So, as you believe "The whole reason was to do with how tired Pak bowlers were and to have to do it again straight away, would have let the Aussies in with a chance...."
It was only an hour's play left in the day, not even a complete session. Pakistani bowlers got the last two wickets in quick succession, though they were ready to bowl wholeheartedly for that complete session."
Anyone who is conversant with even the smatterings of cricket knows very well that '' every coach defends the decision taken by the captain or the management''. So, quoting G.Flower as an objective commentator is an abortive effort to prove your point."
Dean Jones, Ramiz Raja, Denny ... 9 out of 10 commentators of international elite panel were in favor of 'forcing the follow-on'...some said they were surprised by this decision, the others were simply baffled.
There are still pretty tangible chances that Pakistan would win the game, yet my point was not on winning and losing. My point was only on the manner of winning by writing it with eminent ink in the annals of history. Secondly, if it was the follow-on, Aussies would have lost some early wickets today in the last session. No sane captain would choose for his openers going out there to start their batting in the last hour of the day in a test match...it's too precarious, let alone call it prudent'...and the result of losing two early wickets proved this decision, too adventurous.
I stick to my guns by the dint of logic, show me a bit of it in yours.
