Fine line I agree - I just think he was on the other side to yourself. And earlier there were others on both sides as well, so hardly just me.
But if he was playing for his hundred, he did by definition cost us a chance at winning the game. It’s a team effort, and Billings made it to 100 in part due to the early work of other players seeing off other bowlers, such as Bairstow, and playing Billings into a position to capitalise, he was there at the end to try to take advantage of the situation and get us over the line - just think not taking the risks necessary to win is criminal.
Take the Xamper last overs for instance, he hit a good reverse for 4, but then the Aussies covered it but he played 4 more reverses in the next 2 overs for a single into that area along the ground. You aren’t going to reverse along the ground for four with a fielder out there, so you either try to go aerial and beat him or pick another shot, like the lofty drive over extra where the man isn’t on the boundary anymore. Yes it has more risk but also more reward and overs 42 and 44 needed more risk chasing 10 an over than to pile pressure onto Woakes at the other end (which incidentally meant he holed out himself). But you aren’t winning by singling to point at the end of the day, especially knowing what they had to come. Buttler in the T20 showed much better ways to score heavily against the spin than Billings attempted. I wouldn’t have minded if he’d have tried and failed, it’s the not trying and taking the easy option that doesn’t sit right
Im sure we all have played plenty of the sport. Not sure what the point in the post is however
