For some bizarre reason, batting average and strike rate continue to get dissed in T20s. Likely because they think it makes them look cool. It is the T20 version of elitism.

Combine batting average and SR, it tells you all that a batsman is capable of, provided his home base is

a standard T20 deck. SR tells you if a batsman is capable of going big and average tells you how long he will be able to sustain it.

That's all I need.

Standalone, they tell you zilch though. Combine it. You will get everything you need.

Take this one for ex: AB & Pant both strike at 260+ at the death (highest in IPL) vs pace.

Both what separates them is that one does it at 182 RPW & the other at 29. This gives you what you need. You could then further contextualise it on deck difficulty & boundary size.

Dhoni and Rana both strike at 200-205 vs pace. To find out who is the better of the two, all you need is add the batting average part. One does it at 71 and the other at 18.

That's exactly what I see on screen. Rana being average vs quality pace.

There will always be exceptions. Sometimes you will get something as crazy as Kane Richardson/Chris Woakes is a great death bowler on numbers.

It contradicts your viewing. You refuse to believe it till you dig everything out in relation of it. Once you do, it won't be true.

Franchises just saw the numbers and bought Woakes in. Punished.

If you watch it bowl and you are capable of observing it as it should be, then you would have known he can't handle it..