More Talking Tactics
There is always an enormously fine line between a tactical gamble which works and one which does not.
The comparison with the events of the conclusion of the Premier league season and the Champions League is instructive. The gambles which Sir Alex Ferguson took paid off. Resting players against Chelsea and losing the league game did not matter because they took maximum points from the last two premiership games and also beat Chelsea in the Champions League Final. Tough tactical decisions were made with a very keen eye to the probabilities, and they worked.
However the dividing line between success and failure is very narrow. Had certain refereeing decisions gone differently in the Manchester United-Wigan game, the outcome probably would not have been different, but it might have been. As to the Champions League Final, even as a devoted Manchester United fan I would accept that on balance Chelsea had the better of the play. If their captain had converted the fifth penalty instead of slipping then they would have carried off the trophy. Losing in those circumstances must constitute the narrowest possible margin.
Similarly the dividing line between success and failure can be astonishingly slim. It can be just as narrow as the difference between John Terry staying upright and converting a penalty, and slipping and missing instead. You can pursue a cross examination in a particular way and not quite make the breakthrough. That is not necessarily a reflection of the skill or lack of it of questioning. Sometimes the cards fall in your direction. Sometimes they conspicuously fail to do so. Obviously if you do not have sufficient planning or tactical awareness then you are unlikely to succeed. However, merely because you have the correct plan does not mean that fortune will favour you.
Having said all of that, it is important to bear in mind that taking risks is part of the game. If your team is losing in extra time, then you have to chase the game. Similarly in any piece of litigation you have to assess what the likely outcome is, and whether it is worth taking risks. If it is worth taking risks, what are those risks, and how should this be approached? It is all too easy in advocacy to follow the "steady" option which in a difficult case will lead to inevitable but not disastrous defeat. What should be done instead is to follow whatever is the course which gives the best chance of victory, even if that course failing will lead to conspicuous defeat. To pursue the football analogy, if a low placed club is playing at Old Trafford and goes one nil down, do they seriously try and win the game, or try and keep the score respectable? If you chase the game you might win it, but you might get badly beaten and whichever way you look at it that looks bad. Ultimately advocates have to have the courage of their convictions.
In advocacy, like football, anyone can be wise after the event. Similarly the finest of margins, and frankly luck, can affect the outcome. However that is no excuse for not formulating the right strategy and pursuing it fearlessly and as effectively as circumstances permit.