Adam Gilchrist's decision against enforcing the follow-on in the first Test in Bangalore may have been inspired by the battering the Australians received in Kolkata in the 2000-01 series after imposing the follow-on. The decision may seem defensive to some and strange to others, but statistics reveal that it has brought laurels to the captains concerned on most occasions.
In fact, captains have been more successful while not enforcing the follow-on, though only marginally.
| Tests | Won | Lost | Drawn | Winning % | |
| Follow-on enforced | 260 | 198 | 3 | 59 | 73.88 |
| Follow-on not enforced* | 32 | 24 | 1 | 7 | 75.00 |
The win and loss in the above table is with the perspective of the side imposing / not imposing the follow-on.
Ganguly can take solace from the fact that seven games were drawn (and one lost too) when the follow-on was not enforced. But there is a flip side too!
A detailed look at all 32 previous such instances discloses that Australia have won all five Tests where their captains did not impose the follow-on.
India, on the other hand, went on to lose on all five occasions when opposition captains decided to give their bowlers a rest rather than the opportunity to have another go at the Indians.
The only team to have lost a Test after not enforcing the follow-on is South Africa. Captain Dudley Nourse's decision backfired in the Test against Australia at Durban in 1949-50.
Instances when Test captains did not enforce the follow-on on India:
| Lead | Opponent - Totals | India's Totals | Venue | Season | Winner | Opp.Captain |
| 278 | WI - 500 & 168-5d | 222 & 151 | Madras | 1958-59 | West Indies | Gerry Alexander |
| 282 | Eng - 490 & 265-8d | 208 & 376 | Manchester | 1959 | England | Peter May |
| 206 | Eng - 298 & 203 | 92 & 277 | Birmingham | 1967 | England | Brian Close |
| 236 | Aus - 505 & 256 | 269 & 445 | Adelaide | 1977-78 | Australia | Bobby Simpson |
| 266 | Eng - 487 & 301-6d | 221 & 397 | Lord's | 2002 | England | Nasser Hussain |
| 228 | Aus - 474 & ? | 246 & ? | Bangalore | 2004-05 | to be seen | Adam Gilchrist |
Instances when Australian captains did not enforce the follow-on:
| Lead | Totals | Opp.Team-Totals | Venue | Season | Winner | Captain |
| 380 | Aus- 701 & 327 | Eng- 321 & 145 | The Oval | 1934 | Australia | Bill Woodfull |
| 340 | Aus- 619 & 394-8d | WI - 279 & 352 | Sydney | 1968-69 | Australia | Bill Lawry |
| 236 | Aus- 505 & 256 | Ind- 269 & 445 | Adelaide | 1977-78 | Australia | Bobby Simpson |
| 259 | Aus- 426 & 248-8d | Eng- 167 & 323 | Brisbane | 1994-95 | Australia | Mark Taylor |
| 202 | Aus- 479 & 217-6d | WI - 277 & 296 | Brisbane | 1996-97 | Australia | Mark Taylor |
| 228 | Aus- 474 & ? | Ind - 246 & ? | Bangalore | 2004-05 | to be seen | Adam Gilchrist |
Instances when follow-on was not enforced on Indian soil:
| Lead | Team1 | Team2 | Venue | Season | Winner | Captain |
| 278 | WI- 500 & 168-5d | Ind - 222 & 151 | Madras | 1958-59 | West Indies | Gerry Alexander |
| 275 | Ind- 583-7d & 148-5d | NZ - 308 & 252-2 | Ahmedabad | 1999-00 | Drawn | Sachin Tendulkar |
| 228 | Aus- 474 & ? | Ind - 246 & ? | Bangalore | 2004-05 | to be seen | Adam Gilchrist |
Country-wise break-up of instances when follow-on was not enforced:
| Country | Tests | Won | Lost | Drawn |
| England | 9 | 7 | - | 2 |
| West Indies | 7 | 6 | - | 1 |
| Australia | 6* | 5 | - | - |
| South Africa | 5 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| India | 2 | - | - | 2 |
| New Zealand | 1 | 1 | - | - |
| Pakistan | 1 | 1 | - | - |
| Sri Lanka | 2 | 2 | - | - |
| Total | 33* | 24 | 1 | 7 |
