I am one of those who rarely comments on this thread but I have to vent my frustration somewhere.
After playing such a tactically brilliant game so far when we scored such valuable 443 runs with some great patient batting and then followed it up by getting the Aussies out for 151 to get a huge lead of 292, why would you not enforce the follow-on ?
The reasons being given are quite vacuous and unconvincing. The Indian bowlers couldn't possibly be more tired than the Aussie bowlers could they ? Yet the Aussie bowlers got 5 of our wickets.
Did we intend to mentally & physically tire out the Aussie bowlers for the next match ? How will that ensure that you will have an upper hand in that match ? And for that you would let go an opportunity to win this match by an innings ? What kind of a strategy is that ? Shouldn't you first try and ensure that you win the match as emphatically as you can when you have such a golden opportunity ?
When you are 2-1 up with the last match being won by more than an innings, why would you care whether the opposition bowlers are tired or not ?
I find this whole approach rather confused and timid. It is a mindset that is the reason why we win so few matches outside. We want to play safe. Did the great Aussie team of Waugh and Ponting win so many matches by playing safe ?
It is good that they lost 5 wickets so cheaply. Kohli and Shastri richly deserve this for not enforcing the follow-on.
If there had been a follow on, the Aussies would not have scored more than a 100 and would have likely lost 3 or more wickets. Would that not have been better than what we have right now ?