Steve Smith's decision not to ask Pakistan to bat again in the first Test match in Brisbane on Saturday raises the question of whether there is any point to the follow-on rule at all. If not now, with a lead of almost 300 runs over a poorly-prepared and demoralised opponent, when?
It also raises the question of whether the young Australian team missed an opportunity. By mid-afternoon, Pakistan's batsmen might have been on the conveyor belt in and out of their changing room for the second time in 24 hours. Instead, their bowlers were gathering form, David Warner was frustratedly out again, Matthew Renshaw had failed for the first time in Test cricket, and NIc Maddinson was given 10 minutes to hit out or get out.
Those who made the most of their centre-wicket practice were the in-form Smith, Usman Khawaja and Peter Handscomb, so no incremental gains there. If anyone took heart from Australia's second innings, which was essentially dilatory in purpose, it was Pakistan.
Related Content
By the time Pakistan batted again after the dinner break, the balance of fear between the teams had shifted, albeit subtly and hardly enough to change the likely destination of this match. Because Australia had hesitated rather than going in for the kill, the Pakistan top order had been shown a degree of respect that their first innings had not warranted. And from that, they gained self-respect. The night-time rout, which was the main object of Australia's plan, did not eventuate, so they are now left with the long hot grind that they were trying to avoid, only a day later and without the advantage of a second innings still up their sleeve.
Smith's decision is not completely baffling only because it is not unusual. Modern-day captains are constitutionally averse to enforcing the follow-on option. Michael Clarke waited until his retirement Test match, in 2015, to do it. In that game, at the Oval, Australia won easily – as teams that enforce the follow-on have done almost without exception.
The follow-on has fallen out of fashion in sync with the closer supervision of bowlers' health and fitness. To bowl at an opponent twice in succession – even when they have done their first innings work in just 55 overs – is deemed beyond the contemporary bowler's endurance. The fear of a Mitchell Starc breakdown is enough to put the shivers through any captain, coach and support staff.
Fear has a lot to do with it: fear of breakdowns, fear of Pakistan working their way into the match and setting Australia a testing fourth-innings target. Smith's decision, albeit conventional by today's standards, was based on conservatism which in turn is based on worrying about worst-case scenarios.
Is the fear justified? When it comes to the bowlers' well-being, it is possible that Starc and company had inside information about themselves and were worried, or told to be worried, about the risks of going out and bowling again in the hot Queensland sun. But that sun was only going to be high in the sky for another two hours of play when the third innings started. There can be a point at which careful management becomes over-management.
As for concerns about a Pakistani batting fightback after the events of Friday night, that beggars belief. Only three teams have won a Test match after following on. England did it in 1894/95 after rain turned the Sydney Cricket Ground wicket into a quagmire on the last morning. England did it in Headingley in 1981 because of Ian Botham. India did it in Kolkata in 2001 due to some once-in- a-century cricket from Rahul Dravid, VVS Laxman and Harbhajan Singh. With due respect to the endeavour of the touring Pakistanis, there was more chance of the bogy man jumping out from under the bed than of their winning this game after following on.
Australia's decision shades into superstition. Having had it happen to them three times in 140 years has left them snakebit about the follow-on. It would be more rational to be afraid of the dark. And if any team on the Gabba should have been afraid of the dark, it would be Pakistan. But they addressed the evening session with gumption and even a little momentum.
Most likely, the decision not to enforce the follow-on would have no impact on the ultimate winner of this match. (Although the decision, effectively extending the match into Sunday, does bring the forecast rain into the equation, and paradoxically by playing it safe Australia could potentially have increased their risk of not winning.) If the decision had little effect on whether Australia won, it would influence how they won. They had the chance to bury Pakistan twice in two days and plunge them into crisis. Instead, by being overly manipulative of the conditions, hoping to finesse the narrative of the Test match around the rise and fall of the sun, and by yielding to fear, the Australians surrendered a chance to destroy Pakistan's confidence and beef up their own.