It seems to me that Ponting and Gilchrist were right not to enforce the follow on against India, NZ and Pakistan - i.e. against good opposition with plenty of time in the match. The reasons are:
With so much cricket these days, it's easy for the bowlers to get tired, so it's better to give them an innings break
If the second innings gets off to a good start and the bowlers get tired, then there is more chance of a big second innings score
It gives the batsmen a chance to get some runs without too much pressure (in the latest match only Langer and Gilchrist got runs in the first innings, so it seems well worth giving the anothers another chance to score)
I believe, with hindsight, that Steve Waugh put his bowlers and batsmen under too much pressure, always declaring and enforcing the follow on.
With so much cricket these days, it's easy for the bowlers to get tired, so it's better to give them an innings break
If the second innings gets off to a good start and the bowlers get tired, then there is more chance of a big second innings score
It gives the batsmen a chance to get some runs without too much pressure (in the latest match only Langer and Gilchrist got runs in the first innings, so it seems well worth giving the anothers another chance to score)
I believe, with hindsight, that Steve Waugh put his bowlers and batsmen under too much pressure, always declaring and enforcing the follow on.