Playing through pain - brave or foolhardy?

Even though it's only with hindsight, the question should nevertheless be asked: should Zaheer Khan have played this Test? It's an easy one for us to ask, because we don't have to manage a bowling resource as thin as that of India's, and upon this Test lay the fate of the series. The temptation, and indeed, the compulsion to play the team's strike bowler, would have been huge. But on the evidence on display so far, the decision seems to have backfired.

Zaheer put up a spirited effort yesterday, stretching himself to bowl 13 overs, including an inspirational five-over burst at the end of the day which should have fetched him Ricky Ponting's wicket, but it was clear before lunch itself that he was not fit to play. More details of his injury are likely to emerge later today when Andrew Liepus, the Indian physiotherapist, makes an announcement to the media, but the fact that his opening spell this morning was limited to two overs was an ominous sign for India.

Zaheer picked up the injury during the last day of the Brisbane Test, but what was initially thought to be a hamstring injury has turned out to be a mysterious nerve twitch. Bruce Reid, India's bowling coach, told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation this morning that Zaheer's problem was baffling and that he had been picked after being found match-fit.

But he hobbled through most of his 13 overs, many of which were bowled off a shortened run-up. It severely limited India's bowling options, particularly considering Ashish Nehra wasn't fully fit himself, having barely made it into the match after an ankle-injury scare. The ability to play through pain is a hallmark of toughness and commitment, but when pain becomes a hindrance to performance, the trouble begins. Zaheer and the team management might have been brave before this match, but the judgement delivered after the Test might hold them to have been unwise.