Why the hell did India refuse to take the follow on at the 3rd Test in England at the Oval - any reason??

Question

I award 10 points.

Answer 1

1.Because Dravid wanted to shut off all chances for even a slighest possible victory chances for england,they cant chase 500, can they?
2.India didnt want to bat fourth on a fifth day pitch,say India had enforced the followon and england set a target of 150 runs for India to chase on 5th day pitch, India would be really struggling to get those,(we have seen those in past)
3.Dravid wanted to give good rest to his bowlers,Zaheer Khan is not fully fit, he his carrying a hamstring injury,so he cant bowl long spells.
4.India is more concerned about a series win than win this particular test match
5.Anil kumble can be highly effective on a 5th pitch.

Answer 2

Summarizing everything that has already been said on this forum and from precedence:

This is a clear case of match fixing because:

1. Of the decision to not enforce a follow on with a lead of 320 odd with almost six sessions of play. The worst case scenario would have been chasing 150-200 odd in 2 sessions on the last day. No one in there right mind would think that it would have been difficult to bat out 2 sessions at the Oval after the third inning score was 500 odd. Most obvious scenario was an innings or 8-10 wicket win. This causes the suspicion of there being an intent of not winning.

2. Score a 96 ball 11! After a fluent first innings and when the pitch and the bowling is the same, and it is exactly opposite of what is needed, and it is the captain we are talking about. This makes the suspicion likely.

3. Set a score of 500 to win in 120 overs, which is unlikely but definitely more likely than the worst case scenario that I mentioned above. This confirms that the intent was to make sure that win is near impossible.

4. Then drop the catch of the captain. There is now no doubt!

5. Other evidence keeps coming : such as Tendulkar bowls more overs than RP Singh, zaheer Khan suddenly becomes impotent, as he often does in finals and important sessions.

6. By the way, there has to be a reason beyond cricket for Tendulkar's complte incapacity of making a significant contribution while chasing in one-dayers and in the second innings of test matches.

The most likely scenario I think is threats to Dravid and team or fulfilling obligations from past favors from bookies/criminals.

Answer 3

To ensure that India doesnt lose the test match.
Seldom does India come in a situation where they can take a test series win back home.

This was one such opportunity and the captain wanted to make sure that there be no stone left unturned to nail the series.

Imagine a situation where England made 450 and India had 130 odd runs to chase in the last innings and a session and a half to do so. India would have gone for it, however 3 early wickets and India would have felt the heat.

Its always hard on the last day and in hindsight when you see how India batted on the 4th day it proves the point further, 5th day could have been so much more pressure.

Now atleast we cant lose with 500 on the board.
Even if England come close India can take to negative tactics like slowing the over rate, placing fielders on the boundary, have a 7-2 leg side field and bowling on the legs, so many things you can do to stay in the game but a few early wickets and the Indian batsman cound'nt have stayed in the game on the last day.

At worst a 1-0 series win, is what we are looking at, but its still a series win.

Besides Sreesanth doesnt look himself in this series. He cant consistantly put the ball in the right area just on off stump and with a hint of outswing, if he doesnt get wickets he gets wayward and tries so many things and gets more frusfrated.

With India playing 4 bowlers and Sree off color, I dont believe Zaheer and RP can take all the wickets and my thoughts we proven true when England made 56/0 on Day 4. If England bat sensibily I dont think only 2 bowlers can clean up England.
Kumble also in this series has mostly looked to trouble only the tail.

All in all to ensure that India goes back with a historical series win, I think it was the best thing to do.
Had India been Australia with so many away wins in its kitty, it would surely have gone for the kill and gambled with the follow-on.

Answer 4

Definate match fixing.

1) india were going in with at least a 300 run lead, so to enforce the follow on would have been the right thing to do, even if england had set a target score of 150 or so, it wouldnt be too tough to do with the batting side that India is carrying.

2) Dravid decision to bat once more made his match fixing a little more evident when he managed only 11 runs off of 96 balls, a complete waste of an innings on his part. Had he really wanted to gain the 180 runs he could have done it a lot faster without wasting so much time at the crease.

3) England probably didnt want to be beaten so badly, as they had already lost the series, it would have been embarrasing to be beaten to wickedly in your own home country.

It is hard to believe out of everybody that Rahul Dravid would take money for a match, but money talks, and they already had the series won

Answer 5

It is bcoz England had made 345 in their first innings and the Indian lead was about 330 or so and the main reason is the pitch worsens as the fourth innings approaches so they did not want to bat teh fourth innings coz if england might have played and covered up teh lead and takena lead of about 150-180 runs then it would have been tough to make that many runs on the fifth day coz the Oval pitch is like that and so the Indians wanted to ensure they give England a big targey to chase and win the match.plezzzzzz give ten points or vote as best answer as u said in ur question
plezzz!!!!!!
thanxxxxxxxxx

Answer 6

I am also totally surprised at the strange decision of Rahul Dravid not to enforce follow-on when India had a lead of 319 runs. He should have enforced the follow-on and tried for innings victory by putting pressure on England Batsman.

Answer 7

Because BCCI and the satta people have already said so.
Does not make any sense or it is logical for India to bat.

Definitely, something is cooking and now Dravid will be made
the scapegoat as a BCCI rep and explain why he did not
declare....

Answer 8

they did not want to bat last
if england had made a lead of 200 and asked india to bat, it would put undue pressure on indians
they want to put england in confusion as to whether they should chase target or not and then enforce victory

Answer 9

India wanted to prove their batting skills again and besides they still have a great chance to dominate the game.

Answer 10

Match fixing,because the bookies would have lost lot of money,if India beat them by innings.