Why was no attempt to play fro a draw after Stokes was out ?

In message <faded755-cba0-4d3a-9143-cf43a02dcaabn@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Henderson <anywhere156@gmail.com> writes
>Why was no attempt to play fro a draw after Stokes was out ?

Because there were getting on for 40 overs left in the day's play, and
there was no way that the tail could survive for that long, especially
with a new ball imminent. It was far easier - though still a tall order
- to score the 70-odd runs needed to win. Besides , Stokes has made it
clear that his side will always go for the win if that is remotely
possible.
--
John Hall "[It was] so steep that at intervals the street broke into steps,
like a person breaking into giggles or hiccups, and then resumed
its sober climb, until it had another fit of steps."
Ursula K Le Guin "The Beginning Place"

On 7/2/2023 8:52 AM, Robert Henderson wrote:
> Why was no attempt to play fro a draw after Stokes was out ?

When Stokes got out, there were 55+ overs left to be bowled.

It would be impossible for the last three batters to last that long
UNLESS rain gods help England but it wasn't in the forecast.

Scoring the remaining runs was the ONLY possibility.

On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 1:52:03 AM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
> Why was no attempt to play fro a draw after Stokes was out ?

With the number of overs left getting the runs was more likely than blocking it out.

On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 1:36:37 AM UTC+1, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 1:52:03 AM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > Why was no attempt to play fro a draw after Stokes was out ?
> With the number of overs left getting the runs was more likely than blocking it out.

If England had played for a draw immediately after Bairstow's dismissal they could have played for a draw to start with going at s, say, 2.5 an over but upped the rate to 3 runs per over if they were within striking distant for a win at that time., RH

In message <29cf3eb8-8af4-479b-9c7c-86b98a6cb6a2n@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Henderson <anywhere156@gmail.com> writes
>On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 1:36:370 >> On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 1:52:030 >> > Why was no attempt to play fro a draw after Stokes was out ?
>> With the number of overs left getting the runs was more likely than
>>blocking it out.
>
>
>If England had played for a draw immediately after Bairstow's dismissal
>they could have played for a draw to start with going at s, say, 2.5
>an over but upped the rate to 3 runs per over if they were within
>striking distant for a win at that time., RH

With Broad coming in with 65 or so overs to go, all playing for a draw
at that point would have done is increase the margin of defeat and
eliminate the outside chance of a famous victory. England's 8-11 aren't
good enough batsmen to bat for an extended period of time. Broad
surprised everyone by lasting for as long as he did, but a big factor in
that was how adept Stokes was at taking most of the strike.

This Test is going to be long remembered. It wouldn't have been had
Stokes batted defensively, and England lost by over a hundred runs after
extending their innings by at best another hour or so.
--
John Hall "[It was] so steep that at intervals the street broke into steps,
like a person breaking into giggles or hiccups, and then resumed
its sober climb, until it had another fit of steps."
Ursula K Le Guin "The Beginning Place"

On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 6:50:16 PM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
> On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 1:36:37 AM UTC+1, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 1:52:03 AM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > > Why was no attempt to play fro a draw after Stokes was out ?
> > With the number of overs left getting the runs was more likely than blocking it out.
> If England had played for a draw immediately after Bairstow's dismissal

That's over 100 runs and 20 overs before Stokes was out which is what you asked in the heading.
It was Broad's longest innings in about 3 years.
The odds of the tail sticking around for a draw were negligible

>they could have played for a draw to start with going at s, say, 2.5 an over but upped the rate to 3 runs per over if they were within striking distant for a win at that time., RH

On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 3:11:48 PM UTC+1, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 6:50:16 PM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 1:36:37 AM UTC+1, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > > On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 1:52:03 AM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > > > Why was no attempt to play fro a draw after Stokes was out ?
> > > With the number of overs left getting the runs was more likely than blocking it out.
> > If England had played for a draw immediately after Bairstow's dismissal
> That's over 100 runs and 20 overs before Stokes was out which is what you asked in the heading.
> It was Broad's longest innings in about 3 years.
> The odds of the tail sticking around for a draw were negligible
> >they could have played for a draw to start with going at s, say, 2.5 an over but upped the rate to 3 runs per over if they were within striking distant for a win at that time., RH

There was nothing to be lost by playing for a draw so why not try? RH

On 7/4/2023 1:26 AM, Robert Henderson wrote:
> On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 3:11:48 PM UTC+1, Hamish Laws wrote:
>> On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 6:50:16 PM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 1:36:37 AM UTC+1, Hamish Laws wrote:
>>>> On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 1:52:03 AM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
>>>>> Why was no attempt to play fro a draw after Stokes was out ?
>>>> With the number of overs left getting the runs was more likely than blocking it out.
>>> If England had played for a draw immediately after Bairstow's dismissal
>> That's over 100 runs and 20 overs before Stokes was out which is what you asked in the heading.
>> It was Broad's longest innings in about 3 years.
>> The odds of the tail sticking around for a draw were negligible
>>> they could have played for a draw to start with going at s, say, 2.5 an over but upped the rate to 3 runs per over if they were within striking distant for a win at that time., RH
>
>
> There was nothing to be lost by playing for a draw so why not try? RH

LOW IQ moron,

It would be IMPOSSIBLE for England's tailenders to SURVIVE 55+ overs on
that 5th day pitch and a new ball due.

Which part YOU DON'T understand?

You don't even know the BASICS of cricket but YET you delusionally think
you are a cricket expert.

In message <1ad70eb3-bcaa-4fc8-9da6-25bd770dd493n@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Henderson <anywhere156@gmail.com> writes
>On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 3:11:480 >> On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 6:50:160 >> > On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 1:36:370 >> > > On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 1:52:030 >> > > > Why was no attempt to play fro a draw after Stokes was out ?
>> > > With the number of overs left getting the runs was more likely
>> > >blocking it out.
>> > If England had played for a draw immediately after Bairstow's dismissal
>> That's over 100 runs and 20 overs before Stokes was out which is what
>>you asked in the heading.
>> It was Broad's longest innings in about 3 years.
>> The odds of the tail sticking around for a draw were negligible
>> >they could have played for a draw to start with going at s, say, 2.5
>> >an over but upped the rate to 3 runs per over if they were within
>> >striking distant for a win at that time., RH
>
>
>There was nothing to be lost by playing for a draw so why not try? RH

In contrast, I would say there was nothing to be gained by playing for a
draw, so why try? By his attacking play, Stokes unnerved Australia, and
had he batted for another half an hour England would have brought off an
unlikely win.

I'd estimate:
Playing for a win after Bairstow was out: chance of a win 8%, chance of
a draw 0%.
Playing for a draw: chance of a win 1%, chance of a draw 3%.

You can dispute the exact percentages, but I think it's clear that
playing for the win was the right tactic. Of course, given what Stokes
has said since he became captain, England were never going to play for
the draw.
--
John Hall "[It was] so steep that at intervals the street broke into steps,
like a person breaking into giggles or hiccups, and then resumed
its sober climb, until it had another fit of steps."
Ursula K Le Guin "The Beginning Place"

On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 10:15:36 AM UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
> In message <1ad70eb3-bcaa-4fc8...@googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Henderson <anywh...@gmail.com> writes
> >On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 3:11:480 >> On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 6:50:160 >> > On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 1:36:370 >> > > On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 1:52:030 >> > > > Why was no attempt to play fro a draw after Stokes was out ?
> >> > > With the number of overs left getting the runs was more likely
> >> > >blocking it out.
> >> > If England had played for a draw immediately after Bairstow's dismissal
> >> That's over 100 runs and 20 overs before Stokes was out which is what
> >>you asked in the heading.
> >> It was Broad's longest innings in about 3 years.
> >> The odds of the tail sticking around for a draw were negligible
> >> >they could have played for a draw to start with going at s, say, 2.5
> >> >an over but upped the rate to 3 runs per over if they were within
> >> >striking distant for a win at that time., RH
> >
> >
> >There was nothing to be lost by playing for a draw so why not try? RH
> In contrast, I would say there was nothing to be gained by playing for a
> draw, so why try? By his attacking play, Stokes unnerved Australia, and
> had he batted for another half an hour England would have brought off an
> unlikely win.
>
> I'd estimate:
> Playing for a win after Bairstow was out: chance of a win 8%, chance of
> a draw 0%.
> Playing for a draw: chance of a win 1%, chance of a draw 3%.
>
> You can dispute the exact percentages, but I think it's clear that
> playing for the win was the right tactic. Of course, given what Stokes
> has said since he became captain, England were never going to play for
> the draw.

Why not ? After Stokes was out. a win was most unlikely .. RTH

On Tuesday, 4 July 2023 at 11:15:36 UTC+2, John Hall wrote:
> In message <1ad70eb3-bcaa-4fc8...@googlegroups.com>,

> >There was nothing to be lost by playing for a draw so why not try? RH
> In contrast, I would say there was nothing to be gained by playing for a
> draw, so why try? By his attacking play, Stokes unnerved Australia, and
> had he batted for another half an hour England would have brought off an
> unlikely win.
>
> I'd estimate:
> Playing for a win after Bairstow was out: chance of a win 8%, chance of
> a draw 0%.
> Playing for a draw: chance of a win 1%, chance of a draw 3%.
>
> You can dispute the exact percentages, but I think it's clear that
> playing for the win was the right tactic. Of course, given what Stokes
> has said since he became captain, England were never going to play for
> the draw.

The flip side of the coin is that if you're thinking of the SERIES then a draw would have been a better result. 1-nil with three to play is easier to recover from than 2-nil with three to play. Easier, not easy.

Though, and as you say, the chances of the England tail lasting long enough were pretty slim.

So I think I've just talked myself into agreement that England did the right thing.

On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 8:11:04 PM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 10:15:36 AM UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
> > In message <1ad70eb3-bcaa-4fc8...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Robert Henderson <anywh...@gmail.com> writes
> > >On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 3:11:480 >> On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 6:50:160 >> > On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 1:36:370 >> > > On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 1:52:030 >> > > > Why was no attempt to play fro a draw after Stokes was out ?
> > >> > > With the number of overs left getting the runs was more likely
> > >> > >blocking it out.
> > >> > If England had played for a draw immediately after Bairstow's dismissal
> > >> That's over 100 runs and 20 overs before Stokes was out which is what
> > >>you asked in the heading.
> > >> It was Broad's longest innings in about 3 years.
> > >> The odds of the tail sticking around for a draw were negligible
> > >> >they could have played for a draw to start with going at s, say, 2.5
> > >> >an over but upped the rate to 3 runs per over if they were within
> > >> >striking distant for a win at that time., RH
> > >
> > >
> > >There was nothing to be lost by playing for a draw so why not try? RH
> > In contrast, I would say there was nothing to be gained by playing for a
> > draw, so why try? By his attacking play, Stokes unnerved Australia, and
> > had he batted for another half an hour England would have brought off an
> > unlikely win.
> >
> > I'd estimate:
> > Playing for a win after Bairstow was out: chance of a win 8%, chance of
> > a draw 0%.
> > Playing for a draw: chance of a win 1%, chance of a draw 3%.
> >
> > You can dispute the exact percentages, but I think it's clear that
> > playing for the win was the right tactic. Of course, given what Stokes
> > has said since he became captain, England were never going to play for
> > the draw.
> Why not ? After Stokes was out. a win was most unlikely .. RTH

The odds of the tail making 70 runs were probably better than their odds of lasting 50 overs

On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 12:21:36 PM UTC+1, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 8:11:04 PM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 10:15:36 AM UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
> > > In message <1ad70eb3-bcaa-4fc8...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > Robert Henderson <anywh...@gmail.com> writes
> > > >On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 3:11:480 >> On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 6:50:160 >> > On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 1:36:370 >> > > On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 1:52:030 >> > > > Why was no attempt to play fro a draw after Stokes was out ?
> > > >> > > With the number of overs left getting the runs was more likely
> > > >> > >blocking it out.
> > > >> > If England had played for a draw immediately after Bairstow's dismissal
> > > >> That's over 100 runs and 20 overs before Stokes was out which is what
> > > >>you asked in the heading.
> > > >> It was Broad's longest innings in about 3 years.
> > > >> The odds of the tail sticking around for a draw were negligible
> > > >> >they could have played for a draw to start with going at s, say, 2.5
> > > >> >an over but upped the rate to 3 runs per over if they were within
> > > >> >striking distant for a win at that time., RH
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >There was nothing to be lost by playing for a draw so why not try? RH
> > > In contrast, I would say there was nothing to be gained by playing for a
> > > draw, so why try? By his attacking play, Stokes unnerved Australia, and
> > > had he batted for another half an hour England would have brought off an
> > > unlikely win.
> > >
> > > I'd estimate:
> > > Playing for a win after Bairstow was out: chance of a win 8%, chance of
> > > a draw 0%.
> > > Playing for a draw: chance of a win 1%, chance of a draw 3%.
> > >
> > > You can dispute the exact percentages, but I think it's clear that
> > > playing for the win was the right tactic. Of course, given what Stokes
> > > has said since he became captain, England were never going to play for
> > > the draw.
> > Why not ? After Stokes was out. a win was most unlikely .. RTH
> The odds of the tail making 70 runs were probably better than their odds of lasting 50 overs

But the fact is that after Stokes went the only realistic positive outcome for England was a draw, As they were almost certain to lose if they attacked then objectively batting out for a draw was their best course of action. RH

On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 10:04:45 PM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:

The draw, after Bairstow's wicket, was practically impossible.
You've been told this already.

On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 10:04:45 PM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 12:21:36 PM UTC+1, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 8:11:04 PM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 10:15:36 AM UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
> > > > In message <1ad70eb3-bcaa-4fc8...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > > Robert Henderson <anywh...@gmail.com> writes
> > > > >On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 3:11:480 >> On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 6:50:160 >> > On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 1:36:370 >> > > On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 1:52:030 >> > > > Why was no attempt to play fro a draw after Stokes was out ?
> > > > >> > > With the number of overs left getting the runs was more likely
> > > > >> > >blocking it out.
> > > > >> > If England had played for a draw immediately after Bairstow's dismissal
> > > > >> That's over 100 runs and 20 overs before Stokes was out which is what
> > > > >>you asked in the heading.
> > > > >> It was Broad's longest innings in about 3 years.
> > > > >> The odds of the tail sticking around for a draw were negligible
> > > > >> >they could have played for a draw to start with going at s, say, 2.5
> > > > >> >an over but upped the rate to 3 runs per over if they were within
> > > > >> >striking distant for a win at that time., RH
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >There was nothing to be lost by playing for a draw so why not try? RH
> > > > In contrast, I would say there was nothing to be gained by playing for a
> > > > draw, so why try? By his attacking play, Stokes unnerved Australia, and
> > > > had he batted for another half an hour England would have brought off an
> > > > unlikely win.
> > > >
> > > > I'd estimate:
> > > > Playing for a win after Bairstow was out: chance of a win 8%, chance of
> > > > a draw 0%.
> > > > Playing for a draw: chance of a win 1%, chance of a draw 3%.
> > > >
> > > > You can dispute the exact percentages, but I think it's clear that
> > > > playing for the win was the right tactic. Of course, given what Stokes
> > > > has said since he became captain, England were never going to play for
> > > > the draw.
> > > Why not ? After Stokes was out. a win was most unlikely .. RTH
> > The odds of the tail making 70 runs were probably better than their odds of lasting 50 overs
> But the fact is that after Stokes went the only realistic positive outcome for England was a draw, As they were almost certain to lose if they attacked then objectively batting out for a draw was their best course of action.. RH

I think there were at least 50 overs left, what odd do you give Broad, Robinson, Tongue and Anderson of batting out 50 overs and making less than 70 runs?
Compared to their odds of making 70 runs in, say, 25 overs?

On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 1:18:16 PM UTC+1, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 10:04:45 PM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
>
> The draw, after Bairstow's wicket, was practically impossible.
> You've been told this already.

You continue to moss the point: there was a small but possible that a draw might be obtained,. Hence anything was better than playing for a draw if it is conceded there was no meaningful chance of winnings.

Think of Panasar and (tithing) Anderson batting out against Oz. .. RH

On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 11:23:30 PM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 1:18:16 PM UTC+1, jack fredricks wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 10:04:45 PM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
> >
> > The draw, after Bairstow's wicket, was practically impossible.
> > You've been told this already.
> You continue to moss the point: there was a small but possible that a draw might be obtained,. Hence anything was better than playing for a draw if it is conceded there was no meaningful chance of winnings.

We see what you're arguing, we think you're full of it.
The tail is more likely to make 70 runs than they are to bat out 50+ overs and making less than 70 runs.
So there was more chance of avoiding losing by going for the win than by going a draw.
>
> Think of Panasar and (tithing) Anderson batting out against Oz. .. RH

They batted out 11.5 overs. They added 19 runs
So at their scoring rate they'd have won the match here if they'd batted out 50 overs

In message <0a0ec66e-8ec0-4f3f-a9ef-3bf712f75c2an@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Henderson <anywhere156@gmail.com> writes
>On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 10:15:360 >> In message <1ad70eb3-bcaa-4fc8...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Robert Henderson <anywh...@gmail.com> writes
>> >On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 3:11:480 >> On Monday, July 3, 2023 at
>> >6:50:160 >> > On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 1:36:370 >> > > On Monday,
>> >July 3, 2023 at 1:52:030 >> > > > Why was no attempt to play fro a
>> >draw after Stokes was out ?
>> >> > > With the number of overs left getting the runs was more likely
>> >> > >blocking it out.
>> >> > If England had played for a draw immediately after Bairstow's dismissal
>> >> That's over 100 runs and 20 overs before Stokes was out which is what
>> >>you asked in the heading.
>> >> It was Broad's longest innings in about 3 years.
>> >> The odds of the tail sticking around for a draw were negligible
>> >> >they could have played for a draw to start with going at s, say, 2.5
>> >> >an over but upped the rate to 3 runs per over if they were within
>> >> >striking distant for a win at that time., RH
>> >
>> >
>> >There was nothing to be lost by playing for a draw so why not try? RH
>> In contrast, I would say there was nothing to be gained by playing for a
>> draw, so why try? By his attacking play, Stokes unnerved Australia, and
>> had he batted for another half an hour England would have brought off an
>> unlikely win.
>>
>> I'd estimate:
>> Playing for a win after Bairstow was out: chance of a win 8%, chance of
>> a draw 0%.
>> Playing for a draw: chance of a win 1%, chance of a draw 3%.
>>
>> You can dispute the exact percentages, but I think it's clear that
>> playing for the win was the right tactic. Of course, given what Stokes
>> has said since he became captain, England were never going to play for
>> the draw.
>
>
>Why not ? After Stokes was out. a win was most unlikely .. RTH

You said in an earlier post "If England had played for a draw
immediately after Bairstow's dismissal...", and that's what I was
discussing. But even after Stokes was out, though a win was very
unlikely a draw was even more unlikely. There was more chance of the
tail scoring the 70-odd runs needed to win than of holding out for 40 or
so overs.
--
John Hall "[It was] so steep that at intervals the street broke into steps,
like a person breaking into giggles or hiccups, and then resumed
its sober climb, until it had another fit of steps."
Ursula K Le Guin "The Beginning Place"

On Tuesday, 4 July 2023 at 14:23:30 UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:

> Think of Panasar and (tithing) Anderson batting out against Oz. .. RH

Good of RH to hark back to two good stout Englishmen battening down the hatches from days of yore.

On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 15:39:04 -0700 (PDT), Richard Dixon
<richsdixon1975@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, 4 July 2023 at 14:23:30 UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:
>
>> Think of Panasar and (tithing) Anderson batting out against Oz. .. RH
>
>Good of RH to hark back to two good stout Englishmen battening down the hatches from days of yore.
>
>
70 something extras didn't do the cause any good.

max.it

On Wednesday, July 5, 2023 at 8:59:09 AM UTC+10, max.it wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 15:39:04 -0700 (PDT), Richard Dixon
> <richsdi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, 4 July 2023 at 14:23:30 UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:
> >
> >> Think of Panasar and (tithing) Anderson batting out against Oz. .. RH
> >
> >Good of RH to hark back to two good stout Englishmen battening down the hatches from days of yore.
> >
> >
> 70 something extras didn't do the cause any good.
>
Zaltsman says that English is averaging more runs/wicket off the bat than Australia is so far. in the series

On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 11:23:30 PM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
> You continue to moss the point: there was a small but possible that a draw might be obtained

I can only imagine how much you'd be vilifying Team England if;

1. positions were reversed (Aus had 4 wickets left, all bowlers, and 55 overs to survive)
2. Aus managed the draw

You'd be saying it was the worst bowling performance ever.

On Wednesday, July 5, 2023 at 1:48:40 AM UTC+1, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 11:23:30 PM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > You continue to moss the point: there was a small but possible that a draw might be obtained
> I can only imagine how much you'd be vilifying Team England if;
>
> 1. positions were reversed (Aus had 4 wickets left, all bowlers, and 55 overs to survive)
> 2. Aus managed the draw
>
> You'd be saying it was the worst bowling performance ever.

All your points are irrelevant to the question of playing for a draw in the 2nd Test. What is a fact is that however small or large there was a chance to a draw. RH

In message <92a1b781-984c-422c-a79e-1f3e5a47421an@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Henderson <anywhere156@gmail.com> writes
>On Wednesday, July 5, 2023 at 1:48:400 >> On Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 11:23:300 >> > You continue to moss the point: there was a small but possible that
>> >draw might be obtained
>> I can only imagine how much you'd be vilifying Team England if;
>>
>> 1. positions were reversed (Aus had 4 wickets left, all bowlers, and
>>55 overs to survive)
>> 2. Aus managed the draw
>>
>> You'd be saying it was the worst bowling performance ever.
>
>All your points are irrelevant to the question of playing for a draw
>in the 2nd Test. What is a fact is that however small or large there
>was a chance to a draw. RH

Had you been captain instead of Stokes, England would have drawn at
least two or three of the Tests that they won last summer.
--
John Hall "[It was] so steep that at intervals the street broke into steps,
like a person breaking into giggles or hiccups, and then resumed
its sober climb, until it had another fit of steps."
Ursula K Le Guin "The Beginning Place"