Firstly, you're supposing that anything that makes a draw more likely is poor for the team overall. If you get outplayed then a draw is precisely what you want. Increasingly the likelihood of a draw is only bad for the team if it outplays the opposition, which only happens 50% to the average team in cricket.
Yes, but you do not know that a draw is on the cards until you're into the match. One may say in a situation where in a match a draw becomes desirable that Tavare would be of more use than Tendulkar; but who would actually pick him over Tendulkar ahead of the match?
Secondly, the idea that having more time will allow more runs to be scored only applies to teams that have batting lineups operating below optimal run output. Most teams usually operate at a pace with the bat that allows them to score the most runs they can; only good teams need worry about doing it quicker time as a) only such teams wouldn't just get bowled out before time and b) if the opposition plays better than you then the draw is a good result anyway.
Disagree. That thought fails to take into account that at varying points in matches batsmen may slow down, minimise risk, in turn to score more runs. No one scores in a linear fashion. Conversely, often, time restrictions may force them to score faster than they'd like to; so having a bowling attack that naturally buys you more time means less risk can be taken because of such a bowling attack.
I think you put waaaay too much emphasis on the time facet of Test cricket, perhaps because you've largely followed such an awesome team that it seemed so much greater a concern than the chance of the opposition outplaying you.
Not really. Even a team like Bangladesh would benefit from such an output. To lose half a session to save 4 runs and take a wicket once every 6 innings (~0.17) is not a great trade off for any team - unless time was plentiful and runs incredibly scarce. If a draw is what is desired; then you are talking about draws where the game would have had a result but for 4 runs and 14 overs. As I said, such matches don't arise often enough to make the choice of Chatfield over Cairns viable in the grand scheme of things - even as 4th bowlers go. Furthermore, in a team where 3 bowlers are striking at 36 a draw is not on the cards; hence that point is rendered somewhat irrelevant. As through the construction of that scenario to get Chatfield into the team in the first place it renders that result incredibly incredibly unlikely.
There are far more, and more realistic, scenarios where having Cairns as a 3rd/4th bowler is important. I take your point and even think it's right - for
that scenario - but it does not mean I think overall it is important/prevalent enough to come into one's consideration.
On this point, you'll change my mind when you show me that it occurs far more than I think it does - which I don't think you can, and that's not said to be haughty.
