Captain diffident

Apart from his spotless technique, if there is one trait that sets Rahul Dravid apart from the rest, it is indifference. Win or loss, praise or censure, the Indian captain is grounded in reality.

There are times, though, when you can't afford to remain stoic to the point of being a doormat, particularly when you allow history to repeat itself. No, this is not to broach the issue of his not enforcing the follow-on or making a meal of a dolly at first slip. The former was a team decision; the latter was an error of judgment, not a sin.

But it is censurable the way Dravid allowed precious time to drift by at crucial junctures of the Test. If the amount of time consumed by the tail after Anil Kumble got his century seemed strange, the way Dravid dawdled away for a 96-ball 12 appeared bizarre.

India were forced to hit the brakes at 14/3 and Dravid's caution early on was understandable. At the other end his partner was motoring along in the fifth gear; the captain could have shown some urgency in rotating the strike, if not dominate the bowling.

For a while it looked like an Act II of the Cape Town Test when both Sachin Tendulkar and Dravid plunged into a somewhat self-inflicted abyss. By denying themselves enough time for a 30-over crack at England, India were left with too much to do on the final day.

Much will be said and written about India's decision to not enforce the follow-on just as much was debated about Sourav Ganguly's refusal to take it in the Sydney Test, 2004. It's a tale of contrasting settings and two sides that stand poles apart. That for some other piece.

Nobody disagrees that after the World Cup catastrophe, Indian cricket needed this series win to keep the chin up. This team needed release from the knots that curdled it for long.

India must have had genuine reasons for not enforcing at the Oval: it's never easy when your premier bowler (Zaheer Khan) is down with a thigh-strain. Besides, Indians are not natural athletes and a fresh burst calls for fresh legs. Not to forget that underlying fear: despite all the mythics in the line-up, India's batting can be rickety.

But these variables pale when you have a 300-run lead to cash in and the opposition is a Test down, feeling the heat. India had to make most of the best conditions to land the killer punch. Instead, England were allowed to romp on the wind-borne fourth day and even somebody as innocuous as Paul Collingwood gave India an almighty scare.

History has it that England made 538 at this ground (1975 Test against Australia) after following on. You need more than one Kevin Pietersen in your side to repeat the feat. If India are honest they may look back at this Test and ask themselves: "Did we accord England undeserved respect, did we make a Mathew Hayden and Justine Langer of Alastair Cook and Andrew Strauss?"

Perhaps, more than the last four wickets, it's the attitude that denied India what should have been a deserving 2-0 win. Doubtless, the champagne must flow for these moments are rare in Indian cricket, but imagine how it would have intoxicated us had the series culminated with a victory lap at the Oval.