Is Ken Barrington the Kallis of his generation

[Richard]

Didn't he debut as a strokemaker, fail, get dropped and then get brought back a few years later, though? I'd assume he'd play less county cricket whilst in the Test team, too.

Not enormously, not in those days. There were 5 or 6 (usually 5) Tests per season, and something like 27 county games. The only times you'd miss a county game would be when it clashed with a Test. So you could easily still play 22 county games per season.

Anyway Barrington's first couple of Tests came in '55 and he scored 0, 34 and 18. After returning in '59 he missed just 11 Tests out of 91 between then and '68, his final summer. So those are the points you want to be looking for in his Surrey career.

 

[Goughy]

His last 13 test innings were against WI & Aus which were the best teams around at the time plus on uncovered wickets in the Windies & Australia..

No, his last 11 innings were against WI and Aus. That was over 8 games in which he scored 1 hundred. Of those 8 games, 7 were draws.

I dont see what your point is.

Also, whilst WI and Aus were the stronger teams, it could be argued that the late 60s saw bowling at possibly its lowest ebb.

 

[fredfertang]

In Barrington's first 5 seasons with Surrey the purpose of batsmen was only to get just enough runs for Laker, Lock, Loader, Bedser et al to bowl at - they didn't need that many and were expected to get them quickly - even after that he still generally batted in a much more expansive way for Surrey - for him playing for England was the pinnacle and he never surrendered his wicket - "On a good pitch you should lace up your boots and book in for bed and breakfast" was a favourite saying

He deserves to be remembered more than he is - the only explanation I can point to is that the Ashes series in which he played in the 60's are probably the least fondly remembered era in Ashes history

 

[bagapath]

Plus people actually liked Kenny.

Barrington never seems to get accorded the respect his record should demand for him tho. Whenever the "Who is England's best post-war bastman?" question is posed his name is usually noteable by its absence. I can see how some judges might prefer the dashing stoke play of a May or a Dexter, but Boycott's name is usually mentioned and his MO was primarily the same as Kenny's.

I think it is a very difficult position to fill in anyways. even if you leave aside may and dexter (and gooch and pietersen) barrington would still not be the best post war english batsman.

that honor should go to len hutton without any argument (of course, we can argue in this forum. but you know what i mean). as a very close second, and possibly equal first in the books of many learned observers, denis compton would come in. then depending on your personal preference the four names mentioned above and ken barrington and boycott would have to fight for the next six places. but it should be hutton and compton first and then the rest for post war england.

even if you include pre war english batsmanship, only hobbs, hammond and sutcliff would compete with, and possibly surpass, these two stalwarts. it is a very big deal when you think about the other names i have not included here - leyland, grace, f.s. jackson and ranji.

barrington was an all time great, so is kallis. but both would struggle to make it to the top 20 batsmen of all time because their style (quite similar, as i understand) was very restrictive to their teams in terms of pushing for victories. while boycott was equally slow, and derided for it, border, dravid and gavaskar - with almost similar scoring speeds - added heroics to their stoicism and contributed to some important victories for their teams. one was good at playing back to the wall innings. other was good at protecting the team on bad wickets. the third one was good at blunting the best bowlers in the opposition to help the rest of the team. boycott and barrington were respected for their single minded devotion to accumulation of runs - but criticised for the same reason too. that way you can call barrington the kallis of his era.

 

[Richard]

I think it is a very difficult position to fill in anyways. even if you leave aside may and dexter (and gooch and pietersen) barrington would still not be the best post war english batsman.

that honor should go to len hutton without any argument (of course, we can argue in this forum. but you know what i mean). as a very close second, and possibly equal first in the books of many learned observers, denis compton would come in. then depending on your personal preference the four names mentioned above and ken barrington and boycott would have to fight for the next six places. but it should be hutton and compton first and then the rest for post war england.

even if you include pre war english batsmanship, only hobbs, hammond and sutcliff would compete with, and possibly surpass, these two stalwarts.

Yeah, Hutton every time for me without question from '45 onwards.

Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond, Hutton and Compton are without question the top five English batsmen from 1900 for mine. WG Grace of course may well have been better than any but as I've said ad nauseum I'm not prepared to consider comparing them as the game in the 19th-century, and especially in WG's heyday of the 1870s, was notably different from the game of (about) 1900 onwards.

Barrington at six would not be completely OOTQ but as I say above, the fact that his credentials at domestic level did not match-up to those at Test counts against him. This also applies to Edward Dexter of course, though Dexter's Test success was nowhere near so spectacular as Barrington's. Another who falls into this category is Maurice Leyland. Boycott, May and at a stretch Graveney have better credentials. Another I'm baffled isn't talked about more is Patsy Hendren.

Duleepsinhji had his health not intervened could easily have been in the mix as well. And occasionally I wonder about Joe Hardstaff Jnr and what might've happened had the war not robbed him of his best years.

It'll be interesting to see where Pietersen ends-up ranking as well of course, but right now he is at the stage where you should be expecting a batsman to hit his prime. And already his average is over 50, even if early on that flattered him greatly.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I think it is a very difficult position to fill in anyways. even if you leave aside may and dexter (and gooch and pietersen) barrington would still not be the best post war english batsman.

that honor should go to len hutton without any argument (of course, we can argue in this forum. but you know what i mean). as a very close second, and possibly equal first in the books of many learned observers, denis compton would come in. then depending on your personal preference the four names mentioned above and ken barrington and boycott would have to fight for the next six places. but it should be hutton and compton first and then the rest for post war england.

even if you include pre war english batsmanship, only hobbs, hammond and sutcliff would compete with, and possibly surpass, these two stalwarts. it is a very big deal when you think about the other names i have not included here - leyland, grace, f.s. jackson and ranji.

barrington was an all time great, so is kallis. but both would struggle to make it to the top 20 batsmen of all time because their style (quite similar, as i understand) was very restrictive to their teams in terms of pushing for victories. while boycott was equally slow, and derided for it, border, dravid and gavaskar - with almost similar scoring speeds - added heroics to their stoicism and contributed to some important victories for their teams. one was good at playing back to the wall innings. other was good at protecting the team on bad wickets. the third one was good at blunting the best bowlers in the opposition to help the rest of the team. boycott and barrington were respected for their single minded devotion to accumulation of runs - but criticised for the same reason too. that way you can call barrington the kallis of his era.

To be fair, by "post-war" I usually take it to mean debuted after hostilities ceased, which rules out Messers Hutton & Compton. Probably grossly unfair as both played the majority of their test careers post war.

Hutton's average actually drops a couple of runs if his pre-war efforts are excluded. Still 54+ is still a tremendous return for a chap who, as a result of a wartime injury, ended up with one arm two inches shorter than the other.

 

[archie mac]

Here is the cricinfo link on Barringtons career..

http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru...=1;template=results;type=batting;view=innings

His last 13 test innings were against WI & Aus which were the best teams around at the time plus on uncovered wickets in the Windies & Australia..

I'd say he is one of the very best ever. Just not fashionable enough to be put in every day language. I don't think he would care.

He is one of my favourites . I don't think anyone would have been smiling when he walked to the crease.

Because of your avatar I will agree with most of your opinions

Welcome to the site

 

[JBH001]

Tbh, I dont think Hutton and Compton are included because their careers began before the second world war. For the same reason, Bradman is never regarded as the best post war Australian batsman. Although, admittedly, his post war career was a lot shorter.

Afaik, most critics and observers (Benaud for one) name May as the best post-war English bat. I dont know where Barrington would rank in that number of post war English batsmen, but I think he certainly makes a strong case for a spot in the top 6. But I would not put him at the top.

 

[archie mac]

Tbh, I dont think Hutton and Compton are included because their careers began before the second world war. For the same reason, Bradman is never regarded as the best post war Australian batsman. Although, admittedly, his post war career was a lot shorter.

Afaik, most critics and observers (Benaud for one) name May as the best post-war English bat. I dont know where Barrington would rank in that number of post war English batsmen, but I think he certainly makes a strong case for a spot in the top 6. But I would not put him at the top.

True, in that case I think May the best post war batsman (English)

 

[Richard]

Can't really see the sense in not considering Hutton and Compton post-War TBH, both played for more than or the best part of a decade after it finished. Bradman on the other hand played for just 3 years. Generally I'd think "best Australian batsman post-Bradman" would be a more oft-asked question than "best Australian batsman post-War".

 

[JBH001]

A fair point, Richard. Although its not just Hutton and Compton either. Jack Hobbs, for instance, played until 1930 but his name usually does not come up when talking about inter-war batsmen, English or otherwise. Even though two of his most famous knocks were in this period, that is the 49 on a Melbourne sticky in 28/29 and that 100 out 161 (with Sutcliffe) on another sticky at the Oval.

Although, I do think eliminating Hutton and Compton does make selecting post war English batsmen a lot more fun. For instance, here is a post war top 6 off the top of my head (not including batsmen currently playing).

1. Gooch.
2. Boycott.
3. Gower.
4. May.
5. Thorpe.
6. Barrington.

Its a lot more contentious without Hutton and Compton!

If we were filling that side out even further..

7. Botham
8. Knott
9. Trueman
10. Snow
11. Underwood
12. Bedser/Willis/Statham

Also, good point about Patsy Hendren. He was another under-rated cricketer. When I was a boy I had a book by him on cricket with pictures of him practising the forward defensive and the front foot drive through covers. Used to practice that in front of the mirror all the time. Was one of my best shots too, until I caught Jadeja-itis.

 

[Richard]

I'd have Stewart ahead of Knott (good rather than brilliant wicketkeeper and excellent rather than decent batsman) I'm afraid, and I'd also have May and Barrington at three and four. Reckon I'd probably go for Graveney and Dexter ahead of Thorpe and Gower. Would consider Edrich (John, the opener, of course) ahead of Gooch but would in the end probably go for the latter, for no reason other than him being my first cricketing hero.

As for the bowlers, I'd only consider Underwood on an uncovered wicket and in that case I'd also have Laker and maybe even Wardle in every time (yeah, I've recently come to think Wardle > Lock). On covered pitches I'd have Bedser, Statham, Trueman and Botham as the bowling attack and Snow as first-reserve with Willis second. Then, of course, Laker and Underwood as the men who'd come in on a turning surface.

It is interesting, though, that Boycott, Botham and Trueman are about the only ones who pick themselves. Even Botham you could argue a case for his exclusion given that bowling would be the principle reason and he was a good bowler for only 4 years. The likes of Snow and Willis had much greater longevity, though Willis will always have his by-and-large awful record against West Indies count against him considerably.

 

[JBH001]

Richard, thats cheating. Simply select a 13 for all conditions and leave it at that.

But returning to a top 6 batsmen, in order not of batting position, but of 'rank', here are my 6 (again off the top of my head):

1. May
2. Boycott
3. Barrington
4. Gooch
5. Gower
6. Cowdrey/Thorpe (touch decision for me really)

I dont rate Graveney all that much, hear he was a little 'soft' and Dexter is over-rated imo.

Btw, here are my 13 for all conditions:

1. G Gooch
2. G Boycott
3. D Gower
4. P May (captain)
5. M Cowdrey
6. K Barrington
7. I Botham
8. A Knott (wicket keeper)
9. F Trueman
10. J Snow
11. J Laker
12. J Statham
13. D Underwood

I usually select my all-time lists with the caveat that all players are at their best.

 

[Prince EWS]

Not enormously, not in those days. There were 5 or 6 (usually 5) Tests per season, and something like 27 county games. The only times you'd miss a county game would be when it clashed with a Test. So you could easily still play 22 county games per season.

Anyway Barrington's first couple of Tests came in '55 and he scored 0, 34 and 18. After returning in '59 he missed just 11 Tests out of 91 between then and '68, his final summer. So those are the points you want to be looking for in his Surrey career.

Well I'd argue he was past it in his last summer given he averaged 34 for England with only one score of 50 or more and a tick over 20 for Surrey, so I've compiled his Surrey stats for 1959-67.

Whilst they aren't as good as his Tests stats, they certainly make far better reading than his career Surrey stats.

10,107 runs @ 47.91 - 24 hundreds; 56 fifties

 

[Richard]

Richard, thats cheating. Simply select a 13 for all conditions and leave it at that.

You just can't do that, IMO. There is no way on Earth that covered and uncovered wickets can be treated as if they were the same thing - especially in this country where a six\seven-day period with no rain is fairly rare. The difference is vast.

In England, where covered wickets came late, you have to select one team for uncovered and one team for covered. It's more fun that way too.

 

[Goughy]

It is interesting, though, that Gooch, Botham and Trueman are about the only ones who pick themselves.

Boycott doesnt pick himself?

 

[NUFAN]

Just going off the English topic for a second.

I think Kallis vs Steve Waugh would be an interesting contest.

Both struggled early, bowled similar before SWaugh's back troubles and were accused at times for being selfish, batting for themselves.

Anyone else think that this would a close comparision?

 

[archie mac]

Just going off the English topic for a second.

I think Kallis vs Steve Waugh would be an interesting contest.

Both struggled early, bowled similar before SWaugh's back troubles and were accused at times for being selfish, batting for themselves.

Anyone else think that this would a close comparision?

On the batting maybe, but Kallis was easily the better bowler imo

 

[Precambrian]

Boycott doesnt pick himself?

Lol

 

[Migara]

Both struggled early, bowled similar before SWaugh's back troubles and were accused at times for being selfish, batting for themselves.

Wrong comparison. Steve Waugh at his best will be little bit faster than medium fast. Kallis at best, is genuinely quick 90mph bowler.