The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[ataraxia]

FTR this is my (unorthodox ofc) English XI:

JB Hobbs
H Sutcliffe
L Hutton
WG Grace*
WR Hammond
DCS Compton
APE Knott +
GA Lohmann
H Verity
FS Trueman
SF Barnes

Ames and Ranji I love picking but Knott and Compton inch ahead. I can't really put Barrington in Compton's position because a quick scorer is needed there and IMO reputations should be used for strike rates because of players' different approaches to playing for a draw.

 

[trundler]

Kohli - Smith is a better analogy. Happening in real time.

Smith would average 80 if he played like Barrington. Smith will probably never get dropped for taking a day to score a 100 vs Afghanistan.

 

[jimmy101]

FTR this is my (unorthodox ofc) English XI:

JB Hobbs
H Sutcliffe
L Hutton
WG Grace*
WR Hammond
DCS Compton
APE Knott +
GA Lohmann
H Verity
FS Trueman
SF Barnes

Ames and Ranji I love picking but Knott and Compton inch ahead. I can't really put Barrington in Compton's position because a quick scorer is needed there and IMO reputations should be used for strike rates because of players' different approaches to playing for a draw.

Shame you can't put as much time into making your next selection for, you know, the draft you're currently in.

 

[ataraxia]

I see what you're saying, but I kind of feels like you're deliberately refusing to believe the testimonies of past players because it flys in the face of statistical analysis. An unattractive batting style has nothing to do with it. Barrington was a wonderful player, but having a player which averages less than 40 in FC cricket in his home conditions (wasn't aware of that until I read it in DoG's thread) is a bit of a joke. If Adam Voges is anything to go by, it's possible for an average-ish player in FC to achieve great things in international cricket if they hit a purple patch at the right time. Clearly Barrington is better than Voges, but this whole revisionist history surrounding Barrington as the forgotten ATG is just fuelled by stats & nothing else. If you open any cricket book published before 1980 there will always be much more attention paid to Compton/May than Kenny & there is a good reason for this.

You say that Barrington was objectively superior than those guys in every measure by some distance, but was he really? What measures are you referring to? If you take Test batting averages out of the conversation, there's literally nothing to prove that he was objectively better.

Definitely respect your opinion though, it kind of pains me to rag on Barrington, but he simply doesn't get the same praise as his contemporaries from the people who were alive at the time.

Just to prove this, my 1980 cricket book devotes 2/3 of a column to Barrington, slightly less than a column to May, and ~5/3 of a column to Compton excluding pictures.

 

[ataraxia]

Shame you can't put as much time into making your next selection for, you know, the draft you're currently in.

Actually I devote more time to the draft selection since my Eng XI is well-rehearsed in my mind. Forgot completely though.

 

[Coronis]

I see what you're saying, but I kind of feels like you're deliberately refusing to believe the testimonies of past players because it flys in the face of statistical analysis. An unattractive batting style has nothing to do with it. Barrington was a wonderful player, but having a player which averages less than 40 in FC cricket in his home conditions (wasn't aware of that until I read it in DoG's thread) is a bit of a joke. If Adam Voges is anything to go by, it's possible for an average-ish player in FC to achieve great things in international cricket if they hit a purple patch at the right time. Clearly Barrington is better than Voges, but this whole revisionist history surrounding Barrington as the forgotten ATG is just fuelled by stats & nothing else. If you open any cricket book published before 1980 there will always be much more attention paid to Compton/May than Kenny & there is a good reason for this.

You say that Barrington was objectively superior than those guys in every measure by some distance, but was he really? What measures are you referring to? If you take Test batting averages out of the conversation, there's literally nothing to prove that he was objectively better.

Definitely respect your opinion though, it kind of pains me to rag on Barrington, but he simply doesn't get the same praise as his contemporaries from the people who were alive at the time.

82 tests @ 57 (mainly against strong opposition) is completely ridiculous to compare to Voges. If you have any other measures to objectively compare players, please let me know.

 

[jimmy101]

Dunno why you bolded the part where I said Test batting average is the only superior metric Barrington has, & then proceeded to regurgitate his Test bat ave. like it was some kind of rare nugget of information.

Yes, Barrington scored runs in Tests against high quality opposition... so did May & Compton. Like I was saying, aside from his Test batting average there's nothing definitive to go with your statement - Barrington's FC average was worse, his SR was worse & his reputation was worse than May/Compton.

And if you legit thought I was comparing Voges & Barrington then I think you may have missed my point.

 

[h_hurricane]

There is no more glaring example of flawed peer opinion that Barrington vs Dexter and May. 3 guys play in the same era, one of them towers over the others with his career record (by a ridiculous margin, it isn't even close) and many who saw them rate Dexter and May higher. Never really get it.

 

[jimmy101]

There is no more glaring example of flawed peer opinion that Barrington vs Dexter and May. 3 guys play in the same era, one of them towers over the others with his career record (by a ridiculous margin, it isn't even close) and many who saw them rate Dexter and May higher. Never really get it.

That's because you weren't there at the time & have just looked up their individual stats with no context.

In 20 years time there will be CW posters asserting that Voges was a forgotten ATG purely cause of his average. But those of us who were around at the time know better. This is the crux of my argument that Coronis seems to have missed.

 

[harsh.ag]

Purple patch is a poor choice of words for a 80 test career.

He didn't like batting in England as much (still averaged 50 in England). Did better overseas. That could be the reason why columnists and pundits in England preferred Compton and May as they averaged better in England, but worse overseas.

Compton averaged 60 in England, 33 in Australia, 36 in Saf, 36 in NZ, and 49 in WI. Didn't play in India-Pakistan.
May averaged 57 in England, 37 in Australia, 15 in Saf, 66 in NZ, and 35 in WI. Didn't play in India-Pakistan.
Barrington averaged 50 in England, 69 in Australia, 101 in Saf, 73 in NZ, 44 in WI, 96 in India, and 76 in Pakistan.

Invaluable player, really. The English press just judged him on the home record which is worse than Compton-May.

 

[Coronis]

Dunno why you bolded the part where I said Test batting average is the only superior metric Barrington has, & then proceeded to regurgitate his Test bat ave. like it was some kind of rare nugget of information.

Yes, Barrington scored runs in Tests against high quality opposition... so did May & Compton. Like I was saying, aside from his Test batting average there's nothing definitive to go with your statement - Barrington's FC average was worse, his SR was worse & his reputation was worse than May/Compton.

And if you legit thought I was comparing Voges & Barrington then I think you may have missed my point.

The part about his average and number of test matches was referring to the part where you mentioned Voges. 82 matches isnt a purple patch. Its a giant career sample, larger than both May’s and Compton’s. Barrington played 23 of those marches against Australia (the best competition of the era) and averaged 63.96. This is nothing like Voges misleading bullying of the Windies.

FYI their strike rates were all around 41... so yeah...

Barrington averaged 50.71 at home, 69.18 away and 63.96 against his best competition.
Compton averaged 60.04 at home, 36.88 (!) away and 42.83 against his best competition.
May averaged 57.30 at home, 35.57 (!) away and 46.05 against his best competition.

Perhaps the English also rated him lower because he wasn’t as good at home? Idk. But it really seems like there’s no competition here...

edit: thanks harsh for taking my pointsss

 

[OverratedSanity]

I don't know why people are lumping the three of them together here when Barrington's career barely overlapped with May and Compton. If they all played in the same era then Barrington's clearly superior stats would be a more compelling argument in his favour than it is. Don't think a straight comparison is quite possible?

Think what harsh says might be true though, the home record might be a possible reason he wasn't as highly rated.

 

[mr_mister]

I don't know why people are lumping the three of them together here when Barrington's career barely overlapped with May and Compton. If they all played in the same era then Barrington's clearly superior stats would be a more compelling argument in his favour than it is. Don't think a straight comparison is quite possible?

Think what harsh says might be true though, the home record might be a possible reason he wasn't as highly rated.

In my mind it's simply because Hobbs, Hammond and Hutton had hardly any prime overlap too but are still lumped together. The 3 pre war English batting gods.

As opposed to Compton, May and Barrington being the big 3 post war English batting gods.

I know Compton and Hutton both debuted in 1937, but Compton hit only 2 tons to Huttons 5 pre war not too mention the 364

 

[Coronis]

Yeah 50’s/60’s often tend to get lumped together in cricket, presumably because of the similar play throughout (slower batting, more draws) and the drastic changes that came with the 70’s.

 

[jimmy101]

In regards to harsh's point - it's plausible I guess, but as posted earlier, Barrington averaged 50+ in England. Would there really have been a reason for the journalists of the time to underrate him when his home record was so strong? No-ones underrating him imo, I'm pretty sure the press back then had a hard-on for just about any English player.

The assertion that Barrington is an automatic lock for the England ATXI is an internet-age opinion held by people using statistical measures for all the wrong reasons. The arguments favouring Barrington from the past page or so have been purely statistical. I'm not saying that Barrington's entire career was a purple patch, I'm saying that it's better to look past the numbers as much as you can to gain a better idea.

Generally speaking, when it comes to English post-war batsmen up until circa. 1970, Richie Benaud called May not merely the greatest English batsman to emerge since the war, but the only great one. Tom Graveney rated May almost on par with Sobers. Nevermind what the Wisden writers of the time said (they rated May in higher regard than Barrington, mind you), these are ex-Test cricketers offering their first hand accounts. I'm not so sure it's a case of the press of the day simply writing someone off.

Even then I'd still personally rate Compton as being just about the best of the era.

 

[ataraxia]

In regards to harsh's point - it's plausible I guess, but as posted earlier, Barrington averaged 50+ in England. Would there really have been a reason for the journalists of the time to underrate him when his home record was so strong? No-ones underrating him imo, I'm pretty sure the press back then had a hard-on for just about any English player.

The assertion that Barrington is an automatic lock for the England ATXI is an internet-age opinion held by people using statistical measures for all the wrong reasons. The arguments favouring Barrington from the past page or so have been purely statistical. I'm not saying that Barrington's entire career was a purple patch, I'm saying that it's better to look past the numbers as much as you can to gain a better idea.

Generally speaking, when it comes to English post-war batsmen up until circa. 1970, Richie Benaud called May not merely the greatest English batsman to emerge since the war, but the only great one. Tom Graveney rated May almost on par with Sobers. Nevermind what the Wisden writers of the time said (they rated May in higher regard than Barrington, mind you), these are ex-Test cricketers offering their first hand accounts. I'm not so sure it's a case of the press of the day simply writing someone off.

Even then I'd still personally rate Compton as being just about the best of the era.

Frequently Bert Sutcliffe was said in his day to be of a very similar standard to Neil Harvey. This post reminded me of this; I'm curious to know others' thoughts on this.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Question - in football (which has changed considerably less than cricket IMO), not many people consider pre-1950s players in any all time XIs (apart from the occassional regional players such as Dixie Dean etc). See also tennis which has the pre and post-open eras.
Much of that is also to do with television too and being actually able to see players/highlights of players at the very least.

Cricket has changed massively, far, far more so than football from the 30s/40s to where it is now. Its quite ridiculous to rate players across the eras, apart from ridiculous statistical anomalies like Bradman. So why do we even try (I personally don't - apart from Bradman, I barely consider any pre-50s/60s players in my all time XIs)?

 

[mr_mister]

I guess because the stats are so detailed for cricketers individually as opposed to soccer players from the past where you've basically just got goals and matches to go by

 

[jimmy101]

Question - in football (which has changed considerably less than cricket IMO), not many people consider pre-1950s players in any all time XIs (apart from the occassional regional players such as Dixie Dean etc). See also tennis which has the pre and post-open eras.
Much of that is also to do with television too and being actually able to see players/highlights of players at the very least.

Cricket has changed massively, far, far more so than football from the 30s/40s to where it is now. Its quite ridiculous to rate players across the eras, apart from ridiculous statistical anomalies like Bradman. So why do we even try (I personally don't - apart from Bradman, I barely consider any pre-50s/60s players in my all time XIs)?

Are you kidding? Football has evolved way more than cricket since pre-war times.

 

[Logan]

Compared to Wasim Akram, Allan Donald has a :

Better Average.

Better Strike Rate.

Higher percentage of top order wickets : 73% vs 64%

Less percentage of LBW : 12% vs 28%

More frequent 5-fer per innings : 6.5 vs 7.25

Akram reached a career high number 2 in Test rankings. Donald reached number 1 in his career.


Even in Asian conditions, Donald’s record has been extraordinary.




Still 99.99% of ex-cricketers, writers and historians would pick Akram ahead of Donald. Even Allan Donald calls Akram the most complete fast bowler of all time.