Of course he lost the battle against utterly dominant Ferrari of Leclerc, that was up to 0.4s a lap faster, closer to 0.8s towards the end of each stint. It shouldn't have been a battle whatsoever, if not for Ferrari reactive indecisive strategy calls, always stopping a lap later on a day/track where undercut was unbelievably powerful. They shouldn't have ever met on the track after the first 5 laps.
It's funny by the way when people use that Bahrain battle as an example of Leclerc's brilliance or even superiority as a racer, when in reality no other driver than Max wouldn't be even in that battle fighting for the lead having such car deficit. The undercut was so powerful that day, if Leclerc stopped on the same laps for new tires, let alone a lap earlier on every occasion, he would've been leading by 15-20+ seconds even before the late SC, which represents totally dominant car and pace advantage.
So, what question did it answer?