On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 9:56:00 AM UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
> In message <92a1b781-984c-422c...@googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Henderson <anywh...@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.

Unsubstantiated claims. RH

On Thursday, 6 July 2023 at 09:31:52 UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
The chance to draw however large or small was probably in single figures, the chance to win was easily 50/50 after Bairstow got out.
Only a coward or a fool would suggest throwing away the chance to win in favour of attempting to bat out a draw when the finish line is within sight.

On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 10:56:10 AM UTC+1, Najeeb ybo wrote:
> On Thursday, 6 July 2023 at 09:31:52 UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> The chance to draw however large or small was probably in single figures, the chance to win was easily 50/50 after Bairstow got out.
> Only a coward or a fool would suggest throwing away the chance to win in favour of attempting to bat out a draw when the finish line is within sight..

But ...but ...all the liberal bigots in the group claim that there was no chance of winning after Stokes dismissal.

RH

On Thursday, 6 July 2023 at 12:35:52 UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:
> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 10:56:10 AM UTC+1, Najeeb ybo wrote:
> > On Thursday, 6 July 2023 at 09:31:52 UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > The chance to draw however large or small was probably in single figures, the chance to win was easily 50/50 after Bairstow got out.
> > Only a coward or a fool would suggest throwing away the chance to win in favour of attempting to bat out a draw when the finish line is within sight.
> But ...but ...all the liberal bigots in the group claim that there was no chance of winning after Stokes dismissal.
>
> RH
>
>
Who made these claims?

On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 12:42:42 PM UTC+1, Najeeb ybo wrote:
> On Thursday, 6 July 2023 at 12:35:52 UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 10:56:10 AM UTC+1, Najeeb ybo wrote:
> > > On Thursday, 6 July 2023 at 09:31:52 UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > The chance to draw however large or small was probably in single figures, the chance to win was easily 50/50 after Bairstow got out.
> > > Only a coward or a fool would suggest throwing away the chance to win in favour of attempting to bat out a draw when the finish line is within sight.
> > But ...but ...all the liberal bigots in the group claim that there was no chance of winning after Stokes dismissal.
> >
> > RH
> >
> >
> Who made these claims?

All the liberal bigots in the ng... RH

On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 6:56:00 PM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
> In message <92a1b781-984c-422c...@googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Henderson <anywh...@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.

Dunno, I suspect some of their best players would have been banned after wrapping their bats around his head repeatedly

On Thursday, 6 July 2023 at 13:38:49 UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:
> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 12:42:42 PM UTC+1, Najeeb ybo wrote:
> > On Thursday, 6 July 2023 at 12:35:52 UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 10:56:10 AM UTC+1, Najeeb ybo wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, 6 July 2023 at 09:31:52 UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > > > > 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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > The chance to draw however large or small was probably in single figures, the chance to win was easily 50/50 after Bairstow got out.
> > > > Only a coward or a fool would suggest throwing away the chance to win in favour of attempting to bat out a draw when the finish line is within sight.
> > > But ...but ...all the liberal bigots in the group claim that there was no chance of winning after Stokes dismissal.
> > >
> > > RH
> > >
> > >
> > Who made these claims?
> All the liberal bigots in the ng... RH
>
>
What did they say?
Who said what?
I'm beginning to think that you are a liar.

On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 9:35:52 PM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 10:56:10 AM UTC+1, Najeeb ybo wrote:
> > On Thursday, 6 July 2023 at 09:31:52 UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > The chance to draw however large or small was probably in single figures, the chance to win was easily 50/50 after Bairstow got out.
> > Only a coward or a fool would suggest throwing away the chance to win in favour of attempting to bat out a draw when the finish line is within sight.
> But ...but ...all the liberal bigots in the group claim that there was no chance of winning after Stokes dismissal.
>
The voices in your head are misleading you
From the first response to your thread starter by John Hall
"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. "

My first response to your post
"With the number of overs left getting the runs was more likely than blocking it out."
and you responded to that so can't claim you didn't see it (although you did try and claim the criteria to after Bairstow was dismissed in your response so maybe you're just constantly bewildered now)

_You_ have posted several times that there was no or negligible chances of a win but nobody else has that I've seen (virtually everybody else has said that the win was more likely than a draw although still long odds)
Are you now saying that you're a liberal bigot?

Seriously see your doctor and get checked out

In message <a9f6c7f6-3c31-44b2-82e3-9be278aa56bcn@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Henderson <anywhere156@gmail.com> writes
>On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 9:56:000 >> In message <92a1b781-984c-422c...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Robert Henderson <anywh...@gmail.com> writes
>> >On Wednesday, July 5, 2023 at 1:48:400 >> On Tuesday, July 4, 2023
>> >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.
>
>Unsubstantiated claims. RH

Based on what you have said in this thread, you would clearly have told
the team to play for a draw in several matches when an England win
looked highly unlikely. When they managed 378 in the fourth innings to
beat India, for instance (and for the loss of only three wickets too).
--
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 7/6/2023 6:50 AM, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 9:35:52 PM UTC+10, Robert Henderson wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 10:56:10 AM UTC+1, Najeeb ybo wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 6 July 2023 at 09:31:52 UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The chance to draw however large or small was probably in single figures, the chance to win was easily 50/50 after Bairstow got out.
>>> Only a coward or a fool would suggest throwing away the chance to win in favour of attempting to bat out a draw when the finish line is within sight.
>> But ...but ...all the liberal bigots in the group claim that there was no chance of winning after Stokes dismissal.
>>
> The voices in your head are misleading you
> From the first response to your thread starter by John Hall
> "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. "
>
> My first response to your post
> "With the number of overs left getting the runs was more likely than blocking it out."
> and you responded to that so can't claim you didn't see it (although you did try and claim the criteria to after Bairstow was dismissed in your response so maybe you're just constantly bewildered now)
>
> _You_ have posted several times that there was no or negligible chances of a win but nobody else has that I've seen (virtually everybody else has said that the win was more likely than a draw although still long odds)
> Are you now saying that you're a liberal bigot?
>
> Seriously see your doctor and get checked out
>

Lunatic Robert Henderson reached a POINT OF NO RETURN decades ago.

Not even God can help "it".

On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 8:23:31 PM UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
> In message <a9f6c7f6-3c31-44b2...@googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Henderson <anywh...@gmail.com> writes
> >On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 9:56:000 >> In message <92a1b781-984c-422c....@googlegroups.com>,
> >> Robert Henderson <anywh...@gmail.com> writes
> >> >On Wednesday, July 5, 2023 at 1:48:400 >> On Tuesday, July 4, 2023
> >> >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.
> >
> >Unsubstantiated claims. RH
> Based on what you have said in this thread, you would clearly have told
> the team to play for a draw in several matches when an England win
> looked highly unlikely. When they managed 378 in the fourth innings to
> beat India, for instance (and for the loss of only three wickets too).
> --
> 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"

Each match requires a different approach . That is the trouble with BazBall, it is one dimensional. It is also worth saying that the idea of playing for a draw appears to have been banished by the England Baz Ball management. That is absurd. It is also untrue that draws are by definition boring.. RH

On 06/07/2023 09:47, John Hall wrote:
> 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.

Yes, but had Robert been captain of Australia at Edgbaston, England
would have at least drawn, and maybe even won, that Test. ;) After all,
when Carey was 8th out, they only needed to bat out 16.3 overs for the
draw, whereas they still needed 54 to win.

--
David North

On Thursday, 6 July 2023 at 10:39:21 UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:
> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 9:56:00 AM UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
> > In message <92a1b781-984c-422c...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Robert Henderson <anywh...@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.
>
>
> Unsubstantiated claims. RH
>
>
Now, about your very own unsubstantiated claims.
You claimed that "all the liberal bigots in the group claim that there was no chance of winning after Stokes dismissal."
You appear to be unable to support your claims, that would make you a liar wouldn't it.

Who said what?
What did they say?

On 06/07/2023 10:56, Najeeb ybo wrote:
> On Thursday, 6 July 2023 at 09:31:52 UTC+1, Robert Henderson wrote:
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
> The chance to draw however large or small was probably in single figures, the chance to win was easily 50/50 after Bairstow got out.

Not at the point when Bairstow was out, but it reached that level before
Stokes was out.

--
David North

On 07/07/2023 06:43, Robert Henderson wrote:
> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 8:23:31 PM UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
>> In message <a9f6c7f6-3c31-44b2...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Robert Henderson <anywh...@gmail.com> writes
>>> On Thursday, July 6, 2023 at 9:56:000 >> In message <92a1b781-984c-422c...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>> Robert Henderson <anywh...@gmail.com> writes
>>>>> On Wednesday, July 5, 2023 at 1:48:400 >> On Tuesday, July 4, 2023
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Unsubstantiated claims. RH
>> Based on what you have said in this thread, you would clearly have told
>> the team to play for a draw in several matches when an England win
>> looked highly unlikely. When they managed 378 in the fourth innings to
>> beat India, for instance (and for the loss of only three wickets too).
>> --
>> 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"
>
> Each match requires a different approach . That is the trouble with BazBall, it is one dimensional. It is also worth saying that the idea of playing for a draw appears to have been banished by the England Baz Ball management. That is absurd. It is also untrue that draws are by definition boring. RH

There may well be matches when England go for the win, and lose, when
playing for the draw would have been the easier option.

Lord's - certainly from the point when Stokes was out - was not one of them.

--
David North