DoG's Top 100 Test Batsmen Countdown Thread

[OverratedSanity]

As a specialist batsman his already relatively small number of tests away from the subcontinent shrinks even further.

 

[Days of Grace]

No.8

Ken Barrington (England) 882

Quality Points: 825
Career Points: 57

Career/Runs: 1955-1968, 6806 (rank 56)

Overall average/Runs per innings/Strike-rate: 56.05 (58.67) 49.63 (51.95) 48.39 (41.11) (rank 6)
50 Innings Peak Average/Runs per innings/Strike-rate (1963-1968): 67.43 59.34 50.38 (rank 16)
Non-Home Average/Runs per innings/Strike-rate: 65.06 56.09 47.84 (rank 3)
Quality Opposition Average/Runs per innings/Strike-rate: 53.61 48.51 50.55 (rank 12)

Ken Barrington is by far the most underrated batsman on this list and is largely forgotten compared to some of his contemporaries. There is hardly any footage of him batting on YouTube. He was called into the England squad for the 1955 series against South Africa. He failed in the two tests he played and he wasn't recalled for England until 1959. Once back into the side he was determined never to give his wicket away and was a model of consistency at no.3 or no.4. His record overseas is phenomenal and may be partly the reason for his being so underrated as tours overseas in that era (apart from Australia) were not followed as closely as they are today. His record in Australia though is also outstanding, averaging an adjusted 70.43 (69.73) over 10 tests. Curiously, his adjusted strike-rate is comparable to Denis Compton's and Peter May's, two contemporary batsmen who were seen as being much more entertaining to watch. His under-appreciation was probably due to his open stance and tendency to play to leg. Barrington could be attacking when the situation demanded it, scoring a noteworthy 115 off 153 balls at Melbourne in 1966. He was also known for bringing up his century with a random six, a feat he managed 4 times in tests. It is true that Barrington made a lot of runs in draws but like Jacques Kallis, he would be a perfect fit if surrounded by other attacking batsmen. As it is, he is seen being part of the fabric of a dull era and he cannot escape this context. However, in a purely statistical analysis his numbers set him apart from almost any other batsman in test history.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBXmXEGJEPc

 

[Coronis]

Knew his SR would get a massive bump, due to the general slow scoring of his era. I’ve seen people comment about how his FC average is low and somehow this detracts from his test performance... I don’t buy it. Clearly he stepped it up at the highest level and did so over an 82 match career not like it was a small sample size. I don’t personally have him this high (still easily England’s 2nd greatest middle order batsman for me) but hopefully this will help raise his reputation a little, at least on CW. Great work DoG.

 

[stephen]

Barrington is probably the ATG batsman I know the least about.

 

[Burgey]

Logan gonna hate this

 

[ankitj]

So 4 out of top 7 are batsmen who played their entire careers in last 30 years. Over representation for this generation?

 

[ankitj]

When ESPN was doing their legends of cricket series, Barrington was not even in the short listed 100 cricketers.

 

[Coronis]

So 4 out of top 7 are batsmen who played their entire careers in last 30 years. Over representation for this generation?

Nah. this generation (in part due to a larger player pool) has just happened to produce more extremely talented batsman than any other era. We’re lucky enough to witness it. Similar things would happen with a bowlers list, what with McGrath, Murali, Steyn, Warne.

 

[Days of Grace]

There is also a lot more cricket played then in the past.

 

[mr_mister]

Rating Barrington the second best middle order English bat is hardly a ballsy call though

I rate him that too while still pointing to his FC average as a sign he wasn't quite as good as the very best (as in not in my top 20)

 

[Coronis]

Rating Barrington the second best middle order English bat is hardly a ballsy call though

I rate him that too while still pointing to his FC average as a sign he wasn't quite as good as the very best (as in not in my top 20)

If its a short career with not much of a sample size sure. But the bloke averaged 57 over 82 matches. His FC record shouldn’t even be mentioned.

 

[Logan]

So 4 out of top 7 are batsmen who played their entire careers in last 30 years. Over representation for this generation?

In DoG’s bowling list, 10 out of 12 bowlers made their debut between 1971-1993. The other two being Steyn and Barnes.

 

[mr_mister]

I just think it's strange I guess. He's certainly an anomaly there if you disregard Eddie Paynter(who had that short test career)

 

[Logan]

Logan gonna hate this

Being ranked 8th is a great achievement. Just said Barrington and Trueman are underrated.

 

[harsh.ag]

Wrt to ESPN's legends of cricket top 100, I can see ranking Barrington in the top 25 greatest batsmen of all time and still not putting him on that list.

 

[Logan]

When ESPN was doing their legends of cricket series, Barrington was not even in the short listed 100 cricketers.

The list was ridiculous.

Barry Richards who played a total of 4 Tests came in 25th position.

Shane Warne ranked number 4th in 2000.

No Sutcliffe, Barrington.

Just 3 bowlers - Malcolm Marshall, Dennis Lillee and Wasim Akram.

Greame Pollock ahead of Allan Border and Len Hutton.

 

[ankitj]

Suttcliffe was ranked somewhere in 25 to 30.

I am talking about the top 100 list out of which they voted top 25. I think even likes of Mohd. Azharuddin were there in the top 100 shortlist.

Edit: Rank 1 to 50 in that exercise are mentioned here: http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/16644-espn-s-legends-cricket.html

 

[Days of Grace]

Rating Barrington the second best middle order English bat is hardly a ballsy call though

I rate him that too while still pointing to his FC average as a sign he wasn't quite as good as the very best (as in not in my top 20)

According to Wikipedia:
His batting improved with the quality of the opposition; he averaged 39.87 in the County Championship, 45.63 in first-class cricket, 58.67 in Test cricket and 63.96 against Australia.

I'm quite sure he didn't purposely raise his game depending on the competition, but his first-class record should be looked into. Someone who has access to the stats can do it. But does it really matter that much? Noone cares that much about the first-class stats of modern cricketers, for example.

 

[stephen]

The list was ridiculous.

Barry Richards who played a total of 4 Tests came in 25th position.

Shane Warne ranked number 4th in 2000.

No Sutcliffe, Barrington.

Just 3 bowlers - Malcolm Marshall, Dennis Lillee and Wasim Akram.

Greame Pollock ahead of Allan Border and Len Hutton.

Doesn't Warne count as a bowler?

 

[mr_mister]

According to Wikipedia:
His batting improved with the quality of the opposition; he averaged 39.87 in the County Championship, 45.63 in first-class cricket, 58.67 in Test cricket and 63.96 against Australia.

I'm quite sure he didn't purposely raise his game depending on the competition, but his first-class record should be looked into. Someone who has access to the stats can do it. But does it really matter that much? Noone cares that much about the first-class stats of modern cricketers, for example.

True because I feel a giant chunk of Steve Smith's FC cricket these days are tests. How much shield cricket has he even played since turned unstoppable in 2014

Barrington played a **** ton of county so averaging 39 in it is just odd.