The reaction was just as predictable as the decision itself.
As Australia knocked over Pakistan for 148 to take a 408-run lead heading into the third innings at Karachi, skipper Pat Cummins gave the nod to his top-order to head back into the change rooms to pad up.
Despite being well within in their rights to make Pakistan bat again and shoot for the most humiliating of results in cricket — an outright victory — Australia played it safe.
Bat again, build up the lead early on day four, and hope the star-studded Australian bowling line up could topple the Pakistanis in a day and half.
It has become the apparent modus operandi of Australian captains for the better part of 20 years, and the inevitable criticism from cricket pundits and fans alike always comes back to one place.
Kolkata.
What is the follow-on in cricket?
First of all, a quick run down on the follow-on for those who haven't been playing along at home.
The option of enforcing a follow-on is offered to a team who bats first, and then dismisses the opposition in the second innings for 200 or more runs fewer than the first team scored. The captain of the team that batted first can then tell the other team to 'follow-on' — meaning, to bat again.
Should the opposition lose all their wickets a second time without reaching the total of the first innings, it's a humiliating loss. Should they surpass the first innings score, the team that has only batted once thus far can then go out again and attempt to chase down those runs, if there's enough time left in the match.
So using this Test as an example, Australia scored 556 in the first innings. Pakistan would need to score 356 or more to avoid the question being asked of Cummins around whether he wanted to make them bat again. They scored 148.
But Cummins decided not to send Pakistan back out to the crease, instead choosing to build on Australia's run lead further.
It's a decision that was always going to elicit criticism.
Why would a team enforce the follow-on?
Former England captain Mike Brearley was adamant that making the opposition bat again, should you have the option, was the right decision to make.
"The main reason to enforce the follow-on is to prevent a draw," Brearley wrote in his 1985 book The Art of Captaincy.
"Batting last, the chasing side can bat cautiously and use up time to draw the match rather than lose, and the follow-on gives them more time, making that strategy more difficult.
"Enforcing the follow-on can also increase the pressure on the chasing team, since they have already posted an inferior score, and the state of the pitch often deteriorates as a match progresses."
On only three occasions has a team that has been forced to follow-on gone on to win the Test match.
The first, in 1894, came after Australia needed just 63 runs to win with eight wickets in hand heading into the final day at the SCG. As Sydney is wont to do during cricket season, the heavens opened over night, and given this was an era when pitches were not covered when it rained, the turf became unplayable on day five, with the Australians falling short by 10 runs.
The second time was the Ian Botham Test at Headingley, which has gone down in history as one of the greatest moments in Test cricket, and which you can read about here.
And the third ... well, the third we will get to.
From 1980 (when the 200-run rule was introduced) to 2001, the follow-on was enforced 89 times from 852 Test matches — that's about 10.4 per cent of all Tests. Since then, the percentage has actually increased across the board to 11.2 per cent.
Australia, for what it's worth, called for the follow-on in about 7 per cent of their Tests from 1980 to 2001, however that includes matches where the follow-on was not an option. When you condense the stats to only matches where the option was present, Aussie captains almost uniformly decided to send their opponents back in.
And then Kolkata happened.
What happened with the follow-on in Kolkata, 2001?
After the soggy pitch Test and the Ian Botham Test, the Kolkata Test is the only other match in which the following-on team came away with victory.
It sparked what some pundits call the VVS Effect.
It came after Steve Waugh's all-conquering Australians headed to the sub-continent on the greatest Test roll in history, destroying India in their first clash of the series to set a world record 16 wins in a row.
Batting first in the second Test, Matthew Hayden (97 from 157 balls), Waugh (110 from 203) and Jason Gillespie (46 from 147) helped the Aussies to a total of 445, before rolling the Indians for 171.
Naturally, Waugh sent India back in.
It didn't go well.
VVS Laxman and Rahul Dravid combined to score 461 runs between them, facing 805 balls along the way as Australia gave nine of their 11 players a trundle with the ball, with only wicketkeeper Adam Gilchrist and all-rounder Waugh not rolling the arm over.
Chasing 384 to win on a deteriorating pitch, the Australian scorecard read as a really one-dimensional game of dodgeball, with Mark Waugh (duck), Ponting (duck), Gilchrist (duck) and Shane Warne (duck) all going without scoring, while Hayden (67) and Michael Slater (43) were the only batters who decided some dipping and diving was in order.
Australia would go all out for 212, lose their first Test in 17 matches, and then fall again in the series decider as Harbhajan Singh took 15 wickets to decimate the Aussies in Chennai.
And, it would mean Australia would never enforce the follow on again ... right?
Wrong.
Does Australia still enforce the follow on?
The Kolkata Test was the first opportunity Waugh ever had as captain to enforce the follow-on, and while it didn't go well, he did not shy away from sending his opponents back in during future matches.
On seven occasions, Waugh had the opportunity to force his opponent back out to bat, and he took the option every time, winning all seven Tests.
While the narrative that Australia's reluctance to enforce the follow-on points to a stat that the Aussies only use the option about 30 per cent of the time post-Kolkata, it had less to do with the ghosts of Laxman and Dravid and more to do with a captaincy change, with the less aggressive Ponting taking charge in 2004 and using the follow-on option just four times in 13 opportunities.
Since Ponting's time at the top, future Australian captains have taken a similar approach, although the last time Australia enforced the follow on came in 2019, when David Warner scored 335 in the first innings against Pakistan to lead the Aussies to an outright victory.
Why did Pat Cummins not enforce the follow-on against Pakistan?
Without looking too deeply into the hows and whys, the follow-on works. In the 292 times it has been used in Test cricket history, 230 follow-ons have led to victory, 59 have ended in draws, and there's been the three aforementioned losses, all to Australia.
So with the weight of history on his side, why would Cummins not decide to get things over and done with right there and then?
Commentator Mike Haysman left viewers in no doubt as to what he thought.
"Australia are batting again. I am astonished by that," he said.
"Pakistan trail by 408, and Australia are batting again. I don’t understand that at all.
"And the workload has not been anything substantial whatsoever. I am stunned, I’m afraid. I am astounded that Australia are batting again. Astounded."
Haysman was right about the workload, with Australia bowling just 53 overs to skittle Pakistan. But while history suggests the follow-on was the right move, history is just that — a thing of the past.
In seasons gone, players might have had weeks to recover between Test matches. In this series, the third Test starts just four days after the second Test concludes.
In seasons gone, about 30 years ago, the annual mean temperature in Pakistan was a full degree less than it is now, and another half day spent in 32C heat rather than air conditioned change rooms will likely sap the energy of Pakistani batters.
And, in seasons gone, pitches tended to break down quicker than they do now, with another half day of Pakistani boots pounding into the wicket helping form those divots and cracks that will assist Australian bowlers in toppling the batting order again.
Australia took just 53 overs to see off Pakistan in the first innings. With 120-odd overs, an energy-sapped Pakistani team, and a pitch breaking down by the minute, Cummins's decision to not side with the weight of history and instead follow the path of his more recent predecessors should pay dividends not only in this Test, but in this history-making series.
Follow day four of the second Test on ABC Sport's live blog with Jon Healy at abc.net.au/sport
