The value of partnerships
Bangladesh out-partnered Australia in Darwin. Partnerships are how an innings actually gets built — and how PlayStats reads one, stand by stand.
Nick · Co-founder, PlayStats · 18 August 2026 · 3 min read
Putting aside the obvious:
That Australia lost all but all the sessions in this Test Match. Disregard the domino mistake made by captain, Pat Cummins, in electing to bat over bowling on an unknown surface. Dismiss the obvious that selecting both Cameron Green and Beau Webster is an each-way bet on what we don't know. Look past the untried subs that were summoned from the bench to go out and field ahead of the 12th man — who I assume pockets a percentage of the spouse, slash, partner approved match fee. I'm also willing to try to understand why Australia's most prolific finger spinner bowled with offside sweepers for the entirety of his work. And, Scott Boland — is this his lot, and we, and him, just put up with that he is merely a back-up QB, never to be considered ahead of Josh Hazlewood — yes, well bowled Joshie, six wickets, a commendable effort. You could go on, but that would be just plain negative.
Instead, we should tip a hat to Bangladesh, deserved victors in Darwin.
Well played, Bangladesh. Their batters occupied and accumulated, together. The pacers stuck to the task and exposed Australia's inability to sit and absorb. Their spinners were more effective, and their out-cricket matched, or surpassed Australia's. And most importantly, the visitors did it all with an infectious enthusiasm that was a treasure to watch. And congrats to their coach, Phil Simmons, the original propagator of infectious enthusiasm.
And the partnerships?
Visually, it's pretty compelling; Australia were lapped in three of the first four first-innings partnerships — the other being only nine runs difference. Then Bangladesh bookended, winning three of the last four partnerships.
| Partnership | Margin |
|---|---|
| 2nd wicket | BAN +95 |
| 3rd wicket | BAN +84 |
| 4th wicket | BAN +53 |
| 7th wicket | BAN +26 |
| 8th wicket | BAN +14 |
| 9th wicket | BAN +33 |
How PlayStats handles it
Partnerships aren't something the scorecard gives us — PlayStats rebuilds every stand from the ball-by-ball record of the innings. For each wicket partnership it works out the runs, balls faced, whether it was unbroken, and what each of the two batters contributed inside that stand — e.g. 3rd wicket 74 off 58, Smith 41(30), Jones 28(26).
From the team side you see it in three places:
The team match page — under each innings scorecard there's a Partnerships section, one row per wicket with a bar scaled against the biggest stand of the innings, and it's expanded by default for coaches. Small touch: the set batsman stays in the left column of every stand they're part of, so an anchor's partnerships read straight down the list. Each name links to that player's profile.
The match report — the printable, shareable report includes the biggest stands for each innings alongside phases and fall of wickets.
The story of the match — partnerships feed the match's written read: a proper opening stand gets named, and a 50+ stand that started three or more down with under 60 on the board gets called out as a rebuild.
One deliberate difference in perspective: on a player's own innings page, partnerships are grouped by partner rather than by wicket — "who do I bat well with" — while the team view keeps them by wicket, which is the coach's question.
If you have "Partnership" features — bat and ball — that you would like to see added, please send us a note at support@playstats.app.
Also, there is a major update available in the app stores for all player accounts. You know where to go! Have a great day.
Nick