This is what R. Ashwin — given the unenviable task of facing Indian reporters after Day 2 — said about India’s defensive field with Australia at 99/3:
“What else do you do with 190 in the pocket?” Ashwin said. “You’ll have to save every run possible. Supposing you get two or three wickets later on, and someone is having a good spell, we have those runs to play with later. That has got to be the only idea. It’s common sense. Nothing else.”
But please, sir: “Given that Australia’s run-rate did not dip below 4 through the day, doesn’t that mean you failed both at taking wickets and containing the batsmen? Wouldn’t you rather have conceded a few boundaries if an attacking field meant your chance of taking a wicket increased?” Good Lord, I sound more and more like Ian Chappell with each passing day.
Ducking Beamers: A Cricket Blog 
Ashwin is right and Chappelli observed correctly post-match also. Noted what he said in the most recent post on my blog.
The fault squarely lies with the Indian batsmen.
Sure, no doubt, Elegant Stroke — the Indians should not have tallied such a low score.
But given the 191, the Indians should have attacked. I assume they felt that the ideal batting pitch left them no options, but even then, I would have tried a bit harder — it’s better to concede even 5 runs an over attacking than 4 runs an over defending.
It would be interesting to note what a Pakistani bowler would say if he were in place of Ashwin. For what it’s worth, I disagree with Ashwin’s opinion. This is the second time he’s said something that smacks of the fear of failure/losing. The first was when he was justifying his actions at the end of the third test against the Windies.