Alastair Cook faced a lot of criticism for not enforcing follow-on against Pakistan in the second Test.
All hell broke loose when England captain Alastair Cook decided against putting Pakistan to follow-on even after garnering a lead of 391 with two days' play left. On the other hand, a certain Virat Kohli went the aggressive way by asking the West Indians to bat again after taking a 323-run first innings lead. While both the teams won on the fourth day, cricket pundits were particularly harsh on the English skipper for playing it safe.
There are only two instances when England haven't enforced follow-on after securing a lead of over 391 runs. Back in the year 1930 they led by 563 runs but decided to bat again resulting in a drawn test match while two years before that, they won a match against Australia by 675 runs after having an advantage of 399 runs in the first innings.
So was Cook's decision too defensive? It was a cautious call to some extent, but he had his point in doing what he did.
Unlike the West Indies versus India match, where only 13 overs were left in that day, the Old Trafford game had around 30 overs' play remaining on Day 3 (which was ultimately cut down to 21 due to rain interruptions) when Pakistan were bowled out for 198 and Cook wanted to give his bowlers much-needed rest before an expected tiresome penultimate day of the match.
Also, the visitors were mentally and physically drained and Cook wanted to cash in on that very weakness and unleash a knock-out punch. His plan worked wonders as none of the Pakistani bowlers except Mohammad Amir managed to trouble the English batters.
Thirdly, another strong batting performance in the second innings, have already hit Pakistan hard as their area of strength - bowling, which demolished the British in the Lord's Test was left looking for answers. Given the fact that the visitors are vulnerable on the batting and fielding fronts, this decision of Cook may go a long way in swaying the psychological advantage in favour of the hosts.
Lastly, unlike the Windies, Misbah's men had seasoned campaigners like Mohammad Hafeez, Younis Khan and the skipper himself in their ranks, who were more than able to turn the table in the second innings. So in all probabilities, Cook didn't want a repeat of the historic 2001 Eden Test which India won by 171 runs after being asked to follow-on.
Over the years many teams have shied away from enforcing follow-on remembering the Kolkata test when India famously turned the table. It is an ode to the fickle nature of the game and the inherent belief of being safe than sorry by making the lead unassailable. But with a lowly West Indies, Kohli didn't need to go for such safety measures. Kohli whose captaincy closely mirrors his personal value system of how he approaches a game decided to play on the front foot and go for the kill. Cook on the other hand, is an old-school English captain who wanted to really slow cook (pun intended) the opposition to death. Finally, both the teams won comprehensively and that is what matters the most. But in test cricket, where getting 20 wickets is the sole requisite for winning, an aggressive form of captaincy is likely to pay off more dividends in the long run.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Virat Kohli and Alastair Cook")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}