New concept -- reverse follow on

[Tim Benham]

Test cricket is generally acknowledged to favor the side betting
second, on average. This is reflected by the rarity with which
captains ask the opposition to bat. The follow-on rules reinforce this
because they present a privilege to the team batting first only.

Therefore I suggest the following enhancement to the Laws. The team
batting second may, if their first innings total exceeds that of their
opponent by 200 runs or more, enforce the follow-on, compelling the
team batting first to continue bowling. This would enable the team
that has performed exceptionally well batting second to avoid the
possibility of having to bat last.

What do you think?

[Ian Jennings]

On Jan 14, 7:32 am, Tim Benham <tim.j.ben...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Test cricket is generally acknowledged to favor the side betting
> second, on average.

I think this is a scourge we need to get rid of. Why you want to
encourage it is beyond me.

Ian

[sdavmor]

If eligible for it, the "follow on" should be mandatory IMO.
--
Cheers, SDM -- a 21st Century Schizoid Man
Systems Theory project website: http://systemstheory.net
find us on MySpace, GarageBand, Reverb Nation, Last FM, CDBaby
free MP3s of Systems Theory, Mike Dickson & Greg Amov music at
http://mikedickson.org.uk

[Ian Jennings]

On Jan 14, 7:32 am, Tim Benham <tim.j.ben...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Test cricket is generally acknowledged to favor the side betting
> second, on average.

[John Hall]

In article
<012c1f52-7566-4e0e...@h7g2000pbs.googlegroups.com>,

Tim Benham <tim.j....@gmail.com> writes:
>Test cricket is generally acknowledged to favor the side betting
>second, on average. This is reflected by the rarity with which
>captains ask the opposition to bat.

Your first two sentences seem to contradict one another.

> The follow-on rules reinforce this
>because they present a privilege to the team batting first only.
>
>Therefore I suggest the following enhancement to the Laws. The team
>batting second may, if their first innings total exceeds that of their
>opponent by 200 runs or more, enforce the follow-on, compelling the
>team batting first to continue bowling. This would enable the team
>that has performed exceptionally well batting second to avoid the
>possibility of having to bat last.
>
>What do you think?
>

I think it's a rotten idea. A side that's ahead by over 200 runs on
first innings is in quite enough of an advantageous position as it is.
There would be more of a case for doing away with the follow-on.
--
John Hall
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism
by those who have not got it."
George Bernard Shaw

[Frampy]

On Jan 14, 9:02 pm, John Hall <nospam_no...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
> In article
> <012c1f52-7566-4e0e-a0d8-436510aa2...@h7g2000pbs.googlegroups.com>,

A pitch generally gets worse/harder to bat on as a game goes on.
Maybe someone can posts stats on how often a captain winning the toss
bats first. So your best chance to score runs is by batting first, if
a team in innings #2 gets beyond 200 of the first batting team it
makes some sort of sense that they could enforce a reverse follow on.

In any case, it's 99.9% likely that the this law will never happen :)

[alvey]

That women with large breasts aren't as good a bonk as those with average
to small models.



as

[Brian Lawrence]

"Frampy" <fram...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> A pitch generally gets worse/harder to bat on as a game goes on.
> Maybe someone can posts stats on how often a captain winning the toss
> bats first. So your best chance to score runs is by batting first, if
> a team in innings #2 gets beyond 200 of the first batting team it
> makes some sort of sense that they could enforce a reverse follow on.

In Test matches the captain winning the toss decided to bat in 1492
matches (73%) and invited the opposition to bat in 537 matches (26%).

Teams were only put in to bat 27 times before WW2 (out of 274 Tests,
9.8%)), and 19 times between 1946 & 1959 (209 - 9.1%).

In each decade since:

1960s 30 (186 - 16.1%)
1970s 45 (199 - 22.6%)
1980s 109 (266 - 40.8%)
1990s 119 (347 - 34.3%)
2000s 155 (464 - 33.4%)

2009+ 33 (84 - 39.3%)

Picking up on the 'best chance to score runs batting first' - that
has been true in 53% of Tests. That is, the team batting 2nd failed
to overhaul the 1st inns total. Of course it depends on the
opposition - if England bat first against Bangladesh the expectation
would be that England score a lot and Bangladesh don't. If the inns
are reversed the same logic applies, Bangladesh don't score many
batting 1st, but England do so batting 2nd. If we accept that logic,
an England captain winning the toss will most likely insert Bangladesh,
in anticipation of an inns. win in a shorter time. Generally speaking
captains prefer to have a target to chase rather than deciding on what
target to set.

[max.it]

Whenever I sat the umpire exam for timed matches, I got the follow on
question wrong. I knew all the details before the exam and I was
astounded when the examiner told me that I blundered that question. It
wasn't a failing blunder, but it was one that surprised me.
That was a tough exam acus gl4. It isn't recognised by the ecb version
of umpires association. Probably it fell under the cruel and unusual
ticket. Pre 2000 it was hand written answers in the appropriate
cricketing legalaise and no video clips for the oral exam.

max.it

[Tim Benham]

On Jan 14, 4:32 pm, Tim Benham <tim.j.ben...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Test cricket is generally acknowledged to favor the side betting
> second, on average.

s/betting/batting; s/second/first/

It's funny how deceptive that 2:30am alertness is.

[Yokel]

How long ago did you take that? I know that for a time after ACU&S's
demise, the ECB ACO accepted all the main ACU&S exam qualifications as
passes of their own equivalent levels - I hold the ECB ACO qualification
equivalent to passing both the old ACU&S written exams and the oral.
Indeed, for the first few years the ECB ACO had to use the ACU&S
material, there being nothing else they could reasonably use
("reasonably" includes things like getting permission at reasonable cost
from the other guys). Even today, some of the ECB ACO material is
recognisably taken from the old ACU&S exams, including some of the
pictures of some of the umpires.

But this concession was only available for a time and once the
transitional period was over you had to already have registered your
ACU&S qualification with ECB ACO or it would lapse.

--
- Yokel -

Yokel posts via a spam-trap account which is not read.

[max.it]

I never joined. I was so disgusted by the whole transfer process that
I couldn't bring myself to get involved with them. Before and after
the event there was mass fibbing and unpleasent dealings. I did send
in the transfer form but apparently they received it after the
deadline. However, and anyway ecb is not my area and gl4 is recognised
by the Irish umpire association.
It was 2007 for gl4, I must have been the last one. ECB don't have an
equivilent of the gl4. The closest is ECB ACO level 2, which in my
opinion is gl5.

I wanted to make acus full, and ecb screwed that up for me. Perhaps I
am somewhat bitter.

max.it

[Yokel]

I must admit that the ECB did not exactly help the situation, seeing the
ACU&S's difficulties as an opportunity to build an empire. But, sadly,
the ACU&S were not themselves guiltless and some serious errors of
judgement at the top level ultimately led to their demise.

It's an extremely long story which I am not going to repeat here, but it
is quite likely you know most of it, anyway. As far as I am concerned,
there is still a system, it (after a lot of "teething troubles") works,
and I am still an instructor and still working with many of the same
people who were around in ACU&S days.

I do miss the "Jarvis Cup", but that's another story and it seems to me
that the 2000 Law change did for that.

[eusebius]

What double posting? I also find it difficult to imagine what order in
which one bets is at all advantageous.

[eusebius]

Also, breast implants are completely 'safe'

[Maxx]

that's a bad generalisation, you need to experiment more.