The follow-on debate: Were India too defensive?

It's the issue that everyone's been talking about. Here's what the papers had to say.

Lokendra Pratap Sahi lets rip in the Kolkata-based Telegraph:

The safety-first-and-last types would’ve approved, but few others. More than anything else, Rahul Dravid’s decision to not enforce the follow-on at the Brit Oval has given England the chance to save the third and final npower Test. It also enhanced his image as a captain reluctant to be aggressive. Reluctant to set a bold agenda. Barring one or two, others would’ve blindly gone for the kill if they had the luxury of a 319-run lead.

Bobilli Vijay Kumar, of the Times of India, supports Dravid:

The sanguine ones clearly saw the reasons behind the move: India were on the verge of a Test series win in England after 20 years. Why squander it? The more impulsive ones, however, were aghast.

Their argument: This is a defensive ploy; it shows India believe they can't win it. They missed a similar opportunity to beat Australia in Australia three years ago. Within no time, however, they got enough reason to even panic: India had plunged to three for 11. Will they collapse in a heap? Will England manage to pull off a miracle? Had India goofed up completely? Well, in the end, it was nothing but the cry of a child who didn't understand the significance of a series triumph.

Where's the logic, skip? Khalid A-H Ansari ponders aloud at Mid Day:

... reflected an ultra negative mindset with obvious underpinnings of lack of self-confidence. One could not escape the conclusion that the Team’s elder statesmen seemed determined not to win but be content with a draw, which would, nevertheless, ensure them a series win.

The Daily Mail said everything they wanted to say through their headline: “Cautious Dravid bores everyone to tears and leaves England with an escape route”

S Ram Mahesh reasons out the logic in the Hindu:

… it became evident on Sunday evening that Zaheer was nursing a thigh strain … It’s tough enough taking ten wickets with four fit bowlers; doing it with a tiring three and a half, even on a wearing track, is impractical. So, was Dravid, in not enforcing the follow-on, giving India its best shot at winning the Test or was he ensuring the series couldn’t be squared? Or, was he taking the tactical middle path — first ensuring all hope for England evaporated, then scraping the parched opponent off the ground?

The answer, as ever, lies in the fact that perception is a tricky thing. Anil Kumble on a fifth-day strip with bounce is about as attacking as it gets. Add to it the nugget that England has never batted out 110 overs in the fourth innings at The Oval, and both the follow-on and the declaration are made to look positively menacing. A case for enforcing the follow-on can be made just as easily.

James Lawton sides with Dravid in The Independent:

Like his brilliant contemporaries Sachin Tendulkar and Sourav Ganguly, Dravid was not playing for fun here – no more than he was at Trent Bridge two weeks ago when he and his team gave England a systematic re-education in the realities of grown-up Test cricket.

Dravid, fidgeting at the crease, squinting into the middle distance, was making a pact with history that he was intent on making unbreakable. The odds are that the great trio of Indian batsmen will never pass this way again on competitive business and Dravid, making it clear with every defensive prod, was utterly committed to maintaining his team's 1-0 edge for their first series win in England for 21 years

Rohit Mahajan in the Hindustan Times:

The decision was revealing — it betrayed India's fears, their inability to trust their bowlers to bowl England out the second time within a reasonable total, and also their inability to trust the batsmen to chase a modest total on the last day. So India put two and two together and came up with the answer they deemed correct — a 1-0 series is precious, 2-0 would be fantastic but not worth the risk of making it 1-1.

Steve James in the Guardian:

It emerged yesterday that Zaheer has a thigh strain so that might have had some bearing on the decision. But the uncertainty over it was probably best typifi ed by Dravid himself, whose pedestrian innings of 12 off 96 balls portrayed a man full of fret and fear. So his side batted without clear strategy and produced a day of meander and tedium. Dravid thinks England cannot win. But they can draw and for that they can thank the Indian captain's timidity.