Because little chance is more than almost no chance. Yes, the most probable result was always a draw. So whether you bat or bowl is largely futile. But, you need to always try. I give you Pak who had lost 7 wickets in 48 over; admittedly this wicket was more docile. I think India had a lead of 367 at lunch with 53 overs left for the English. That is at near 7 runs an over. Can you even remotely find any team that chased near, say 275, at over 5 runs an over in test cricket in I4 to win? KP is not God. In test cricket, you can easily defend 7 runs an over.puneets wrote: Why ? There was very little chance to get Eng out in 55 overs. But given the way KP and Flintoff were batting yesterday, there could have been a nail biting finish in store had we given them 55-60 overs to play.
Regarding practice, I would rather have Yuvraj prove himself in a test match situation, rather than an ODI situation where England were merely passing time restricting runs to get the declaration and not attacking with their ears up. It is the latter situation that Yuvraj needs practice in, not, practice against a team on defence. Actually, innings under these circumstances may give us a false idea of his capabilities --- we know he is an excellent attacking player. Also, why not give Amit Mishra more practice to see if he can cut it, especially, against an attacking English team after they had time to adjust to his bowling?