Totally, I think some adjusted measure of strike rate would be useful, like using balls scored off/balls rather than runs/balls. Arguably a batsman is more valuable getting six singles rather than a four and a two.
Your missing the point. Bailey was on like 35 of 45 or something like that then fell in a heap and couldn't score for the second half of innings, exactly when Australia needed him to get going, ie. when Maxwell got out.
Perhaps average runs scored while the batsman is at the crease, divided by balls delivered while batsman was at the crease, ought to be a factor? This would account for players who are feeding strike to a hitter at the other end.
Arguably 6 > 6?
Maybe 6>6?
Hey can you not discuss numbers or anything with me ever again, you absolute joke of a poster.
That's the good thing though - batsmen bat in partnerships, after all.
It makes sense though. If you can score at a run a ball, and the guy at the other end scores at two runs a ball, then your team is doing better the fewer balls you face and the more singles you get.
On the contrary, he had to stay there even if he consumed few. It's giving yourself a chance to explode when time permits or holding one end up with explosion from the other side. When Maxi got out, Bailey could not afford to throw away his wicket. Always a possibility of collapse in a heap in that situation. The situation did not dictate him to try risking it. Moeen was bowling well too. His pitchmap showed it in the analysis.
I can handle the name calling. So insult me and my posts all you like. But i will continue to critique the logic of your posts whenever I feel like it. You do not need to respond.
He is still facing 6 balls per 6 runs. How is the other batsman getting any more strike and increase his own batting average (or sum run scoring) than he would otherwise get for this to be benficial? Overs get called. He will score some singles. And then he will often get out at an earlier stage in the match (as you well know) because he has faced his amount of balls for a completed innings. His own batting does not improve by virtue that the batsman at the other end hits singles and not fours.
Who asked for Bailey to throw his wicket away? Collapse? Dictate risk? He slowed down to score at a SR of 57 when Australia were 170/4 - 200/4.
Noone is making that assumption that Bevan scored fast at the start of an innings and then slowed down as a general proposition.
Noone is blaming him solely for the loss. This is a macro question of run scoring maximisation and SR - not a micro question on finding the sole and only reason why Australia lost last night in particular. Bailey's career average SR is much better than Bevan's or last nights innings.
