alfie wrote:there is a wealth of difference between being fortunate not to edge one in the midst of a fine spell from a top class bowler in difficult conditions, and , say , getting dropped several times through mishits etc...
I think this is an interesting statement that shows where we view the game differently. Its entirely natural to conclude a batsman who plays and misses every ball is doing better than a guy who edges every ball, because edging brings a potential dismissal in play; but really when you analyse the process involved, in both cases the batsman is making an error of judgement, and weirdly in the case of an edge, their judgement is closer to being correct than when they miss entirely because their judgement of where to play the ball is actually closer than when it misses. Hence why analytics into batsman errors do not separate edges from misses, and hence why missing the ball with increasing frequency has the same proportional negative impact on expected output (one could argue more because missing the ball brings other dismissals more likely into play).
Its important, because Bairstow's main problem in test cricket has been missing balls on the stumps, something he's been historically good at. In a 30 test period before this year, he averaged 6 runs on balls on the stumps or just outside - 4 times below the average batsman in the world. One would be inclined to think he'd improved, which he has... to 8.83 on last count (after his 3rd century of the year), still miles below the average. His recent form seems to have been accumulated by teams not actually targeting his weakness and bowling shorter to him... which accounts for a complete turnaround in where he is scoring (mostly back foot, leg side as opposed to offside normally). But they key is, errors still come when balls are put on a good length.
One gets the feeling that he's been riding his fortunes quite well. And that sometimes happens, and yes all the best batsman get luck - but its the amount of errors he's getting away with, like illustrated in the last innings, that make his recent return to scoring seem unsustainable.
I mean, vs Australia he spooned a glove into the air just short of a fielder. He then edged through the slips. In the Windies, he hacked a horrible pull shot miles into the air just outside the reach of Da Silva running back. His first century v New Zealand, he played two horrendous drives, one that missed first slip over his head by a short distance, another that went past him to his right. In his second he was dropped twice, and edged short of second slip with two errors occurring straight into his innings. And yesterday he edged short of a fielder three times. These are just examples I can remember. To get away with all these errors bucks mathematical trends - something that usually corrects itself over time. There will be days he can play the exact same way, and rather than 5 centuries, he'd have 5 fails.
The net effect is, when all the luck possible goes for him, he's made runs. When the luck didnt go for him, he averaged 19 in a near 3 year span of 25 plus tests. All in all, you are left with a player who has averaged over 35 in 2 of his 10 years as a test player, and who's overall career average in his playing span is below average production for a top 6 bat in 8 test teams. He was the worst consistent performer in a stretch where England were statistically at their worst historical batting performance. Not exactly making the test hall of fame, is he?
So before we get into this "why cant I acknowledge he can play" stuff, lets remember.... this is his 87th test of a below average career. He didnt start playing in January 2022, but summer 2012. And considering even in this purple patch he is riding a lot of errors you'd expect him to get out to, when the luck stops he will be back to being that player who wasn't very good.