A property tax (or millage tax) is a levy on property that the owner is required to pay. The tax is levied by the governing authority of the jurisdiction in which the property is located; it may be paid to a national government, a federated state, a county/region, or a municipality. Multiple jurisdictions may tax the same property.

There are four broad types of property: land, improvements to land (immovable man-made objects, such as buildings), personal property (movable man-made objects), and intangible property. Real property (also called real estate or realty) means the combination of land and improvements. Under a property tax system, the government requires and/or performs an appraisal of the monetary value of each property, and tax is assessed in proportion to that value. Forms of property tax used vary among countries and jurisdictions.

A special assessment tax is sometimes confused with property tax. These are two distinct forms of taxation: one (ad valorem tax) relies upon the fair market value of the property being taxed for justification, and the other (special assessment) relies upon a special enhancement called a "benefit" for its justification.

The property tax rate is often given as a percentage. It may also be expressed as a per mil (amount of tax per thousand currency units of property value), which is also known as a millage rate or mill is also one-thousandth of a currency unit.) To calculate the property tax, the authority will multiply the assessed value of the property by the mill rate and then divide by 1,000. For example, a property with an assessed value of US $50,000 located in a municipality with a mill rate of 20 mills would have a property tax bill of US $1,000 per year.^[1]

Property tax rates, assessment rules, and valuations vary widely by jurisdiction.

Australia[link]

Australia has property taxes known as property or land rates. Land rates and frequency of payment are determined by local councils. Each council has land valuers who value the land's worth. The land's worth is the value of the land only; it does not include existing dwellings on the property. The assessed value of the land determines the total charges of rates. Rates can range from $100 per quarter to $, but frequency varies by locality. Australian property owners also pay water rates. Some councils include this in the total of the rates notice and provide a breakdown of water and land charges. Other councils may charge this separately. Depending on the municipality, water rates can be either a flat fee, user pay or a combination of both. Prospective buyers can get details about land and water rates from the local council before purchase.

Australia also has stamp duty, applied at the time a property is sold, by the purchaser to the Office of State Revenue. In addition to stamp duty there is also a Land Transfer Charge under the NSW State Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 (1 July 2010). The Charge will be levied as an ad valorem tax to be paid by the purchaser, for property above $500,000 in value, and is payable at the time a transfer document is lodged for registration with Land & Property Information (LPI).

Stamp duty rates are applied on a sliding scale of 1% to 6.75% based on the value of property and the state of Australia.

Canada[link]

Many provinces in Canada levy property tax on real estate based upon the current use and value of the land. This is the major source of revenue for most municipal governments in Canada. While property tax levels vary among municipalities in a province there is usually common property assessment or valuation criteria laid out in provincial legislation. There is a trend to use a market value standard for valuation purposes in most provinces with varying revaluation cycles. A number of provinces have established an annual reassessment cycle where market activity warrants while others have longer periods between valuation periods.

Calculating Individual Property Taxes

In Ontario, for most properties (e.g., residential, farms), the property taxes can be calculated by multiplying the phased-in assessment indicated on the Property Assessment Notice by the tax rate.

Municipal tax rate x phased-in assessment for the particular taxation year = municipal portion of tax county/regional tax rate x phased-in assessment for the particular taxation year = county/regional portion of tax education tax rate x phased-in assessment for the particular taxation year = education portion of tax

municipal portion of tax + county/regional portion of tax + education portion of tax = Total Property Tax

In some cases (e.g., commercial, industrial, multi-residential properties), the Province or municipality may implement measures that affect the actual taxes paid on a property.

Chile[link]

Land property taxes, called "territorial tax" or "contributions", are paid annually in four payments during the year. The rate varies between 1 to 2% of the fiscal value, depending on the use of the property (agricultural, habitation, commercial). The fiscal value is determined for each property by the Internal Tax Service, based on the land area and built area, the value of the construction materials, age, use and distance to commercial areas. The fiscal value is usually much lower than the market value. Non-business properties valued below a certain fiscal value are exempt (currently about US$33K). Properties used for business face no exemption.^[2] The collected taxes go to the municipality where the property is located.^[3] All municipalities contribute a share of the received income to a "common municipal fund", which is then redistributed back to all municipalities according to its needs (poverty rate, etc.).^[4][5]

Greece[link]

The Greek property tax of 2011 is based upon floor-area and is to be collected with electricity bills.[2]

Hong Kong[link]

In Hong Kong, there is a kind of tax named a property tax, but it is not an ad valorem tax; it is actually classified as an income tax.

According to HK Inland Revenue Ordinance IRO s5B, all property owners shall not be subject to this tax; unless the HK property owner has received a consideration, the example is rental income for the year of assessment. The property tax shall be computed on the net assessable value at the standard rate.

Year of Assessment[link]

The period of assessment is from April 1 to March 31 of the following year.

Net assessable value[link]

The formula is:

Net assessable value = 80% of Assessable value.

HK property tax payable = Net assessment value X Property tax standard rate

Assessable value = Rental income + Premium + (Rental bad debt recovered — Irrecoverable rent) - Rates paid by owner.

Jamaica[link]

This tax is paid in the same way as a mortgage, an annual payment depending on the value of one's assets, such as property.

India[link]

Property tax or 'house tax' is a local tax on buildings, along with appurtenant land, and imposed on owners. It resembles the US-type wealth tax and differs from the excise-type UK rate. The tax power is vested in the states and it is delegated by law to the local bodies, specifying the valuation method, rate band, and collection procedures. The tax base is the annual ratable value (ARV) or area-based rating. Owner-occupied and other properties not producing rent are assessed on cost and then converted into ARV by applying a percentage of cost, usually six percent. Vacant land is generally exempt. Central government properties are exempt. Instead a 'service charge' is permissible under executive order. Properties of foreign missions also enjoy tax exemption without an insistence for reciprocity. The tax is usually accompanied by a number of service taxes, e.g., water tax, drainage tax, conservancy (sanitation) tax, lighting tax, all using the same tax base. The rate structure is flat on rural (panchayat) properties, but in the urban (municipal) areas it is mildly progressive with about 80% of assessments falling in the first two slabs. By all accounts, the property tax is under-utilised in the municipalities and not effectively used in the panchayats, mainly due to tax payer resistance.^[6]

Netherlands[link]

Property tax (Dutch: Onroerendezaakbelasting (OZB)) is levied on homes on a municipal basis in two parts: for the one who lives in the house, and for the owner of the house. Those with a rental home are liable only for the living part^{[clarification needed]} of the tax.^{[citation needed]}

United Kingdom[link]

This unreferenced section requires citations to ensure verifiability.

There is currently no ad valorem tax on residential property. Two former systems were dropped because of their extreme unpopularity:

• Schedule A income tax, a central government tax that was levied on the imputed rent, that is the rent that owner-occupiers of land would have been receiving from a tenant had they not been living in the houses they owned. However, actual (as opposed to imputed) rent is still subject to income tax under Schedule A.
• Rates, a local government tax that was levied in proportion to the assessed value of property; this proportion was not fixed or set by a schedule or formula but floated according to the budget decided on by councillors (originally elected by only ratepayers), giving rise to a charge distributed proportionally over all the relevant properties. This was replaced under the Thatcher government by the Community Charge (popularly known as "poll tax"), which proved even more unpopular than the rates, and was replaced by a mixed Council Tax which combines elements of property tax and a poll tax. Rates are still (2010) levied on business property, though some classes of business are exempt.

United States[link]

In the United States, property tax on real estate is usually levied by local government, at the municipal or county level. Rates vary across the states, between about 0.2% and 4% of the home value.^[7] The assessment is made up of two components—the improvement or building value, and the land or site value. In some states, personal property is also taxed. The property tax is the main tax supporting local education, police/fire protection, local governments, some free medical services, and most of other local infrastructure. Also, many U.S. state and local jurisdictions impose personal property taxes.

See also[link]

• Land value tax

References[link]

Richard D. Wolff

Marxian economics
Born	(1942-04-01) April 1, 1942 (age 70)[1] Youngstown, Ohio, USA[1]
Nationality	United States
Institution	Yale University (1967-69) City College of New York (1969-73) University of Massachusetts Amherst (1973-present) The New School (2008-present)[1]
Field	Marxian economics, Political economy, International affairs
Alma mater	Harvard College (B.A., 1963) Stanford University (M.A., 1964) Yale University (M.A., 1966, 1967) Yale University (Ph.D., 1969)[1]
Opposed	Neoclassical economics, Neoliberalism, Chicago School, Austrian School
Influences	Baran · Keynes · Marx · Tobin
Contributions	Marxian economics, economic methodology, class analysis

Richard D. Wolff (born April 1, 1942, Youngstown, Ohio) is an American economist, well-known for his work on Marxian economics, economic methodology, and class analysis. He is Professor of Economics Emeritus, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and currently a Visiting Professor in the Graduate Program in International Affairs of the New School University in New York. Wolff has also taught economics at Yale University, City University of New York, University of Paris I (Sorbonne), and The Brecht Forum in New York City. In 2010, Wolff published Capitalism Hits the Fan: The Global Economic Meltdown and What to Do About It, also released as a DVD. He will release three new books in 2012: Occupy the Economy: Challenging Capitalism, with David Barsamian (San Francisco: City Lights Books), Contending Economic Theories: Neoclassical, Keynesian, and Marxian, with Stephen Resnick (Cambridge, MA, and London: MIT University Press), and Democracy at Work (Chicago: Haymarket Books).

Wolff hosts the weekly hour-long radio program Economic Update on WBAI, 99.5 FM, New York City (Pacifica Radio). He writes regularly for The Guardian, Truthout.org, and the MRZine. He has been interviewed on RT-TV, Amy Goodman's Democracy Now!, Al Jazeera English, Thom Hartman, National Public Radio, Alternative Radio, and many other radio and television programs in the United States and abroad. The New York Times Magazine has named him "America's most prominent Marxist economist." His work can be accessed at rdwolff.com. Wolff lives in Manhattan with his wife and frequent collaborator, Dr Harriet Fraad, a practicing psychotherapist (see podcasts at www.rdwolff.com on psychology and economics).

Early and personal life[link]

Wolff earned a BA magna cum laude in history from Harvard in 1963 and moved on to Stanford—he attained a MA in economics in 1964—to study with Paul A. Baran. Baran died prematurely from a heart attack in 1964 and Wolff transferred to Yale University, where he received a MA in economics in 1966, MA in history in 1967, and a PhD in economics in 1969. As a graduate student at Yale, Wolff worked as an instructor.^[1] His dissertation, "The Economics of Colonialism: Britain and Kenya,"^[2] was eventually published in book form in 1974.

In addition to his native English, Wolff is fluent in French and German.^[1] With Fraad he has two adult children.^[3]

Professional life[link]

Wolff taught at the City College of New York from 1969–1973. Here he started his life-long collaboration with fellow economist Stephen Resnick, who arrived in 1971 after being denied tenure at Yale for signing an anti-war petition^{[citation needed]}. Both would then be part, along with Samuel Bowles, Herbert Gintis, and Rick Edwards, of the "radical package" that was hired in 1973 by the Economics Department at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, where Wolff has been full professor since 1981. Wolff retired in 2008 but remains professor emeritus and that year joined The New School as a visiting professor.

The first co-authored academic publication by Wolff and Resnick was "The Theory of Transitional Conjunctures and the Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism,"^[4] which laid out the pillars of the framework that they have worked on ever since. They formulated a non-determinist, class-analytical approach for understanding the debates regarding the transition from feudalism to capitalism. Their topics have included Marxian theory and value analysis, overdetermination, radical economics, international trade, business cycles, social formations, the Soviet Union, and comparing and contrasting Marxian and non-Marxian economic theories.

Wolff's work with Resnick took Louis Althusser and Étienne Balibar's Reading Capital as its point of departure and developed a subtle reading of Karl Marx's Capital Volumes II and III in their influential Knowledge and Class. For the authors, Marxian class analysis entails the detailed study of the conditions of existences of concrete forms of performance, appropriation, and distribution of surplus labor. While there could be an infinite number of forms of surplus appropriation, the Marxist canon refers to ancient (independent), slave, feudal, capitalist, and communist class processes.

In 1989, Wolff joined efforts with a group of colleagues, ex- and then current students to launch Rethinking Marxism, an academic journal that aims to create a platform for rethinking and developing Marxian concepts and theories within economics as well as other fields of social inquiry. He continues to serve as a member of both the editorial and the advisory boards of the journal.

Wolff was a visiting professor in spring 1994 at University of Paris 1 Pantheon-Sorbonne. Wolff continues to teach graduate seminars and undergraduate courses and direct dissertation research in economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and, most recently, in the graduate program in international affairs (GPIA) at The New School.

Wolff was a founding member of the Green Party of New Haven, Connecticut, and its mayoral candidate in 1985.^[5] In 2011, he called for the establishment of a broad-based left-wing mass party in the United States.^[6] Wolff, especially since 2008, gives many public lectures throughout the United States and other countries. He is regular lecturer at the Brecht Forum. Particularly outside the United States, Wolff is increasingly a guest on television and radio news programs, and, within the U.S., has appeared on Democracy Now! and The Real News. He also writes for Monthly Review and contributes to Truthout.^[3] Wolff hosts a weekly radio program on economics and society, Economic Update, at WBAI in New York City.^[7]

Bibliography[link]

• Wolff, Richard D. (1974). The Economics of Colonialism. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-01639-5. 
• Resnick, Stephen A.; Richard D. Wolff, eds. (1985). Rethinking Marxism: Essays for Harry Magdoff and Paul Sweezy. NY: Autonomedia. 
• Wolff, Richard D.; Stephen A. Resnick (1987). Economics: Marxian versus Neoclassical. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. ISBN 0-8018-3479-1. 
• Resnick, Stephen A.; Richard D. Wolff (1987). Knowledge and Class: A Marxian Critique of Political Economy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-71021-1. 
• Fraad, Harriet; Richard Wolff, Stephen Resnick (1994). Bringing It All Back Home: Class, Gender and Power in the Modern Household. Pluto Press. ISBN 0-7453-0707-8. 
• Wolff, Richard D.; Stephen Resnick, David F. Ruccio (1988). Crisis and Transitions: A Critique of the International Economic Order. Westview Press. ISBN 0-8133-0757-0. 
• Gibson-Graham, J.K.; Stephen A. Resnick and Richard D. Wolff (2000). Class and Its Others. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota University Press. ISBN 0-8166-3618-4. 
• Gibson-Graham, J.K.; Stephen A. Resnick and Richard D. Wolff (2001). Re/Presenting Class: Essays in Postmodern Marxism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. ISBN 0-8223-2709-0. 
• Resnick, Stephen A.; Richard D. Wolff (2002). Class Theory and History: Capitalism and Communism in the USSR. NY: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-93317-X. 
• Resnick, Stephen A.; Richard D. Wolff (2006). New Departures in Marxian Theory. NY: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-77025-4. 
• Wolff, Richard D. (2009). Capitalism Hits the Fan. Olive Branch Press. ISBN 1-56656-784-X. 

Talks[link]

• Capitalism Hits the Fan - Richard Wolff at Brown University.
• Hamsphire's 3rd Annual Eric Schocket Lecture.

Films[link]

• Richard Wolff (2009). Capitalism Hits the Fan. Media Education Foundation. 

See also[link]

• Paul Hirst
• J. K. Gibson-Graham

References[link]

External links[link]

• Richard D. Wolff's website
• Richard D. Wolff's UMASS webpage (with Stephen A Resnick)
• Wolff's faculty profile at The New School
• Rethinking Marxism: A Journal of Economics, Culture and Society
• Curriculum Vitae of Rick Wolff
• Capitalism Hits the Fan - A Lecture by Rick Wolff on the financial crisis of 2008
• Resistance and Austerity in Europe at The Real News, 27 July 2011
• Hudson/Wolff on Debt and Recession at The Real News, 9 May 2011
• European Workers Distance from US Through Action, at The Real News, 2010
• Obama should force the votes on health care at The Real News, 21 October 2009
• Richard Wolff: Too big to fail, too big to be privately owned at The Real News, November 2009
• Recovery for whom? at The Real News, 14 August 2009
• Is Chinese "miracle" real? at The Real News, 2 August 2009
• Tax the rich to pay for health care? at The Real News, 2009
• Profits driving stocks a sign of danger at The Real News, 28 July 2009
• Richard Wolff: Too big to fail, too big to be privately owned, The Real News, 5 May 2009
• A house of credit cards at The Real News, 17 March 2009
• Richard D. Wolff at the Internet Movie Database

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. It is applicable 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) the 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.

The 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 the chances of a drawn match are lowered.

Secondly, the vast majority of matches are time-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 would face a very difficult tactical decision in its second innings — at what point should it declare and forfeit the remainder of its innings to preserve enough time to bowl the second team out?

Because cricket pitches deteriorate as a match continues, the 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.

Minimum lead[link]

The number of runs by which a team must lead to enforce the follow-on upon its opponent is determined by Law 13 of the Laws of cricket, which takes the length of the match into consideration:

• In a match of five days or more, a side which bats first and leads by at least 200 runs has the option of requiring the other side to follow-on.
• in a match of three or four days, 150 runs;
• in a two-day match, 100;
• in a one-day (two-innings per side) match, 75.

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.

Enforcing the follow-on[link]

The follow-on is not automatic; the captain of the leading team decides whether to enforce it. This is a tactical decision which the captain will (or should) make based on the state of the game, the apparent strength of the two sides, and the time remaining.

Conventional theory argues that the follow-on is almost always enforced. In his classic text The Art of Captaincy, Mike Brearley deals with the issue in a single paragraph and finds the advantages of doing so overwhelming.^[1] Certainly there are strong reasons for enforcing the follow on. The main reason is one of time. 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 will end in a draw. Indeed it is a common tactic for a side which appears to be well-beaten to bat cautiously in its second innings and use up the remaining time so that the game does end this way. Enforcing the follow-on means that the trailing side takes its second innings earlier in the game and will therefore find it much harder to play for a draw by using up time. 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.

However, there are several reasons for not enforcing. Firstly and most simply, it is tiring for bowlers to bowl for two consecutive innings, and it may not be as easy to dismiss a side cheaply in its second innings as it was in its first. Secondly, not enforcing the follow-on is a cautious but perhaps prudent tactic which prevents a team from losing. If the side batting first has a substantial lead on first innings, it can add to that by taking its second innings straightaway and either scoring enough runs and/or using up enough time to give the side batting second no chance of victory at all. While this does increase the chances of a game ending in a draw, it can also be demotivating for the side batting second to have nothing to play for. Finally, it is also usually considered a disadvantage to bat last, when the pitch has deteriorated by wear and there are more natural variations to its bounce and ability to take spin. A captain who does not enforce the follow-on avoids this risk, and allows his own bowlers to take advantage of the worn pitch.

In recent years there has perhaps been a trend against enforcing the follow-on in Test cricket. England captain Andrew Strauss has on several occasions adopted the cautious tactic of taking his second innings straightaway. It has, though, had some notable successes, for instance at Lord's in the 2009 Ashes series. Here, Australia were 210 behind on first innings but did not follow on; England batted again, set Australia a highly unlikely victory target of 522, and won the game easily. For their part, Australian captains Steve Waugh and Ricky Ponting were also notably reluctant to enforce the follow-on, although that was perhaps more to do with allowing Shane Warne to bowl on a deteriorating pitch later in the game.

Victories by sides following-on[link]

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.

The 1894–95 Ashes[link]

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 (in this era, pitches were not covered between days of play), 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,^[2] and went on to win the series 3–2.

The biggest turnaround[link]

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.^[3] Hampshire's first innings total of 15 remains the lowest score for a completed innings by a winning team.

Botham's test — England v Australia, Headingley, 1981[link]

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, resumed the reins for the third Test, at Headingley. This started out very badly: Australia scored 401 (John Dyson 102; Kim Hughes 89; Botham 6–95), 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. 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.^[4] It was the first time since the 1894–95 Ashes that a side following on had gone on to win a Test match.

India v Australia, Eden Gardens 2001[link]

Australia, who had won their 16 previous Test matches, including the first of the three-Test series between the two teams,^[5] had scored 445 in the first innings of the second Test and restricted India to 171; only V. V. S. Laxman (59) and Rahul Dravid reached 25 runs. 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 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, surprisingly, there was not even a single six from the winning side in either innings, and then on the final day 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 runs 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.^[6] 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 for taking 32 wickets.^[7]

Longest period without being forced to follow-on in test cricket[link]

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.

The History of the follow-on[link]

• 1787 First known instance.
• 1835 Compulsory after a deficit of 100 runs.
• 1854 After a deficit of 80 runs.
• 1894 After a deficit of 120 runs.
• 1900 Made optional, after a deficit of 150 runs.
• 1961 In abeyance in County Championship. Restored in 1963.^[8]

Notes[link]

1. ^ Brearley, M. The Art of Captaincy. Macmillan, 1988, p.212
2. ^ 1st TEST: Australia v England at Sydney Cricket Ground, 14–20 Dec 1894
3. ^ Warwickshire v Hampshire at Birmingham, 14–16 Jun 1922
4. ^ 3rd TEST: England v Australia at Leeds, 16–21 Jul 1981
5. ^ "Test No. 1531 — Border-Gavaskar Trophy, 1st Test, 2000/01, India v Australia". ESPNcricinfo. http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/engine/match/63919.html. Retrieved 2011-09-23. 
6. ^ "Test No. 1535 — Border-Gavaskar Trophy, 2nd Test, 2000/01, India v Australia". ESPNcricinfo. http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/engine/match/63920.html. Retrieved 2011-09-23. 
7. ^ "Test No. 1539 — Border-Gavaskar Trophy, 3rd Test, 2000/01, India v Australia". ESPNcricinfo. http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/engine/match/63921.html. Retrieved 2011-09-23. 
8. ^ 1966 edition of Wisden Cricketer's Almanack, p153.