago, and made 537 for nine second time around, the 51 overs that Andrew Flintoff bowled took a heavy physical toll.
This really was an ideal scenario, though, with a heavy cloud cover, the floodlights on, and fewer than 40 overs bowled in the day to that point. No one bowler sent down more than Chris Woakes’s 16 overs, and the next Test does not start until 3 August. Moreover, neither Jimmy Anderson nor Stuart Broad had bowled after lunch as England looked to finish the innings, an indication perhaps that they were being saved for the second innings. Not so, it now seems.
If there was concern about the possibility that Anderson and Stokes, both returned from injury, might not be 100%, then they ought not to have been playing. But there was no sign of anything untoward when they did bowl.
Now an indifferent weather forecast adds a conundrum, for showers are predicted over the last two days, which could make the timing of a declaration trickier than it might otherwise have been. Given a reasonably clear run, England should still win the match and, just as they did at Headingley against New Zealand in 2013, will plead that the end justifies the means. It is always hard to argue against that, and the decision cannot be categorised as a blunder (not yet anyway), but England have done themselves very few favours as to how this new adventurous side are perceived.
After two scintillating days, the third had cast off its lustre, not helped by 27 overs lost to rain breaks. The Pakistan innings had already been holed below the waterline by Woakes on the second evening, and now, either side of lunch, England were able to take the six remaining wickets, held up only by an irritating ninth-wicket stand of 60 between Misbah-ul-Haq and Wahab Riaz.
The wickets were shared around, with one apiece for Anderson, Broad, Stokes and Woakes (who just missed out on a third consecutive five-wicket innings), and two for Moeen Ali. There were three catches at second slip for Joe Root, each taken with a nonchalance that suggests he could take them with one hand and slip the ball in his pocket while not breaking off from a conversation with Cook. He really is very efficient there.
Only Misbah offered resistance in the accepted sense once Anderson had disposed of Shan Masood, as he generally does. He survived a nasty smack on his batting helmet from a Woakes bouncer and hit only four boundaries in 52 before succumbing to a top-edged sweep against Moeen. The 26 of Sarfraz Ahmed and Wahab’s 39 were altogether more robust, the latter hitting Pakistan’s only six of the series to date.
England were able to bat for 21 overs, time enough for Alastair Cook and Hales to add 68 for the first wicket before Hales was caught behind off Mohammad Amir for 24, the ball catching the inside edge. But by the close Cook and Root had taken the score to 98 for one, a lead of 489, with the England captain unbeaten on 49.
