Source: Telegraph
The Ashes: Andrew Strauss vindicated in decision not to enforce followon
If Australia had begun their second innings on Saturday morning, 210 runs behind, what is indisputable is that there were still 82 overs scheduled to be bowled on the third day, although because of bad light only 71 were bowled.[LNB]It is almost as indisputable that Australia would have scored at a decent rate. Lord's has a quick, well-drained outfield. England, in search of victory, would have had close fielders around the bat for at least some of the time.[LNB] Related ArticlesClose: Clarke and Haddin set up tense finishThe Ashes: England v Australia liveEngland and Australia walk Ashes tightropeThe Ashes: live scoresClarke leads rearguardAshes video highlightsEven if Australia had scored at only three runs an over when following on, they would have knocked off the arrears by the end of the third day. The number of wickets which England would have taken is entirely a matter of guesswork. But Australia would surely have started day four in the black.[LNB]Supposing – just supposing – Australia had scored 313 for five off the first 86 overs of their second innings, as they did in the fourth innings of this match, and then ploughed on. It is likely they would have posted 400 and England would have faced a target of 200, at least, to chase on the last day.[LNB]It doesn't bear much thinking about. Ben Hilfenhaus has been the most consistently potent pace bowler in this series. Nathan Hauritz has proved himself to be no mug with the ball, steady and possessed of some bounce. Even if Mitchell Johnson and Peter Siddle are expensive because they pitch too short, England would have had a run-chase under real pressure – saddled with the extra thought that they had beaten Australia only once on this ground since 1896.[LNB]Australia go into the fifth day with a theoretical chance of winning: they have to raise the bar of the highest successful run-chase in Test history by more than 100 runs. But if they had followed on, they would now – surely – have a more than theoretical chance of winning.[LNB]And suppose all those umpiring decisions which went against the tourists on Sunday had gone Australia's way when following on. Simon Katich was dismissed by what should have been called a no-ball; Phil Hughes was given out caught to a ball which was more likely to have dropped short than to have carried to Strauss at first slip; and Mike Hussey was given out caught off a ball which did not touch his bat, according to Hot Spot.[LNB]England were lucky. But they were lucky because the luck in cricket seems to favour the winning side. And there seemed to be only one winner as Australia set off in pursuit of 522 to win.[LNB]Another momentous day. Another typically pugnacious Australian fightback when they were five wickets down and all seemed lost. Michael Clarke was pure class, a brilliant offside driver, a master of footwork and hence of spin. Brad Haddin was more dogged but a perfect support.[LNB]The stoppage for bad light favoured England. After 86 overs in the field they needed a break and the chance to recharge overnight. Clarke and Haddin will have to start again in the morning, and while they can carry on merrily for a while, the closer they get the more pressure they will feel. The decision not to enforce the follow on was still the right one. [LNB]
