Dravid's decision will remain debatable

New Delhi: Zaheer’s comments on his preparedness on the fourth day morning for England’s second innings, even if taken out of context, have ensured that the tactical ploy of not enforcing the follow-on remains on debating platforms for some more time to come.

However, the Indian eleven will not take kindly to any debate on this or follow-on issue. The fact that an ever-diplomatic Rahul Dravid has come up with the comment that "If I had been in the living room, I too would have been disappointed with the decision," just goes on to show that. It is in a way a stinging criticism of the Cricket-loving TV viewers, who wanted ‘on-the-mat’ England to be decimated on the fourth day itself.

But then were these viewers – the public which pays for cricketers’ money - alone in expressing these sentiments. In fact, there was an interesting Live TV presentation, just before the decision not to enforce the follow-on was taken. During that, Ian Chappell told Ravi Shastri that India will be better served enforcing the follow-on. Ravi Shastri, the man who could have been India’s coach for next few years if he wanted, too said that if he were to chose, he would "go for the kill straightaway."

The strange thing about the whole episode is that there were two ex-captains playing in the eleven, who had chosen not to enforce the follow-on previously, and had bitter experiences. At Ahmedabad in 1999-2000, India under Sachin Tendulkar had an extremely healthy lead of 275. Even with nearly five sessions remaining, Tendulkar decided to give his bowlers some rest and New Zealand were given little over three sessions to survive the fourth innings. They survived. India’s series margin remained 1-0 thanks to that defensive ploy.

Then that all too fresh ‘lost opportunity’ at Sydney in 2003 under Sourav Ganguly when a lead of 231 was not deemed enough and Australia were allowed a great escape.

In fact, the Indian teams of which Sachin Tendulkar has been a part, have enforced follow on four times on England, winning last three encounters. That even includes a very low scoring match (in contest of matches where first innings lead has been over 200) at Kolkatta in 1992-93. There India, under Azhar chose to enforce follow-on despite a first innings lead of only 208 and the danger of playing on a deteriorating pitch in the fourth innings. India eventually won by eight wickets. The other two wins at Chennai (1992-93) and Leeds (2002) have been by an innings margins.

The Indian record after enforcing the follow-on should have also encouraged Dravid. Over all, India has enforced follow on 26 occasions, winning 16 and drawing ten. There was no way England could have survived the weather on the fourth day, faced with such big deficit and their demons. But for India, overseas victories against worthy opponents are so hard to come by that they wanted to leave no scope for a England victory.

It was an ultra-defensive ploy, which was clear as much to the former greats on Telly, as to the viewers hearing them out and watching the Indian team in action. So an act, which may have given England some psychological boost ahead of the ODI series, may continue to be criticized. Dravid and his team, despite their remarkable show otherwise, will have to live with it.