In three days we have seen 16 wickets fall : 3, 5 and 8. Suggests batting gets progressively harder. I'd expect this trend to accelerate.
Over three days the run rate averages out around 3 per over. This is unlikely to increase for the same reason.
So: with 180 overs left , England effectively lead by 107 overs. To avoid defeat , India probably need therefore to bat at least those 107 plus about 40 or so of the remaining 73. Which do you think is easier : to bat whatever they can this morning with the last four batsmen ; and then the rest of day four ; before resuming in the (trickier conditions) of day five against an England attack who by then have been in the field for two days straight...
Or : being run around again today after not much more than a day's break from chasing leather for 578 runs before being put back in to survive over (hopefully well over) 100 overs comprising much of an evening session and an entire last day ?
(Of course if the last four add 150 this is all academic but let us not go there!)
The fallacy in much of the argument I am reading here is that not enforcing the follow on is due to a fear of an unlikely dramatic loss. Now I have no idea what Root and Silverwood think but that is certainly not a factor in my choice of options. Frankly I think the chances of India getting a small lead and skittling England on the last evening are about as remote as that of them chasing down 420 on the last day after England have declared. To be clear : miracles aside , India are not going to win!)
My whole point is that I think batting again , scoring quickly under minimal pressure , and then going for the throat with bowlers who have had a decent rest late in the day before using the likely best bowling conditions of the match on day five to finish the job is the approach that gives England the best chance of getting the win.
Do I think England could win by enforcing the follow on ? Yes I think they could. Although it might be at a bit of a cost to the bowlers for future games , but let that pass. But I also think it gives India a better chance of getting out of this by grinding down tired bowlers. (And obviously the length of time it takes to conclude this current innings is something we do not yet know)
In general I quite like enforcing a follow on when it is an option. Largely because (A) It makes sure you don't waste time making "unnecessary" runs and later regretting it when you run out of overs. and (B) because you can hit a team when they are down - as follow on situations usually arise from a team being bowled out very cheaply.
Neither of these apply here. 180 overs is plenty of time to force a result (If England cannot bowl India out on a fifth day pitch here I doubt they would be able to dismiss them quickly enough following on) and although India will be disappointed with their reply to England's score they are hardly going to be shell shocked batting again if they end up all out for 300 odd. So the follow on in this case is an option but not a must.
And I think it is a second best option in this particular case.
If England take four wickets this morning in the first three overs I might reconsider. But I am not holding my breath
