It's The Ashes (again)

[SuperBob2002]

Not quite sure how anyone can say the defeat had “nothing” to do with the declaration. It’s very likely a few more runs to play with could have helped.

Having said this, looking at the bigger picture, Stokes loves test cricket and wants it to remain the pinnacle and very popular. He’s going this way about it to do that. I find that very hard to criticise.

Of course the declaration cost us. We kept hearing, it's all about putting pressure on. Nothing puts pressure on like the best batsman in the world picking off tired bowlers on a docile pitch. There's a good reason why no one else ever does it. Seriously, there is no way we would have lost by declaring 4 overs later. We lost by 2 wickets, the same amount of wickets we chose to forfeit  on the first day!

Simplistically

Bairstow missed stumping Green off his second ball and Green went on to make 38
Bairstow dropped Carey in 1st innings when he was on 27 - went on to score 66
Dropped Carey second innings and Carey went on to score 20
Stokes dropped Lyon when he was on 2 and Lyon went on to score 16 and see out the match.
Don’t think Root’s dropped catches cost too much

So the missed stumping and dropped catches cost England around about 100 runs (feel free to be precise if you want). So the question is would Root have put on more than 100 runs without the declaration.

In fact it could be argued the biggest cause was Stokes (tough chance mind) dropping Lyon, because the Aussies still needed 37 and the last man would have been as nervous as hell.

Like I said simplistically, because other events could and would have happened regardless.
Both the declaration and the missed chances contributed to the loss, feel free to nail your colours to either mast.

Couldn't agree more. We would have declared overnight regardless. So maybe 5 more overs of Root going gung ho (Assuming he doesn't get out)? Even the most generous of estimates gives us an extra 50 or so runs from that. The dropped catches were far worse.

Agreed. 

I can understand the logic from Stokes'/McCullum's point of view. Aggressive and put pressure on Australian batsmen in the awkward few overs just before close period. I don't agree with it, nor do I think it cost us the match, but I can see the logic. 

There's a reason it isn't done by anyone else and a reason why it's copping a lot of criticism - the alternative works. I.e batting time and batting once. In Warwickshire's last CC match we won the toss and batted time, batted aggressively when needed, and (most importantly) we ground the Notts fielders into the ground so much so that when they came to bat they were fatigued and lacked concentration. We enforced the follow on. Which in hindsight was the wrong move - I'd have batted again, allowed our bowlers a rest, and wear the Notts players down further. 

However the pitch was that flat, and conditions that good, that they batted out their second innings, as our bowlers were spent due to the heat and playing conditions. We didn't lose, but we didn't win. The fact the pitch was benign cost us the win, not our tactics. The batting long and once gave us a chance of winning whilst all but guaranteeing a draw and avoiding defeat.