Harsh, tbh.Was just about to say that after a flurry of runs from Voges, Bailey had got stuck there. 55(91) a bit sub-Trottian tbf.
Ronchi.Who else?
He actually slowed down though. Was on 27 (28) at one point.Harsh, tbh.
Came with Oz about -10/2.
He was on 32 (34) or something similar though. He slowed down after Australia got into a better position; he essentially batted backwards.Harsh, tbh.
Came with Oz about -10/2.
There's always an excuse for why every Trott innings is wrong and every other statistically Trottian innings is rightHarsh, tbh.
Came with Oz about -10/2.
I suppose he is due.Ronchi.
He actually slowed down though. Was on 27 (28) at one point.
Fair dos, but I'll wager the slow down came when Voges arrived and started scoring.He was on 32 (34) or something similar though. He slowed down after Australia got into a better position; he essentially batted backwards.
Definitely would've taken his contribution when he came in though.
Yeah; as Spark always points out - it's not so much the individual strike rates that matter but the partnership run rate. His last 25 runs would've taken 60+ balls though which definitely suggests he should've been giving Voges more strike once Australia got into a better position, even if he wasn't threatening the bowling much himself.Fair dos, but I'll wager the slow down came when Voges arrived and started scoring.
Bailey just playing to his partners, IMHO.