...and keeping it too, pretty much sums up official punditry on the question of whether India should go in with four bowlers or five.

In Pakistan, and even during segments of the Nagpur Test, the concensus was that four bowlers would not bowl out the opposition on anything other than a minefield; that India needed to stop protecting its batting lineup and play the extra bowler.

And now, at the end of one innings where India went the other way, there's much head-shaking and mutters of 'Why is India playing five bowlers? It could have used an extra batsman!'

So which, finally, should it be? The sensible option IMHO seems for the team to go in with five bowlers on pitches where conditions are decent or above for batting, and with the extra batsman when conditions favor bowlers -- what does get a touch tiring is for experts to suggest that whichever route the team takes, it should have taken the other.

One reason for this could well be because Piyush Chawla, and to an extent Harbhajan Singh, were underbowled. Chawla was always a gamble -- a young, talented kid you pick on spec; if it works, great, that's an unexpected weapon at a crucial point in the series; if it doesn't, what the heck, cut your losses.

Bajji's low workload was for me the only surprise -- while his body language out there did not suggest high levels of confidence, I frankly didn't see too much wrong. There was turn, there was bounce, the doosra worked, the action was fluid. What went against him was the surprisingly short spells he bowled -- the last one was all of two overs, and the one before just three overs, which is way too little for a spinner.

Typically, spinners need time to line up their ducks, work on basic lines and lengths before they start working on individual batsmen; two or three over spells just don't cut it for them.

Meanwhile, play set to begin, me for the screen -- see you guys later