Cook braves criticism as England play it safe

It tells you something about the mentality of English cricket that, leading by 489 with two days to go, their assistant coach spent much of the post-play press conference defending his side. Well, perhaps not his side as much as his side's captain.

There had been so much to praise in the England performance on day three. There was the beautifully executed slower-ball cutter from Stuart Broad that fooled Asad Shafiq into slicing a drive to point. There was the pace generated by Ben Stokes in a wonderfully hostile spell on a slow pitch and his athletic fielding that, at one stage, saw him field at vacant mid-on off his own bowling and stop a single.

There was the selflessness of James Anderson, who sprinted from mid-off to the extra-cover boundary, dived and turned what appeared to be a certain four into a three off the bowling of Chris Woakes. And there was Woakes displaying such hostility that he was able to strike a batsman of Misbah-ul-Haq's class on the helmet despite the docility of the pitch.

Most of all, there was the fact that England bowled Pakistan out for 198 on a blameless surface. It was one of their better flat-pitch performances in recent years.

But Alastair Cook's decision not to enforce the follow-on appeared to push all that into irrelevance. It wasn't so much it divided opinion as united it: to judge by the comments in the media or on Twitter - not the most reliable barometer of public opinion, admittedly - it seemed to be pretty much Cook on one side of the debate and the rest of the world on the other.

Even Mickey Arthur, the Pakistan coach, admitted he was surprised by the decision and that it probably gave his side "a bit better chance" of escaping with a draw. "We fully expected to be batting again," he said with a bemused smile. "Yes, it's probably more likely there will be a draw."

Cook's decision was surprising, for sure. Only twice in their Test history have England chosen not to enforce the follow-on with a larger lead than the 391 they had here. The last such occasion came in 1930.

Their bowlers (and they have five of them these days) did not appear to have exerted themselves especially hard - none of them had bowled more than 16 overs - and, this being Manchester, the threat of rain can never be totally discounted. The next Test does not start until August 3, so there need have been no concern about retaining energy for a back-to-back match.

By the time they reduced Pakistan to 119 for 8, England had every intention of enforcing the follow-on. Anderson and Broad were taken out of the attack with a view to keeping them fresh for the second innings and it looked as if Pakistan could be polished off within 50 overs.

But then Misbah and Wahab Riaz added 60. It was not only Pakistan's third-highest ninth-wicket stand against England in England, but it showed how flat this pitch remained. Stokes and Woakes, clearly England's faster bowlers these days, were obliged to deliver a few more overs than England might have liked and Cook made the decision that, with the pitch fine for now but likely to deteriorate a little more over the next couple of days, his side should make use of it rather than potentially face a tricky fourth-innings target on a surface helping Yasir Shah. Equally, he hoped that his bowlers would have a slightly easier job once the surface had worn a little more.

"The key was wanting to bat while the wicket is still good," Farbrace said. "We don't want ourselves under any pressure of having to chase a score in the fourth innings. We still think the pitch will deteriorate over the next couple of days and the bounce will become variable.

"We had been hoping to bowl them out a lot quicker. Then Anderson and Broad would have been fresh to take new ball when we enforced the follow-on. But the longer their innings went the more we decided to bat again."

There were a couple of other considerations. England also thought that Pakistan's bowlers, who have already spent five sessions in the field this match and were now without Wahab, who sustained a knock on the elbow when batting against Woakes, would shudder at the thought of pulling on their bowling boots once more. Pakistan's first-innings batting clearly suffered for the wearying effects of their hours in the field; England reasoned they had time to inflict a little more pain upon them. Judging by the way Yasir started in the second innings, they may have had a point. If not exhausted, he certainly looks stiff and tired.

"Yes, we wanted to keep them out for as long as we could," Farbrace said. "We want to make sure they spend as much time bowling possible as there is a knock-on effect of that."

Farbrace insisted the decision was not about protecting either Anderson or Stokes, though. Both are making their return from injury in this game but, as Farbrace put it: "at no stage was this decision about protecting them."

So, was Cook's decision negative? Perhaps. It suggests that England were concerned about the potential threat of Yasir in the fourth innings and, arguably, did not send out the most confident statement of support in his bowlers. It suggested, not for the first time, that Cook's safety-first approach sometimes threatens England's best chance of victory. It appeared to clash with England's much-repeated modern mantra to play positive cricket.

In the century-and-a-half that people have been playing Test cricket, no team has ever successfully chased more than 418 to win and, excluding the timeless Test of 1939, no team has ever scored more than 451 in the fourth innings of a Test. It does seem abundantly cautious. But we probably shouldn't have been surprised.

Wasn't this decision entirely typical of the most pragmatic batsman England have ever produced? A man who has denied himself the cover drive for months at a time in a bid to cut out risk and give himself the best chance of accumulating the runs required to help his side into strong positions. A man who has picked a side with Moeen Ali batting at No. 8 and who still utilised a nightwatchman on the first evening with his side 311 for 4. A man who has built a magnificent career on a pull, a nudge and a cut. A man in whom the victory for substance over style is overwhelming.

Might it even have been a little brave? Might it have been brave to risk the opprobrium of the media in the knowledge that, should this decision backfire, he will be open to harsh criticism but feeling he was protecting his bowlers and backing them to bowl Pakistan out in five sessions or so over the last day-and-a-half? The weather forecast is not brilliant, but it suggests rain will not play a significant role.

We have been here before. In 2013, at Leeds, England beat New Zealand by 247 having declined to enforce the follow-on and taken some fearful criticism in the process. Some players in that side point to it as the moment they lost respect for the media who, they suggest, had forgotten that England had just been fortunate to draw 0-0 in New Zealand (the series in which Matt Prior and Monty Panesar were obliged to bat for a draw in Auckland) or the burden upon their four-man attack. Some players felt the criticism was motivated by the fact some in the media had made plans to play golf on the scheduled final day and were disappointed that the game was still progressing.

What Cook's decision was not is ridiculous. There is enough logic in the decision to make it understandable at worst and reasonable at best. Indeed, bearing in mind England's record against quality spin bowling, you might even argue it was sensible.

England will still have the best part of five sessions to dislodge Pakistan's batsmen. Batsmen who have only reached 300 once in their three innings so far this series. If they survive, they will have earned their draw. And if England win? Maybe Cook will deserve some plaudits.