-
Did Stokes know he was crocked during the first NZ innings? Imagine he would have planned to bowl a bit more than he could.
villa-ru-
I dunno, but that makes the decision to bowl again even more misjudged if he did. Something about it felt wrong at the time (which I voiced earlier on the thread). For me, if you're enforcing a follow-on, you don't want to bat again or, at the very least, only bat for a few overs to get 40-odd. They were only 224 behind and were invited to bat again on a day three pitch. Against old bowlers and potentially one part-time bowler (Stokes) down. It made for a terrific test match, but I don't think it was tactically a great move versus, I dunno, going in to bat again and teeing off royally to stick another 350 runs on the board.
E2a: I'm usually the first to criticise a side for not enforcing a follow-on, but this time felt like the time Flintoff did it in Australia.
ketsbaia
The other factor against the follow-on (assuming they're trying to win and not just entertain) is the fact Broad and Anderson have a combined age of over 75, which can't have helped. I think if they'd skittled NZ out for 130 in 35 overs, that's one thing. But 200+ in more than 50 overs potentially was too many in the legs. Neither of them had much impact in the second innings.