Real time draft- tonight, here.

[kyear2]

Even Worrell,.Hammond, Barrington would work.

 

[L Trumper]

Even Worrell,.Hammond, Barrington would work.

Barrington averages 70+ at number 3. He must be the most underrated all time great batsman there is. Not that I have a problem selecting him at 4 or 5. The great thing about this side is all middle order positions can be interchanged based on the situation, and they all are great batsmen without any reservations.

 

[kyear2]

As stated on the previous page, I think Barrington is the most over rated great batsman, especially on CW.. In an era of slow defensive cricket he was actually once droped for batting too slowly, and never really improved.
Definately wouldn't be my choice for #3 or #4 whose job is to either defend intially if required or press home the advantage from the get go and take the game by the horns and change it's course.

 

[watson]

There would be nothing wrong with Barrington at No.3 if other master-batsman weren't available, but in this case they are so Barrington belongs at No.5 where he can anchor the middle-order and stop a collapse if the need be.

I agree with kyear that No.3 batsman should be attacking minded and flexible because their primary role is to either counter-attack or ram home an adantage depending on what the openers do. Just look at some great No.3s like Bradman, Kanhai, Richards, or Ponting. That's how they operated.

Therefore; Worrell-Hammond-Barrington OR Hammond-Worrell-Barrington

However, I'm not entirely sure what kind of batsman Dudley Nourse was. It's not good for the innings to come to a grinding halt with he and Barrington at No.5 and No.6 either. I'm hoping that Nourse would be capable of playing a Dougie Walters role if the need be and attack the bowling as its gets tired late in the day between tea and close of play.

 

[Himannv]

I would honestly have had Hammond at 3 if it was up to me. I rate Barrington very highly and always try and pick him more often than not. All these aggressive batsmen are overrated in longer formats imo. I prefer batsmen like Barrington and Border who are fighters and consistently grind out scores.

 

[SJS]

Barrington averages 70+ at number 3. He must be the most underrated all time great batsman there is. Not that I have a problem selecting him at 4 or 5. The great thing about this side is all middle order positions can be interchanged based on the situation, and they all are great batsmen without any reservations.

He is not under-rated because he couldn't bat but because of the way batted. He was quite capable of playing strokes but gave it up to an extent that of all the top players to play for any top side in the history of the game, he is the one most remembered as the one who punished the bad ball least often.

He was one of the few batsmen in world cricket to be dropped from the side after scoring a century . . . it was so slow.

He started to answer his critics by batting slowly till he reached the id nineties and then try to reach his hundred with a six - mostly a pull. It is only after the tragic, sudden death of this extremely lovable man that people stopped writing more derogatory stuff about how he batted. No one now says he was selfish, out of sheer regards for a chap who was really a super bloke but you have to read some of the stuff written about him even by those who have praised his usefulness to England.

If I have a criticism of him it is that he did not punish the bad ball enough. He was in position soon enough. , which is the first necessity, but only around one-fourth went to the boundary. For perhaps the world's formost 'percentage' player this was very poor value. If the loose delivery escapes punishment, it is a bonus for the bowler and makes batting that much harder (for everyone).

Ken was always vary of makung a mistake and, perhaps more than any bastman of his class, was inclined to drop into a mental groove of defence, so that he lost the habit of hitting the ball . . . Frankly, to do what he did would have driven me potty . . .​

~ Denis Compton

This ordinariness and lack of colour are reflected in his batsmanship which , although I admire it, fails to excite me . . . This has nothing to do with the fact that he gathers his runs ivery slowly. Throughout his career he has probably scored consistently faster than Hanif Mohammad, but I prefer to watch the little master from Pakistan.

His technique . . . although admirably sound and effective, is aesthetically rather ugly; like the music hall mother-in-law who is not pretty to look at and usually stays a long time.

. . . I much prefer, from the playing angle, a player who makes runs irrespective of his style, rather than a man who looks good, but seldom does; yet. at the highest level, I have always expected the odd touch of uninhibited genius to break through from time to time. . . . with Ken this happens on fewer occasions than any other great cricketer I know. . . . at times he reminds me of a computer, admirably efficient but lacking in soul.

There are two failings in Barrington's batting which both stem from his desire to sell his wicket very dearly . . .

First, he seldom assumes control of the situation or systematically destroys an attack. Secondly, he has a tendency. in the pursuit of more runs, to overlook the practical considerations of a particular contest.​

~ Trevor Bailey in The Greatest of My Time

That last sentence above is probably the closest an old school Englishman will come to calling a team mate selfish, Bailey then goes on to give a detailed example of it in match where he was the fielding side captain and benefitted from Barrington's methods and escaped from possible defeat.

 

[kyear2]

Great work as usual SJS.

Great batsmen have the abilty to reconise and adapt to game situations. He just choose or was not able to do so.

 

[watson]

Yet Barrington reached his Test century with a 6 hit on 4 occasions. This has to be some kind of record.

 

[kyear2]

Seems to was trying to prove a point.

 

[Cabinet96]

Out of interest; if he smacked a century in 50 balls would you categorise that as him trying to prove a point, or would you cut him some slack?

 

[kyear2]

Chanderpaul once hit one of the fastest ever Test Hundreds, doesn't make him less selfish, if anything it makes him more selfish as we know what he is capable of if he wanted.

 

[watson]

The thing about deliberately slow/selfish batsman who won't take the odd calculated risk is that they are a threat to the long term security of the game. The same goes for negative bowlers and negative Captains.

'Tribalism' (patriotism to the Baggy Green, or 3 Lions) will only put so many bums on seats and provide so much interest. What makes people watch cricket is 'tribalism' PLUS the experience of watching brilliant centuries chock full of superb cover-drives/hook-shots, terrifying fast bowling, magician like spin bowling, and imaginative captaincy.

In short, people watch cricket because they like their patriotism mixed with entertainment that is brilliant, adventurous, and inspiring. Take away one of those two components and we have nothing.

 

[kyear2]

Hence why it was said that Worrell and Benaud saved cricket in the'60s and it wad because of people like Barrington who neccesitated the change of culture and course in the game. Attacking cricket, thats the way the game should be played, batting, bowling, captaincy, fielding.
The main characteristic required to bat slowly is patience and is seen primarily in players who lack the ability or confidence to be aggesive and sussesful at it. Players forced to eliminate shots or drastically slow down their rate of scoring to maintain their places, that doesn't show talent, technique, or being a team players, it exhibits their survival instincts and in some cases a degree of selfishness. I would take Kanhai over Barrington everyday of the week when discussing players from that era

 

[L Trumper]

Hence why it was said that Worrell and Benaud saved cricket in the'60s and it wad because of people like Barrington who neccesitated the change of culture and course in the game. Attacking cricket, thats the way the game should be played, batting, bowling, captaincy, fielding.
The main characteristic required to bat slowly is patience and is seen primarily in players who lack the ability or confidence to be aggesive and sussesful at it. Players forced to eliminate shots or drastically slow down their rate of scoring to maintain their places, that doesn't show talent, technique, or being a team players, it exhibits their survival instincts and in some cases a degree of selfishness. I would take Kanhai over Barrington everyday of the week when discussing players from that era

But it is not true though. The most defensive phase of aussie cricket actually came after Benaud's captaincy. During simpson - lawry era. As far as Barrington goes he was the best batsman for england certainly after lord Ted's retirement. They were generally a poor side through out the time, so it makes sense for him to drop anchor and others can play around him.

 

[Cabinet96]

I don't watch a day of test cricket because I think there's going to be loads of really attacking cricket on show. I watch it for the contests between bat and ball and the contest between two cricket sides.

And are you seriously suggesting patience is only seen from players who don't have the ability to attack?

 

[watson]

I don't watch a day of test cricket because I think there's going to be loads of really attacking cricket on show. I watch it for the contests between bat and ball and the contest between two cricket sides.

And are you seriously suggesting patience is only seen from players who don't have the ability to attack?

No.

The criticism levelled at Barrington by Compton and Bailey (see SJSs last post) was that he had the obvious talent and technique to be a more forceful batsman, but chose not to because he was too selfish.

One of Compton's insights particularly hits the mark:

For perhaps the world's formost 'percentage' player this was very poor value. If the loose delivery escapes punishment, it is a bonus for the bowler and makes batting that much harder (for everyone).

And I would add that when a master-batsman makes batting 'much harder' for his team-mates because of his own hubris, then he has failed ethically. The same principle applies across the board through all walks of life, not just cricket.

 

[watson]

Boycott is a batsman that I would never have in my team because he scores a fail when it comes to putting the team before himself.

Botham's story sums up Boycott perfectly;

IAN BOTHAM RUNS OUT GEOFF BOYCOTT- 2nd test vs NZ 1978 Christchurch - YouTube

 

[kyear2]

A great batsman is one who can adapt, and when required be willing to attack. But above all a great batsman puts team ahead of self.

 

[uvelocity]

I don't watch a day of test cricket because I think there's going to be loads of really attacking cricket on show. I watch it for the contests between bat and ball and the contest between two cricket sides.

And are you seriously suggesting patience is only seen from players who don't have the ability to attack?

don't think either of us has seen too much properly defensive cricket, I started watching in 88 or 89 roughly, scoring rates have been on the whole pretty good since. Defence only really comes into it as a valid tactic rather than a MO

 

[Cabinet96]

don't think either of us has seen too much properly defensive cricket, I started watching in 88 or 89 roughly, scoring rates have been on the whole pretty good since. Defence only really comes into it as a valid tactic rather than a MO

Well, my favourite test last year was between England and Pakistan at Abu Dhabi where sides were going at around 2-2.5 an over. And I really enjoyed the Nagpur test between India and England which was played at about two an over.