Dravid must have churned, memories of lost opportunities whizzing past. Bridgetown 1997, when a batting collapse cost the series, Cape Town 2006, when another opportunity was squandered. Had he just blown his biggest game? His innings was nervy: 12 balls to get off the mark, 35 balls to get off 2. He was beaten by swing, struck on the body by pace. This was exactly like some of his one-day innings in the late nineties, when batting became an almighty struggle. The crowd booed, he floundered. No boundary till his 91st ball, five balls later he was gone.

He was dwarfed by Sourav Ganguly's brilliance, contributing just five in a 65-run partnership. Like a high-schooler who'd blanked out in an important exam, Dravid groped nervously. He concentrated all his energies on survival, half-hearted drives going straight to fielders. His initial doggedness was understandable but it was soon apparent that he'd cornered himself not to play a stroke. At some level the decision appeared to have got to him.

The decision will be dissected threadbare if England bat out the final day. At that point, though, it wasn't without its merits: India's bowlers would get a rest (it was learnt later in the day that Zaheer Khan was suffering from a thigh strain). Additionally Anil Kumble would get final use of the pitch, on a ground where England had never batted more than 105.1 overs in the final innings.

Fifty years from now Rahul Dravid will not be remembered as a captain who didn't enforce the follow-on in a game India could afford to draw

Yet the move sent out a negative message. Dravid had been positive right through the series, and even said he'd do everything in his capacity to win this Test. England were bleeding and there was no better time to twist the knife. Rain was forecast for tomorrow, another reason to hasten the end. Leave on a high, trample over the opposition, especially when you're in their backyard. The macroscopic view is instructive. Only once in this decade have India not enforced the follow-on, the Sydney Test of 2004. Then, like here, an Indian captain was at the threshold of a moment so revealing that he chose safety over adventure. An away-series win is such a rarity that Indian captains on the brink are bound to get edgy. Despite all their differences, Dravid behaved just the way Ganguly did at Sydney. First he thought of avoiding defeat, only then did he think of a win. Like a left-arm spinner bowling over the wicket, it was a negative strategy intended to produce a positive result. It covered all bases - seal the series, yet give yourself a chance to win the match. He first concentrated on winning the war, only then did he think of the final battle. Fifty years from now Rahul Dravid will not be remembered as a captain who didn't enforce the follow-on in a game India could afford to draw. Dravid arrived in England with a job, he will achieve the bottomline. One-nil or 2-0 is purely academic.

I feel Dravid should have got England to follow on.

Yes, I support Dravid's decision an indian because he is looking for larger picture of winning a series than a test.

Indian attack still not excellent as Australia's so comparison doest not mean anything unless they are of the same strength.

yes, yes and YES!!! India will now more prabable to win the game rather than to draw it!!!

Now I do not think that England will find it difficult to bat for 3 more sessions and save the test, thanks to Dravid, who didn't enforce the follow-on. Didn't he want a 2-0 series victory? The excuse of the ballers being tired is really silly. There has been so many games in the past where the follow-on has been enforced, with positive results.

No. Dravid has not been positive enough to enforce the follow on. We had a lead of over 300 and for England to make us bat again they should have got at least 500, which was remote, given the overcast conditions prevalent during the fourth day. Dravid squandered an opportunity for a 2-0 score line.

Dravid played safely as he needs a series win which India had not got it for nearly 20years. I don't think it is wrong in not enforcing the follow on.

No other in the history would do this mistake given such condition. Only Rahul can do it and bat the way he batted. He is burrying the intrest on cricket at deep route level.

We shouldn't think this is a wrong decision because India didn't perform well in II innings. This will allow our bowlers to have some rest. Hope our bowlers will perform well to wrap up the series.

NO.Dravd don't want to win this match just want a draw.

I see this decision of Dravid is to win the series and be bothered with the outcome of this test. Fair enough. wining a test series away after two decades is definitely great achievment. His decision not to offer follow on was definitely not to the liking of cricket fanetics/critics. At the end of the day, our men in blue/white will be holding the Pataudi trophy. Kudos to all of them.

There is a difference between the Sydney Test and the one here - there, losing the match meant losing the series, whereas here, losing the match means drawing the series. Also, there, we were up against Hayden, Ponting, Waugh and Gilchrist, whereas, here, only Vaughan and Pietersen are capable of scoring heavily and quickly.

I think dravid's decision not to enforce the follow on was right but the approach wasn't. He wanted to give his bowlers a rest and at da same time put a daunting total in front of the english so that they literally give in to the massive task they are required to do. But when it came to batting he wasn't up to the mark as a captain should be. Even Tendulkar didn't help by getting out early in second innings and playing extremely slowly in first innings. Apart from Ganguly nobody else seemed to understand the plan underneath the decision not to enforce the follow on.

I would have supported Dravid if our lead is less. India having such a big lead shouldn't have batted for second time. Even our bowlers bowled very less overs on day 4 and they won't be that much tired. Dravid is not positive.

As Sambit said, he certainly reviewed his decision and the new answer got him to his head resulted in congestion. But, who knows, India could still win this game if there going to be lot of clouds and if Kumble has his day. If that happens, no one wants to read this article anylonger nor they would want to give their views. And I want that.

No doubt ! Dravid should have forced the follow-on. 2-0 win was on hand, but very unlikely today. 1. Dravid for sure, should be knowing the overcast conditions.
2. Was Dravid forced by conventional-thinking Chandu Borde and Co. to take a decision like this.
3. The way Anderson swung the ball, Zaheer and Co would have definitely struck 1 or 2 early wickets if not more.
4. Also it was not too long England innings for Indian International standards.

Come-on Jammy don't do it again.

I think Dravid made right decision not to enforce follow on and rest bowlers. As we know now that Zaheer Khan had problem. But I do not support the way he batted. I think he froze in the batting. Hopefully it will not backfire on him and Indian bowlers will be able to get 10 wickets.

yes i think Dravid did make the right decision. 1st of all India will certainly win this series coz this game will either be a win for India or a draw. secondly, had England made 500 while following on and set India 200 target with 50 overs left on day 5, who knows they could have collapsed under pressure...for instance, what if they got to 3-11 and Dravid eventually got out earlier in his innings? then India would certainly have lost the match...if u guys remember, India did lose a game to West Indies some years back chasing only 79 something for victory in the 4th innings on day 5...Dravid surely would have thought of that...

Dravid has shown optimism, He knows the ball is in his court, England would first try to save the match, and then try to win, In this pretex Indai has a better chance to win the match.

The decision to not enforce the follow-on was ok; but then the decison should have been to bat 120+ runs QUICKLY, regardless of how many wickets lost and damage to personal batting averages. Now England might save this.

Dravid is right. With Zaheer not fully fit and the wicket expected to go vary on the last day, he is right. If pitch becomes uneven and batting on the last day is always a challenge. Now its upto kumble to make it 2-0.Well done Saurav and VVS Laxman.

The other day Sunil Gavaskar was on TV proudly claiming how India can go on to beat Australia and become the number 1 team. Well, with such apparent lack of self belief, India will never become a great team. Even an Ozzy schoolboys team would have believed that they could have rolled this English team over with a lead of 300+. No wonder as a country we have always been under achievers - this is the biggest difference between us and teams like Australia, South Africa or even New Zealand!

Yes He is right .
As Sunny said, it is the right thing to do bat freely in the second innings

If india were to bat the way they batted they were better off enforcing the follow on. Having chosen to bat they should have been more positive they could have lost 10 wickets for 100 runs and still saved a lot of time and won the match. I presume India should have enforced the follow on with a surplus of 319. If a team cannot enforce followon with 319 no team can ever enforce the follow on.

Not asking England to follow on can sum up the lack of confidence that Indian team has especially the captain, Rahul Dravid. We had England on the mat considering the lead of 300 plus. Instead of going for the kill we decided to play safe. Over the time cricket has become a mental game. But we as a country and a team have to come out of this complacent mindset and should play to win matches taking a cue from Australia.

We need to change our (Dravid's) mindset. The follow-on was not imposed 'cause Dravid was afraid of defeat. If it were Ganguly, I am 100% sure that follow-on was offered and we should all have backed it. POOR DRAVID.

Dravid should ahve enforced the follow-on and gone for the attack. Its time we had a captain who takes an aggresive stand. Merely thinking of avoiding defeat and only then thinking of victory is a short term negative mindset which time and again have hindered India. This is what separates the greats from the also ran...

When you have the opposition down you put your hob-nailed boots on their throat and rub their faces into the ground. What you do not do, when you have a lead of over 300, is to let them get up, dust themselves off, and come back at you! Now, regardless of whether India win, draw or lose this test, some of the psychological advantage has been lost. England have managed to salvage some self-respect. By having India at 32 for 3, they erased most of the ignominy of the first innings.

Of-course Dravid made the correct decision. And also all the professional pundits, who claim to be adventurous, would have done the same had they found themselves in a real time situation. Get real you are here to win the series and why give a hint of a chance to your opposition when you have the control.

It is said and rightly so "That a Bird in Hand is worth two in the bush"; Dravid's prime responsibility is to win the series and he did this irrespective of whether the decision was dynamic or even unromantic; it shows high degree of focus and professionalism and kudos to him.

Yes ,dravid made a good decison by not to enforce follow-on.We still dont have bowling attack to take 20 wickets at a strecth in good batting condition.i think he batted well on the condition where ganguly is going wel at the other end.We need to win the series.it really doesnt matter
1-0 or 2-0 when it comes to final result.Final result counts only the course of the series and not the course of the match

Initially I was outraged at the thought of not enforcing a follow on.A rare opportunity to rub in salt into pommy wounds was lost. However, in retrospect, I think there is no place for jingoism in Modern day cricket. Discretion is a better part of valour as vents later on fourth day proved. Pitch is playing easy and bowlers have a handful of putting the ball in right places given the prospect of a fast outfield, increasingly dusty wicket and a determined opponent. It is easy to armchair, but the ground situation is totally different. Yes Sir, Dravid thought well and played well for his 96 ball stone wall. England will have to take risks to accelerate nad there lies a chance. Kartik, please hold catches.

Well no team has chased more than 300 at the oval and it would have taken a great effort from england to score 300 in the third innings forget about getting 400 or 500 and even if england managed to get 500 the match would have petered to a draw. So on all counts India should have enforced the follow on.

It was a bad decision and poor defencive batting as well. Only Laxman and ganguly batted positively.When your team leads by 300+ runs you would want to give your bowlers the maximum time possible to bowl opposiiton out. You may have to score 100 runs in say 30 overs on last day. If you dont want to take risk then Dravid can play the way he did yesterday and still save the game and still win series! VVS creates fear in every captain's mind with what he did in Calcutta. But every one can't be a Laxman. Dravid was fearing KP to do that? This has not happened before but if the pitch is good for batting why can't england score 440 in 90 overs.There is a lways a first and Dravid has given sniff of a chance to England now.
If Engalnd plan this way it is still probable:
50 overs target 200 for the loss of 1 or 2 wkts.
Then review and aim to score 250 in 40 overs which
is possible with teams used now not only to 50 overs but 20-20 as well!!!

Yes, it is right thing to win the series first and then go on win 2 - 0.

I think, if you think from the perspective of Mr. Dravid. He did absolutely the right thing, by not enforcing the follow on. The only thing that failed him was his relaible openers and the greatest batsman in the world. His plan looked like a target of 500 (which he achieved) in 125 overs(here he lost 15 overs). In my opinion, if we can't get them in 110 overs then how does it matter, if we had 15 more. We still would win 2-0. Hey, how does it matter, even if we take it 1-0. Series win is series win. Did you hear all the english commentrators rooting for 5 tests, when in the begining they said 3 at this time is more. Hmmmmm... Chak De India.. We need the series, we can debate on the score line later.

Dravid should have enforced follow-on.
probably he wanted to avoid batting on the
last day when the pitch is expected to take
lot of turn and facing panesar may be difficult;
but then, he should have confidence in his bowlers who have done a good job in this series;

Even the mighty australians with the likes of Mcgrath,Lee and Warne...fear to enforce the follow ontheir opposition after the kolkata test...i dont feel dravid was at fault by not enforcing the followon..just becoz india lost 3 quick wickets..u cannot imagine the english men also would have lost 3-4 quick wickets..the entire episode is blown up..only thing is that the declaration should have come some 15-20 overs earlier with a target of 450 which would have put the englishmen in dilemma whether to playout or go for the series leveller...

Rahul is correct becauze he only knows the condition of the bowlers whether they able to continue or not.

Are you kidding me? How can this decision be justified except as a supreme act of cowardice and/or bad logic?

If India had enforced the follow-on, what is the worst that could have happened? England would have batted through the remainder of Day 4 and probably until first drinks on the 5th. Assuming that India had bowled badly enough in the space of those 100 odd overs to let England score at, say, 5 an over (almost impossible, in my opinion), England would have had a lead of about 180. And then, India would have had to collapse against the likes of Anderson and Monty to have lost the match. That is taking it beyond even the realms of fantasy.

Realistically, if England had followed-on, they would, at best for them, have batted through Day 4 and Day 5 and drawn the match. Any target that they would have set would have been eminently achievable, failing which Dravid could have still pottered around for his 96-ball 12 for the 4th innings to save India from defeat.

Not to enforce the follow-on was a gutless decision. It showed little desire to win the match.
But, having decided to bat again, there should have been some out-of-box thinking. In any such situation when tailenders are unlikely to get to bat, they should be sent up to open especially if there is even the slightest hint of pinch-hitting skills. Even wild swings are likely to pay dividends. The risk is ZERO on possible returns.
India should have treated the innings as, if not a 20/20 one, at least as the last 20 overs of an ODI

it doesnt matter whether he did or didnt enforce. the simple fact of the matter is that india are going to win this series. dravid was told to go to england and beat them. that is what he has done and that is what history will judge him for. ofcourse the english (and some indians) will complain for a number of reasons but mentioned above is the bottom line. Winning is really all that matters and this is something which perhaps the English should take from Dravid's captining of the side. England need a captain like this, not a ditherer like Vaughan.

Dravid did the right thing.
No matter whether its 2-0 or 1-0.
We should not forget the abilities of opposition, which has in form batsmen like Pietersen and Collingwood.
Remember what happened in Kolkata( VVS & Dravid's damage ).
That too playing fourth innings in these conditions is very difficult for any team.
So guys, we don't need to blame Dravid's decision.
Lets hope for the best from India on final day.

in one way Dravid did the right thing and in the other he did not.I think his desicion is not bad but India should have got 3wickets yesterday.

I do not know what the statement 'played for safety' means.

It is only now you are not safe. If england chooses to attack, reasoning that anyway the series is lost, so play for a win, and if they are succesful, then where is the safety?

remember, there are one dayers and twenty twenty play where this is just an ordinary target. The only point is the mental reservation not to play like that in a test, which is an artifical distinction....Luckily, the english have a mental makeup which is unlike the west Indies...!

Safety lies in enforcing the followon, simply because you can bat last.. and plan your strategy accordingly !!
two days to bowl out the English and then try for a win or play for a draw...

Dravid's decision not only shows what a spineless and unimaginative skipper he is but it also speaks volumes about his confidence in this so called "legendary" Indian batting line up!

yes I think Dravid did the right thing. If he had given a follow on and if England had gone on to score well giving India a lead of about 150 runs then a batting collapse would have costed us the series. moreover it was still a batting wicket and only on the final day the spinners might have been effective. so the best chance to win was not to hand them a follow on. Great decision Dravid.

Well well we as indians are thought to be very safe frm our childhood. so dravids decision shows how scared he was in-case we loose.we cant brag being the best coz we dont take risks. Generally we are safe and sound people not risky and high-fi. so this also gives test match a boring slate. who has time to watch 5 days of ur life to see wht is going on...bye sait.....hurrey 20-20 will rule the world.

It was a monumental blunder not to enforce the follow on. With england on the mat,dravid should have gone for the kill and tightened the noose.The way the ball was swinging,England would have lost at least half the side yesterday itself had the follow on been enforced.today's play would have been a mere formality.dravid has never been an inspirational captain and now the burden of captaincy seem to be weighing very heavily on him-he tends to lose his concentration all too often while batting these days and gets out to poor strokes>india just can't afford to sacrifice its best batsman at the altar of captaincy.Either Karthik or dhoni should be made captain of test squad.

Frankly speaking we have become a society of Hypocrats, Dravid played according to the need of the hour, if India win the series he will become a hero and if India would have imposed a follow-on and lost the match it would have been the same people who would have termed him foolish, and immature as a captain.

I think he did what was best for the team, in both not imposing the follow-on and also batting the way he did.

Yes its the right decision.If u want to know why ask go back and watch india-aus match at kolkata where dravid and vvs won a near impossible match.. miracles do happen and Dravid has almost stopped it..but if by any chance England score 500 and win, then they deserve to win..but thats remotest of remote chance..as its the rarest of rare away series win for India.Well done Dravid!

Well... Dravid wanted to ensure that he dint lose the series.. which in all means he has done.. but at the end of the day... the difference in the aussies and us is exactly this... we are more defensive ... im quite sure that a more adventurous captain would havve gone for a win rather than a draw... anyways at the end of the day.. its gonna b an indian series win abroad.. so no one will complain.. including me.. hahaha... though personally.. i dont think Dravid is half as good a captain as ganguly was....

Not to enforce the follow-on was a gutless decision. It showed little desire to win the match.
But, having decided to bat again, there should have been some out-of-box thinking. In any such situation when tailenders are unlikely to get to bat, they should be sent up to open especially if there is even the slightest hint of pinch-hitting skills. Even wild swings are likely to pay dividends. The risk is ZERO on possible returns.
India should have treated the innings as, if not a 20/20 one, at least as the last 20 overs of an ODI

I think Rahul has sone the right thing by not imposing the follow-on on the flat wicket, but his own batting was so pathetic.

No, I would say Dravid's decision was wrong. because we had 300 plus lead and Englishmen have been playing very nervous. Dravid might have been thought our bowlers got tired & we already up in the series why should we take a risk? He thought fully negative. I would say if Gangly instaed of Dravid's place deffinately he would have enforced them into follow on.

Dravid did the right thing. England can score more than 450+ in that pitch with almost 160 overs left. It may be similar to what had happened in 1990. It is different thinking and putting pressure on England that they are chasing 500.

Rahul's decision is a very safe decision. He was more worried about batting last with English getting a score of around 450 and he chasing 130 Runs. He remembered about the Trent Bridge chase.

I support the decision taken by Dravid, though at first--after a bad second inning by India--the decision looks not so good. but now Indian bowlers have had atleast a days rest and they can still take 10 wickets in 90 overs and win the Test, but england can no way make 450 on final day to win the test. think positive...had India made a blistering second inning runs and declared at 200 for 3 in 20 overs less ..nobody would have complained....

People tend to get edgy..but not a thinking captain like Dravid...

i think that there is no pleasing the commentators and the arm chair critics. The simple thing is that veterans who have never manged to win a series are giving advice to those who are managing to do it. What is the bottom line? Does a 2-0 matter with a risk of 1-1 or does a assured 1-0 with no risk matter. I think the Indian public and the "experts" should lay off. What matters is the result at the end of day which will say that India has won the series after so many years in England. Period!

No, I think Rahul gave away a golden opportunity
by not enforcing the follow-on. England were under lot of pressure and it was the right time to go 2-0 up but I m afraid just like Cape Town he has failed to capitalise.

I believe Rahul made a big mistake.
By enforcing the f/o Rahul had the series all sewn up. He could have either won or drawn this match.
By not enforcing the f.o. he has opened the third door of losing the match and drawing the series.

Even though, I would have wished for Dravid going for the kill, by enforcing the follow-on, we have to view things in a broader angle. Just because England got dismissed in one innings, doesn't mean that we can do it again. And, if at all they went through with scoring heavily, even a 100+ target could have been very daunting to chase on the last day for India, which was very well shown when they batted second losing 3 wickets within 20 runs. We have had records in the past of losing wickets and submitting on the last day chasing, even for smaller targets. Hence, Dravid did the right thing to secure the series. But, I only wish for a day when Indian could emulate Australia and up their cricket to high standards. Hopefully, the next generation would do it in future.

YES. As you have so aptly put it in the last line - 1-0 or 2-0 is purely academic. Who knows we can still win this test. Dravid has secured a much wanted away-series win rather than adventuring with all nonsense. Kudos to Dravid. And wish and hope Poms will be as generous as they were in the first innings.

Yes it was a right and wise decision.

Lack of confidence in his team made him not to enforce follow on. He should have enforced it.

I think Dravid did a good job by not forcing England to follow on. The only intent Dravid was having to make the bowlers fresh and fit for the second innings to bowl them out
He is an excellent thinker, that's why the results are there... India winning the matches from abroad

Well,I think that Dravid had wasted a golden chance to naildown England on their home pitch and home crowd.The decision not to enforce follow-on simply exposes the cowardice of Dravid & his lack of confidence in his teams batting which is supposed to be the best in the world(on paper though).He was afraid to bat on the last day, if required.This is hopeless captaincy .But it has exposed him. Also his awful batting (12 runs in96 balls) has wasted lot of valuable overs which would have been decisive in getting england allout.

After reading your article, I feel that Zaheer is the only reason why Dravid didn't enforce the follow-on. If Zaheer was fit enough to withstand bowl another 30 overs, he would have gone for the follow-on. Added to this I feel that Dravid doesn't trust his batsmen to chase even a below-100 score on the final day (remember the Chennai match against Pakistan?). Whichever way it is, Dravid is giving his bowlers 110 overs to bowl the opposition out and win the match. Please don't bring in the changes in weather into picture and complicate the interpretations. If the openers had played well, then Dravid needn't have played defensively. At 11 for 3, any captain would be worried.

Not correct at all. Dravid seems to have more trust in English batting than the Barmy Army. The excuse that Indian bowlers might be tired can hold good in Indian summer not in English summer.

This is probably the best compliment the present English batting line up could have ever got!

Yes, Dravid decision was right because its a flat pitch and our bowlers? We know well about them, its important to win the series

It was a shame to have taken such a meek step. A follow-on was the right answer. The chances of winning was more with a follow on. We only exposed ourselves and could have got ourselves into danger by this approach. You need to be a sport and give the spectators too a reason to watch the game. There is no cricket without spectators and it was a trauma to watch the match yday

Of course it was the correct call... ask the eng captain what he would have preferred to do in field or bat again and he would have jumped at the chance to bat...the only real glimmer to win. Dravid did what every good away series captain should do. Seal the series and then give your team a rest and the best chance (5th day wicket) to try and win the match

Anyone arguing against knows very little about cricket, and pressure of being indian captain.

I think Dravid did right...A series win abroad after 21 years...I wonder which Indian captain would risk it to make the game interesting for couch potatoes like me.

It was a bad decision to not force follow-on on England. It got worse by the virtue of the batting display by the Indians in the 2nd innings.

No wickets so far in the English innings means, match could well end in a draw and England would win the purpose of ending the series with a 0-1 loss rather that 0 -2 which was looking like the most probable end to the series until England got all out yesterday.

It was a shock to learn that Rahul Dravid has chosen not to enforce the follow-on. Its a very negative approach to the sport, which needs lots of positive thinking. We had enough runs to back ourselves up to enforce the follow-on. I strongly disagree the excuse of the bowlers are tired as they have bowled only 7 overs in the morning. Rahul, be positive like a man. Its a sport after all.

Dravid is keeping the way Indians are perceived globally - "a passive lot" intact. When will we ever get out of this shell?
I thought Dravid, the way he handled the series with lot of positive intent, was going in for the kill. What good it would have done for Indian cricket and its millions of followers in the nation to have our team beat England with right positive intent.
What a high we would have finished the series and what glory David would have brought upon himself and the Team.
I do feel Dravid should have enforced the follow-on.

It was purely a wrong decision. This means you do not have confidence in your players.When you have the lead of over 300, anyone will go for the follow-on. If australia was in our place, they would have crushed england, no doubt.

Rahul(the wall) Dravid has been playing cricket for more than most of us care to remember, unlike some of us who haven't even managed to get out of our local gulley cricket matches, he knows what he's doing much better than us. Out of a population of 100 crores he has been chosen captain to make his decision so lets cut him some slack for doing the job for which we elected him. Good decision Dravid, its gonna be really tough batting on this pitch on the 5th day

As a neutral (Sri Lankan) I think my opinion would be unique here! I can sympathize with Dravid's decision. He's not an idiot, he knows how history would look at him if he wins the series. He's been a good captain and I'm sure he had to grit his teeth when making the decision to bat again, but he was looking at the bigger picture. If by some horrible luck (see WestIndies v India 1997) they give a sniff of victory to the opposition and end up losing it, a billion torches will light up!
Many believe India doesn't win enough away test series for him to have the blood-thirsty attitude of going for the kill each and ever time.
I still believe though, that he should have made England follow on, because that ruthlessness would still rub off on the team and bode well for future series and any chance of a making a reputation of a Strong Indian team.
I don't really support either team, but as a cricket lover would have loved to have seen more attacking cricket, but that's a liberty of a neutral!

Rahul has done the right thing! With Zaheer suffering a thigh strain it was important to get him some respite. Also, if England gave India about 100 to win on the last day - our boys cannot be trusted! Most importantly, Kumble will have a bowl on a 5th day pitch against an English attack which has not lasted more than 110 overs all through the series. Go India!

I think Rahul did the right thing considering the fact that the bowlers were tired and Zaheer had a strain.They could have scored faster and put England to bat an hour earlier.

Well, Dravid decision to bat again was right but the approach was wrong. They should have batted aggressively, like a shortened one day inning, with Tendulkar and Ganguly opening the inning. It should have been just 30 overs and in that get as many as they can. It should have been a good practice for one dayers as well. By consuming almost 60 overs for 180 runs, Team india may find themselves just short of time on final day.

Absolutely correct decision!!!
One major factor seems to be irrelevant now but , if it had happened, then we would not be having this debate. Yes it was good decision from safety point of view.. Also it would be more adventurous to make England bat second time to win putting more pressure on England.. but above all, if Tendulkar had scored 25 odd runs more then he would have become second highest run scorer as well.... Can people not see this in Dravid's decision??? It is easy to sit outside and make comments but if you can understand the bigger picture...

I think that Dravid was right not to enforce the follow-on as it really took out any chance of an English win, but his innings was curious in the extreme. Having not enforced the follow on the Indians needed to push on and get a good total on the board. Dravid's time-wasting has increased England's chances of the draw..... though they look wobbly at best on 102 for 2 this morning !

Rahul is in very defensive set of mind and thus lost the opportunity for 2-0. When he is really thinking of giving rest to his bowlers, what is over-defensive attitude in batting. Not to forget India had around 4 per over contrasting to 2.8 in second when pressure is on other side. Delaying declaration cost us dearly, save winning series.

remember Australia lost a match to India in November 2004 when they won a series (2-1) in India after 35 years?? well in the match they lost, they had a good lead in the 1st innings with India batting 1st...then India did marginally well in the 2nd innings and set a target of only 107...well Australia managed only 93 and lost the game by 13 runs bacause the pitch was dusty as is this one and M. Kartik, H.Singh and A.Kumble took full advantage...now what guarantee that the same couldn't happen to India here??? and they struggled on day 4 so badly with the bat then who knows they could have even lost all 10 wickets in 40 overs on day 5 like England did on day 5 to Aus in the ashes match 2 at Adelaide...

Therefore Dravid made the best choice...after all, he needs to win the series whether 1-0 or 2-0 and knowing that India has a habit of spitting up good series leads before, he made the best decision expected of him of saving the series!

I think things changed a little bit for Dravid. I support his decision. First he wanted to give some rest to his bowlers (if they dont get wickets they must bowl three days in a row). But after seeing 11/3 he made up this mind not to take risk. I think he is right. Whatever others say he is the best Test captain of India. He already made his mark as a captain and very near to another series win in england after 20 years

Dravid's decision was the right one given the circumstances. India may or may not win the game depending on how England fare on the last day but they have definitely won the series which is what matters in the big picture.

Dravid's batting will also draw a lot of criticism but one must keep in mind that the cloud cover changed the complexion of the game completely. The loss of early wickets did not help either. Ganguly at the other end was going great guns and there was no need to take undue risks. This is why Dravid's self-enforced-go-slow cannot be faulted.

If India cannot bowl England out in the 110 overs allocated, then I don't feel another 10 overs would have mattered.

Given the circumstances Dravid's decision was strategic and hats off to him for that.

Kudos Sriram Krishna. You have rightly pointed out the underlying root cause. We Indians, lack self belief and hence can never become great unless we shed it. And this decision is typically iIndian. Having scored 664 in the first innings, with only about 5 sessions to play, with 319 lead (having got England for 345) and you still want to be safe???

Most stupid decision ever:

It implied

1. Despite controlling England under 350 throughout the series, we are not confident about our bowlers.
2. That we are even less confident of our star batsman on a great pitch on the final day, we would be unable to chase and even defend for a draw even if we were to bat following the follow on
3. We do not learn. The overcast conditions that helped the English bowlers could also have favoured us
4. The slow batting and line up did not justify the follow on decision
5. It was the beginning of the day. There was no reason that bowlers were tired - an excuse to not enforce follow on.
6. That we gave the opposition extra confidence and portrayed ourselves as defensive. This will have a bearing on the ODIs
7. That the management is meek and weak, incompetent to take aggressive decisions!
8. We may have killed the excitement of this test match.

I think Dravid's decision not to enforce the follow-on was probably right but the approach wasn't. I think he wanted to give his bowlers a rest and at the same time put a big total in front of the English. This would have been a massive task for the English team. Dravid (ie Team India)should have batted aggressively till tea time on the 4th day and score about 250 runs in 50 overs, no matter how many wickets were lost. This would have set a target of 570 runs in 120 overs for England to win. It's not possible. However, by doing this Indian bowlers would have 10 more overs with a backing of 70 more runs.

No. Wrong decision. Should have gone for the kill. Having 300+ runs lead is enough to dishearten any opposition on the 4th & 5th days, especially with Kumble in the side.

3 points

By not enforcing the follow on and then declaring Dravid has technically given England a chance, the safest way to ensure the series victory would been to not enforce the follow on and then bat out completely.

To suggest that the England attack without Sidebottom could have bowled out India cheaply is ridiculous

As an England fan i think it is pathetic that they can't be bothered to try and score 500, who cares if we lose 2-0 versus 1-0

Wrong or right is hard to say, unless you are one of the playing 11. But it did seem to be a very conservative decision. With over 300 runs lead, enforcing a follow-on would be the normal approach, even if you are one bowler short (you could have always given him some rest, if he needed it). It is a mind game and when the opposition is down, you have to press on. The maximum damage England could have done in the second innings was to wipe out the lead and give a slender target for India to win. Depending on the situation then, we could have even played for a draw. On other hand, with increased pressure, it is more likely that England would have collapsed and we could have won handsomely. Now India has missed out on an opportunity to exit the series in a glorious fashion. This does more harm than good to the team's confidence.

Good decision by Dravid i would say. Having England playing once again would have taken off the entire excitement from the game - with their batsmen, already experts in not playing but defending or "shouldering arms". As Dravid said it in his interview, its easy to comment sitting in the dressing / drawing room - but its the captain's perspective which is important in such cases, as he alone knows his own team members esp bowlers - when you have an attack which is more criticised than appreciated. You dont have a never tiring McGrath or Lee or Bracken or Warne there. Well done, Rahul - we support the whole bunch of yours and yes, a happy independence day to you as well.

As mentioned by quite a few people, Dravid's decision to bat again was the most practical and safe way to win the series. Dravid's decision to stay for longer time on the crease and allow other batsmen to score is to be commended. His strategy was to give more time for the bowlers to regain some strength and energy to bowl later on.

This is for all those who think ENGLAND would have WON this Oval test-

If you think England would have scored 450 while following ON, then why can''t they score 500 going by the same logic( I know you will then talk about runrate, pressure in 4th inngs blah blah...)

OK. Here is a simple mathematics and common sense.
Suppose ENGLAND would have followed ON.
Suppose they also score 450. How many overs they would have taken? I guess atleast 130 overs.
So How many overs would India would have had to Bat in the 4th Inngs? About 40 Overs (170 - 130).

So India would have had a TARGET of about 130 in about 40 overs.

OK. Accepted that India (or Any country) is very bad in 4th Inngs for getting even such low targets.

BUT, If while chasing 130 they loose wickets in hurry, then they always have the option of playing out a draw.

This is not the first time.
1999 Against NZL at Ahmedabad, Sachin the captain, Kapil the coach. India had a lead of 275 and just about 4 sessions left in the match. Match ended in a draw. Reason given for not enforcing follow on, "Bowler Tired".

Every time we go to NZL, we are thrashed by them, we don''t even come close to winning a single match for that matter any tour match. and when we had a chance of paying back, we say "Bowlers are too tired".
Tired of winning!!!!!!!

2004, Sydney. Sourav and Wright were there. lead of about 230 and 5 sessions. Match drawn.

Are we too tired after winning a match to win another one!!!

Every time we go to SA,NZL,AUS,ENG we loose and we even lost the 2nd match to ZIM at harare after winning 1st game.

Here we are playing well, everybody in form, then why not keep going victories as long as this form is there.
You never know what will happen, when we tour ENG next time. May be we will be desparate to play for a draw as we would not be winning and still keep loosing...

Do you know how many test matches we have won abroad?
Its not even 30. we can count those victories on fingers.

So you can understand how important each and every single match means.

Ok. Great that we are winning the series. But don''t forget when India comes next time to England they might not get such a easy chance to force a win.

How can you forget, that each time we go to Australia, we are thrashed almost 3-0, We go to SA and get thrashed, just 1 test win SA. Do you remember when was the last time we won a test match in New Zealand?

All these years we have been loosing test matches.
Even England drew the series last year in mumbai.

Here you are getting a golden opportunity to remove the scar of all those defeats. and you are letting it go.

Looking at all the comments and debate about the follow on for the last few days, makes me think about how we forget the real things and stuck upon something which means very little to us.

If other teams which had overseas record as Indians and if they had won the series, the nation would be rejoicing with great fanfare but we Indians have forgotten that India have won a test series that too against team ranking world number two and fighting about follow-on saga. Have we forgotten that Sachin did this thing in Ahmedabad and Sourav at Sydney. I see few comparing Dravid with these two. Lets forget and enjoy the win... This may prompt Indian team to win regularly outside sub-continent. Looking at these I dont think we would have rejoiced even at 3-0 win.

hey santhosh 'n some other guyz here feel if ganguly was there he would 've opted for a follow on .
do you guyz know that in australia same thing happened with ganguly as captain.
and who can forget the way laxman 'n dravid turned the match around in calcutta.
guyz its not just the lead but the situation,nature of the pitch,ur bowling strength.
the decision not to take the follow on was right .((hey now we won a series in england after 21 yrs)).
i think the idea was to make quick runs 'n impose a huge total but the 3 quick wickets backfired 'n the way dravid froze did'nt paint a pretty picture.

anyways these armchairs r so comfy we can say anything. if's 'n butts (armchair right!) dont count.