On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 02:31:14 -0800 (PST), Robbert ter Hart
<rterhart@gmail.com> wrote:

>Op dinsdag 28 februari 2023 om 09:46:18 UTC+1 schreef Richard Dixon:
>> On Tuesday, 28 February 2023 at 03:14:17 UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
>>
>> > I look forward to the moaners busily criticising the enforcement, the
>> > batting in the second innings and all the usual drivel, but that was
>> > far too good a game of cricket for such pettifogging wibbles.
>> Imagine trying to apportion blame in a game lost by 1 run: you could blame literally dozens of things.
>>
>> I've decided to blame Ben Stokes' knee where we could have run two but we only ran one.
>>
>> Richard
>
>So about Stokes's knee:
>
>He must have known he was in no state to bowl in NZ's second innings. Also, no matter how good James Anderson is, het is 40yo and his body needs time to recuperate. I think I read somewhere that this was his longest wicketless spell in about 5 years. That is not a coincidence.

He bowled 10 overs the previous day. If Jimmy Anderson is so crocked
that he can't bowl the day after bowling 10 overs, he might as well
retire forthwith. Broad had bowled 10 overs the previous day and
another four-and-a-bit to wrap up the innings. Again, if that's enough
to render him toothless, he too might as well retire.
>
>So Stokes chose to enforce the follow-on with only three fit bowlers (and what I said bout Anderson also goes for Broad).

Five fit bowlers (six if you include Brook).

> I believe England should have batted instead. For this reason, and not because they lost.

I believe Stokes was 100% right to enforce: it was by far the most
likely way of finishing the match early with a win. That they failed
to hold their catches and played some poor shots in the chase doesn't
invalidate the decision.

Cheers,

Mike

On Tuesday, 28 February 2023 at 11:17:31 UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
> That they failed
> to hold their catches and played some poor shots in the chase doesn't
> invalidate the decision.

It takes a special type of plank to think that a 1-run defeat somehow invalidates a decision.

Richard

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 11:27:01 AM UTC, Richard Dixon wrote:
> On Tuesday, 28 February 2023 at 11:17:31 UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
> > That they failed
> > to hold their catches and played some poor shots in the chase doesn't
> > invalidate the decision.
> It takes a special type of plank to think that a 1-run defeat somehow invalidates a decision.
>
> Richard

The probability of England winning was at its highest if England batted again DOH!!!! RH

On Tuesday, 28 February 2023 at 13:46:57 UTC, Robert Henderson wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 11:27:01 AM UTC, Richard Dixon wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 28 February 2023 at 11:17:31 UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
> > > That they failed
> > > to hold their catches and played some poor shots in the chase doesn't
> > > invalidate the decision.
> > It takes a special type of plank to think that a 1-run defeat somehow invalidates a decision.
> >
> > Richard
> The probability of England winning was at its highest if England batted again DOH!!!! RH

What was that probability, it must have been very tricky for you to calculate.

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 2:12:31 PM UTC, Najeeb ybo wrote:
> On Tuesday, 28 February 2023 at 13:46:57 UTC, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 11:27:01 AM UTC, Richard Dixon wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 28 February 2023 at 11:17:31 UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
> > > > That they failed
> > > > to hold their catches and played some poor shots in the chase doesn't
> > > > invalidate the decision.
> > > It takes a special type of plank to think that a 1-run defeat somehow invalidates a decision.
> > >
> > > Richard
> > The probability of England winning was at its highest if England batted again DOH!!!! RH
> What was that probability, it must have been very tricky for you to calculate.

At the least it would have guaranteed a draw for England. They could have batted for two thirds of a day, scored 300 and left themselves 4 sessions to bowl NZ out. The chances of NZ scoring 500 or so would have been minuscule.
RH

On Tuesday, 28 February 2023 at 13:46:57 UTC, Robert Henderson wrote:

> The probability of England winning was at its highest if England batted again DOH!!!! RH

Ah yes, boring 1950s percentage cricket. Off you trot back to your favourite decade little man - there's no place for you in today's cricketing world.

On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 06:39:02 -0800 (PST), Richard Dixon
<richsdixon1975@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, 28 February 2023 at 13:46:57 UTC, Robert Henderson wrote:
>
>> The probability of England winning was at its highest if England batted again DOH!!!! RH
>
>Ah yes, boring 1950s percentage cricket. Off you trot back to your favourite decade little man - there's no place for you in today's cricketing world.

Poor little dimwit is so jealous that we get to watch good cricket and
the funereally boring cricket he so adores has just about died out. As
he will soon, with any luck.

Cheers,

Mike

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 11:04:07 AM UTC, John Hall wrote:
> In message <8bc22f51-2fbf-4853...@googlegroups.com>,
> jack fredricks <jzfre...@gmail.com> writes
> >On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 3:54:290 >> We also know that only Australia lose after enforcing the follow-on.
> >
> >Yep. I've not supported enforcing the follow on since Calcutta 2001.
> >Unless it's either against a minnow, or a heavily rain affected match.
> >
> >There are almost no benefits to enforcing the follow-on.
> >
> >Not enforcing gives your bowlers a rest, removes pressure from your
> >batsmen in their 2nd innings, and makes the oppo bat in the 4th
> >innings.
> >
> The big benefit of enforcing the follow-on is that you don't have to
> decide when to declare. Declare too early, and you risk the opponents
> reaching their target. Declare too late - the tendency of most England
> captains prior to Stokes - and you may run out of time to bowl the
> opposition out. That risk of running out of time is increased if the
> weather is a bit dodgy. When you do win having enforced the f-o, you'll
> generally win earlier than if you had batted again, and so are less
> likely to be thwarted by the weather.
> --

Yes I think that is all true in this case. But given the age of our bowlers
and stokes being unable to bowl it was still quite a risky gamble.
It went wrong, NZ made 483. But despite that, England nearly pulled
off a win. In fact Leach hit a drive in the penult over which nearly
went for 4 and would have won the match.

My main concern is that Stokes may have crocked his knee again.
Collingwood said he had a problem at the end of the 3rd day, so i would have
expected to see stokes at 1st or 2nd slip for the rest of the NZ innings
not charging about the outfield. But that is the nature of the man.
If he cant play in the ashes that will make the decision to follow on
much more regrettable than this loss to NZ.

mike

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 2:39:03 PM UTC, Richard Dixon wrote:
> On Tuesday, 28 February 2023 at 13:46:57 UTC, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > The probability of England winning was at its highest if England batted again DOH!!!! RH
> Ah yes, boring 1950s percentage cricket. Off you trot back to your favourite decade little man - there's no place for you in today's cricketing world.

Translation: very pc Dixon has no answer... RH

On 28/02/2023 14:25, Robert Henderson wrote:
>>> The probability of England winning was at its highest if England
>>> batted again DOH!!!! RH
[Najeeb ybo:]
>> What was that probability, it must have been very tricky for you to
>> calculate.
> At the least it would have guaranteed a draw for England.

Not so, see below. But in any case, guaranteeing a[t least] a
draw is not the same as maximising the probability of winning. Further,
playing to avoid defeat is a bad frame of mind to be in; smacks of fear,
and England have no need to fear anyone at the moment.

> They could
> have batted for two thirds of a day, scored 300 and left themselves 4
> sessions to bowl NZ out. The chances of NZ scoring 500 or so would
> have been minuscule. RH

Could have, would have, should have. In the real world, they did
bat for [more than] two-thirds of a day, scored a mere 256, leaving NZ to
score an improbable 483, which they managed for 9 wickets. I think I'd
prefer to give credit to NZ for their fight-back, rather than analyse to
death what might have happened in some parallel universe in a very tight
finish. Yes, I'd have preferred a one-wicket win or a tie to a one-run
loss, but an exciting finish is considerable compensation.

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Simpson

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 4:30:31 PM UTC, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 28/02/2023 14:25, Robert Henderson wrote:
> >>> The probability of England winning was at its highest if England
> >>> batted again DOH!!!! RH
> [Najeeb ybo:]
> >> What was that probability, it must have been very tricky for you to
> >> calculate.
> > At the least it would have guaranteed a draw for England.
> Not so, see below. But in any case, guaranteeing a[t least] a
> draw is not the same as maximising the probability of winning. Further,
> playing to avoid defeat is a bad frame of mind to be in; smacks of fear,
> and England have no need to fear anyone at the moment.
> > They could
> > have batted for two thirds of a day, scored 300 and left themselves 4
> > sessions to bowl NZ out. The chances of NZ scoring 500 or so would
> > have been minuscule. RH
> Could have, would have, should have. In the real world, they did
> bat for [more than] two-thirds of a day, scored a mere 256, leaving NZ to
> score an improbable 483, which they managed for 9 wickets. I think I'd
> prefer to give credit to NZ for their fight-back, rather than analyse to
> death what might have happened in some parallel universe in a very tight
> finish. Yes, I'd have preferred a one-wicket win or a tie to a one-run
> loss, but an exciting finish is considerable compensation.
>
> --
> Andy Walker, Nottingham.
> Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
> Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Simpson

Oh dear, Dr BM defeated by his struggle with understanding human psychology again...Poor old bounded mind ....RH

In message <625cd435-19c5-4691-acc9-f13deea254f2n@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Henderson <anywhere156@gmail.com> writes
>On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 2:12:310 >> On Tuesday, 28 February 2023 at 13:46:57 UTC, Robert Henderson wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 11:27:010 >> > > On Tuesday, 28 February 2023 at 11:17:31 UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> > > > That they failed
>> > > > to hold their catches and played some poor shots in the chase doesn't
>> > > > invalidate the decision.
>> > > It takes a special type of plank to think that a 1-run defeat
>> > >somehow invalidates a decision.
>> > >
>> > > Richard
>> > The probability of England winning was at its highest if England
>> >batted again DOH!!!! RH
>> What was that probability, it must have been very tricky for you to
>>calculate.
>
>
>At the least it would have guaranteed a draw for England. They could
>have batted for two thirds of a day, scored 300 and left themselves 4
>sessions to bowl NZ out. The chances of NZ scoring 500 or so would
>have been minuscule.
>RH
>

As we should all know by now, guaranteeing a draw is not what this
England side are about.
--
John Hall "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
"Well, actually, they're American."
"So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"

In message <960fdbcc-c7d6-40c1-8fc3-7c6388540a36n@googlegroups.com>,
mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>My main concern is that Stokes may have crocked his knee again.
>Collingwood said he had a problem at the end of the 3rd day, so i would
>have expected to see stokes at 1st or 2nd slip for the rest of the NZ
>innings not charging about the outfield. But that is the nature of the
>man. If he cant play in the ashes that will make the decision to follow
>on much more regrettable than this loss to NZ.

The last England cricketer's knee to cause so much concern must have
been Denis Compton's. But his bowling wasn't so important to England's
cause, and a knee problem is more likely to seriously hamper a player's
bowling than their batting.
--
John Hall "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
"Well, actually, they're American."
"So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"

On Tuesday, 28 February 2023 at 15:54:33 UTC, Robert Henderson wrote:

> Translation: very pc Dixon has no answer... RH

Nope, playing for entertainment and to save the format which unless you'd noticed is become less and less attended.

Although given you don't watch Test cricket any more you won't have noticed.

Something your thick 1950s concrete monochrome head can't get around.

On 28/02/2023 18:02, Robert Henderson wrote:
[... My article snipped. ...]
> Oh dear, Dr BM defeated by his struggle with understanding human
> psychology again...Poor old bounded mind ....RH

Oh dear; Robert returns to his habit of writing random words [1]
to his imaginary friends [2].

Robert, you're accidentally out of my bozo bin, as a consequence
of AIOE going belly-up so that I had to switch to ES and couldn't be
bothered to copy across my kill files. I'd prefer not to have to revive
a KF for this group; I'd prefer to talk cricket, even with you and even
when I disagree strongly with what you write. Twenty years back, you
were capable of holding a civilised and interesting discussion. I'm not
rude to you, nor indeed to anyone; and I'm not going to bother to reply
to [or even see] further rubbish of the sort typified above. It's your
choice, and your own time you'll be wasting.

______
[1] with no relevance to the article to which he is replying
[2] who bear no apparent relation to anyone here

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Simpson

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 9:57:49 PM UTC, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 28/02/2023 18:02, Robert Henderson wrote:
> [... My article snipped. ...]
> > Oh dear, Dr BM defeated by his struggle with understanding human
> > psychology again...Poor old bounded mind ....RH
> Oh dear; Robert returns to his habit of writing random words [1]
> to his imaginary friends [2].
>
> Robert, you're accidentally out of my bozo bin, as a consequence
> of AIOE going belly-up so that I had to switch to ES and couldn't be
> bothered to copy across my kill files.

Hilarious case of over explaining
(I used to meet a good deal of that when I worked for the Revenue) RH

I'd prefer not to have to revive
> a KF for this group; I'd prefer to talk cricket, even with you and even
> when I disagree strongly with what you write. Twenty years back, you
> were capable of holding a civilised and interesting discussion. I'm not
> rude to you, nor indeed to anyone; and I'm not going to bother to reply
> to [or even see] further rubbish of the sort typified above. It's your
> choice, and your own time you'll be wasting.

Rib tickling pomposity. RH

> ______
> [1] with no relevance to the article to which he is replying
> [2] who bear no apparent relation to anyone here
> --
> Andy Walker, Nottingham.
> Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
> Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Simpson

On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 16:30:06 +0000, Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 28/02/2023 14:25, Robert Henderson wrote:
>>>> The probability of England winning was at its highest if England
>>>> batted again DOH!!!! RH
>[Najeeb ybo:]
>>> What was that probability, it must have been very tricky for you to
>>> calculate.
>> At the least it would have guaranteed a draw for England.
>
> Not so, see below. But in any case, guaranteeing a[t least] a
>draw is not the same as maximising the probability of winning. Further,
>playing to avoid defeat is a bad frame of mind to be in; smacks of fear,
>and England have no need to fear anyone at the moment.

And there we see the difference between the 1950s mentality and
Stokes's.

In the 1950s, the object was to avoid defeat, and the play was
accordingly focused on defence, with a side-effect of extreme boredom.
Nothing wrong with that, if that's how you want to play or what you
want to watch. As we saw thoughout the 50s and 60s, its main effect in
Test cricket is to make the draw the default result. It's the
conservative risk-averse mentality which has held the UK back for the
last century or so.

Stokes is only interested in winning and isn't going to try and stave
off defeat until it's impossible to win. With this approach we win
more matches and lose more matches. A side-effect is that the games
are much more competitive and a lot more interesting to watch, unless
stolid defence and innocuous medium pace is your thing.

Cheers,

Mike

On Wednesday, 1 March 2023 at 13:10:50 UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:

> Stokes is only interested in winning and isn't going to try and stave
> off defeat until it's impossible to win. With this approach we win
> more matches and lose more matches. A side-effect is that the games
> are much more competitive and a lot more interesting to watch, unless
> stolid defence and innocuous medium pace is your thing.

Which nicely sums up this until about 23m15s from Key (it should jump to the appropriate part of the video, I hope - if not it's 22m 29s)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eq1rlA4bFPo&t=1349s&ab_channel=WisdenCricket

Richard

On 01/03/2023 13:10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> In the 1950s, the object was to avoid defeat, and the play was
> accordingly focused on defence, with a side-effect of extreme boredom.
> Nothing wrong with that, if that's how you want to play or what you
> want to watch. As we saw thoughout the 50s and 60s, its main effect in
> Test cricket is to make the draw the default result. It's the
> conservative risk-averse mentality which has held the UK back for the
> last century or so.

I think there is an element of truth in that as regards the 1960s,
but it's not a fair characterisation of the 1950s. There were some very
one-sided Test series, boring for that reason but not for the reason you
gave; and some defensive draws, but you can't blame Bailey and Watson for
holding out against Oz in 1953. Similarly, in the CC, much of the boredom
sprang from one-sided matches, over-flat pitches and daft points awards;
the weather played quite a big part, too. When none of that happened, as
[eg] in the 1955 Tests against SA, an exciting series was the result [but
I'll give you the disappointing 1956-57 series in SA]. The general play,
in both Test and CC, was no more boring or risk-averse than recent, but
pre-Bazball, seasons.

Over a decade, you can expect there to be an exception. In the
1950s, that was the awful 1958-59 series. We went out expecting to win
easily, but were poorly managed, poorly captained, and lost decisively.
We let throwing, poor umpiring, dragging and Laker's finger get to us.
The result in that one series was all you say; luckily, Benaud and
Worrell managed to bring interest back to Test cricket. Sadly, /we/
didn't get the memo. Declining interest from the general public led
to the changes that Robert so derides -- overseas players, one-day
cricket, ever more pleas for "brighter" cricket, more professionalism,
and so on. It took another decade or so, but those changes gradually
bore fruit. We can all now despise T20 and even more so the dreaded
"Hundred" [spit], but cricket is in better shape today than it has ever
been in my lifetime [and Robert's]. Not just in the UK, either.

We don't need to swing from one extreme, of Robert's rose-tints,
to the other, and to assume that, because Robert is wrong, therefore the
cricket in the 1950s was all/mostly dull/boring/risk-averse. Some of it
was, but there were plenty of good players, a few good teams, and a deal
of interest. Sadly, it was all played in black and white, or dark grey
and pale grey if you were watching on TV ....

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Schubert

On 27/02/2023 16:37, John Hall wrote:
> In message <5770347a-e7d7-4ece-9f03-cc38d2b73960n@googlegroups.com>,
> mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes

>> I read that 198 is the highest winning score by a side after enforcing
>> the
>> follow on, which makes me feel rather more nervous than you, since
>> you know england wont want to hang about but take plenty of risks. we
>> saw that from 450-5 NZ suddenly fell away very quickly. Plus Stokes
>> hurt his knee again fielding the ball which led to bracewells strange
>> runout.
>
> How often have sides needed to chase more than 198 after making the
> opposition follow on, though? It can't be a very frequent occurrence.

This was the 8th.

> And how many of those matches were drawn because time ran out, rather
> than lost?

6, and only 2 of those saw more than 1 wicket fall in the 4th innings.
Apart from Australia at Kolkata, the only side that came close to losing
was NZ at Bombay in 1964/65.

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?batting_fielding_first=1;class=1;filter=advanced;innings_number=4;orderby=target;qualmin1=199;qualval1=target;size=200;template=results;type=team;view=innings

--
David North

On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 01:15:05 +0000, Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 01/03/2023 13:10, Mike Holmans wrote:
>> In the 1950s, the object was to avoid defeat, and the play was
>> accordingly focused on defence, with a side-effect of extreme boredom.
>> Nothing wrong with that, if that's how you want to play or what you
>> want to watch. As we saw thoughout the 50s and 60s, its main effect in
>> Test cricket is to make the draw the default result. It's the
>> conservative risk-averse mentality which has held the UK back for the
>> last century or so.
>
> I think there is an element of truth in that as regards the 1960s,
>but it's not a fair characterisation of the 1950s. ...but
>I'll give you the disappointing 1956-57 series in SA]. The general play,
>in both Test and CC, was no more boring or risk-averse than recent, but
>pre-Bazball, seasons.

I'll happily concede the first half of the decade without argument.
But Swanton's book on the 56-57 tour finished with a long section on
how this ghastly series was the culmination of some tendencies he had
noted creeping into the English game. And it was following that
debacle that MCC finally changed the law to ban leg traps, which were
specifically placed to exploit the inswinging leg theory which had
become the standard method of keeping things quiet. (And, for what
little it's worth, Derbyshire's Alan Revill said he found county
cricket very stodgy when he was playing it in the 1950s.)

And as you say, it got worse in the 1960s, though hardly overnight.
>
> We can all now despise T20

FSVO "we ... all".

> and even more so the dreaded
>"Hundred" [spit], but cricket is in better shape today than it has ever
>been in my lifetime [and Robert's]. Not just in the UK, either.

Indeed.

Cheers,

Mike

On 28/02/2023 11:07, John Hall wrote:
> I see that NZ didn't
> risk Mitchell, so used just four bowlers. And it looks like that was
> reduced to three before the end, as three bowlers finished having bowled
> only part of an over.

Henry went off with a back problem during an over, but returned 5 overs
later, which was a relief for me, as Somerset have just signed him for
the coming season.

--
David North

On 28/02/2023 18:17, John Hall wrote:
> In message <960fdbcc-c7d6-40c1-8fc3-7c6388540a36n@googlegroups.com>,
> mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>> My main concern is that Stokes may have crocked his knee again.
>> Collingwood said he had a problem at the end of the 3rd day, so i
>> would have expected to see stokes at 1st or 2nd slip for the rest of
>> the NZ innings not charging about the outfield. But that is the nature
>> of the man. If he cant play in the ashes that will make the decision
>> to follow on much more regrettable than this loss to NZ.
>
> The last England cricketer's knee to cause so much concern must have
> been Denis Compton's.

I'm not sure that Syd Lawrence or Simon Jones would agree.

--
David North

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 6:16:33 PM UTC, John Hall wrote:
> In message <625cd435-19c5-4691...@googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Henderson <anywh...@gmail.com> writes
> >On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 2:12:310 >> On Tuesday, 28 February 2023 at 13:46:57 UTC, Robert Henderson wrote:
> >> > On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 11:27:010 >> > > On Tuesday, 28 February 2023 at 11:17:31 UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
> >> > > > That they failed
> >> > > > to hold their catches and played some poor shots in the chase doesn't
> >> > > > invalidate the decision.
> >> > > It takes a special type of plank to think that a 1-run defeat
> >> > >somehow invalidates a decision.
> >> > >
> >> > > Richard
> >> > The probability of England winning was at its highest if England
> >> >batted again DOH!!!! RH
> >> What was that probability, it must have been very tricky for you to
> >>calculate.
> >
> >
> >At the least it would have guaranteed a draw for England. They could
> >have batted for two thirds of a day, scored 300 and left themselves 4
> >sessions to bowl NZ out. The chances of NZ scoring 500 or so would
> >have been minuscule.
> >RH
> >
> As we should all know by now, guaranteeing a draw is not what this
> England side are about.

OK. So let us suppose that for the fifth game of an Ashes series with the series 2-1 in England's favour , you would not support England batting again if a similar situation to that of the Test just concluded arose ?

On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 6:16:03 PM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
> OK. So let us suppose that for the fifth game of an Ashes series with the series 2-1 in England's favour , you would not support England batting again if a similar situation to that of the Test just concluded arose ?

Are you talking about the 4th innings?

Only Root batted Bazball style.