h_hurricane
International Vice-Captain
Has any top 10 player in this thread been discussed as much as Barrington so far ? The guy is an absolute legend. His name was coming up in every other post before his ranking was published lol.
Because I said his record was more complete than Sobers’ record and we had a huge debate about it.Has any top 10 player in this thread been discussed as much as Barrington so far ? The guy is an absolute legend. His name was coming up in every other post before his ranking was published lol.
Yeah.Because I wanted him to finish above Sobers so the latter couldn't be compared with St Sachin, and we had a huge debate about it.
Didn't stop Peter May from averaging 51 with the bat during the same era.One thing I read about the Barrington gap is that The Oval tended to be a dog track during the 1950's with Lock, Laker and Bedser in their primes, so wasn't easy for batting.
Exactly what I was about to say. The odds after the time between posts?Didn't stop Peter May from averaging 51 with the bat during the same era.
Hurry up & post in the grand slam draft thread.Exactly what I was about to say. The odds after the time between posts?
Aussies always get cheap runsQuality points update.
Barrington 825
Hutton 813
Sutcliffe 811
Richards 794
Weekes 794
Hammond 787
Pollock 787
Kohli 780
Walcott 768
Headley 762
Nourse 762
Tbf, Smith and Bradman are going to smash those numbers.Aussies always get cheap runs
Waiting to see the difference between Bradman and the second best. Except for overall runs, will Bradman not be the best in any category?Tbf, Smith and Bradman are going to smash those numbers.
It's because the rest of the world lacks quality...Aussies always get cheap runs
Some of the top overall bowling averages for English first-class cricket in the 1950s (Surrey bowlers in bold):One thing I read about the Barrington gap is that The Oval tended to be a dog track during the 1950's with Lock, Laker and Bedser in their primes, so wasn't easy for batting.
I think you've cracked it wide open.Some of the top overall bowling averages for English first-class cricket in the 1950s (Surrey bowlers in bold):
Statham 1027 @ 15.41
Lock 1441 @ 15.50
Appleyard 696 @ 16.10
Loader 821 @ 16.71
Laker 1305 @ 16.79
Jackson 1122 @ 17.13
Tattersall 1256 @ 17.38
Gladwin 1127 @ 17.98
Bedser 1282 @ 18.04
bearing in mind that the Surrey players' (and Statham's) averages will have been increased more than the others by playing in Test matches.
They did have four of the best bowlers in the country, but it does back up the suggestion that the Oval wasn't fun for batting, so it's not surprising that people were great admirers of May for being top of the overall batting averages for the 1950s (only Hutton was close).
Seasonal batting averages for May and Barrington:
1950: May 34
1951: May 69
1952: May 62
1953: May 51, Barrington 18
1954: May 50, Barrington 40
1955: May 51, Barrington 33
1956: May 38, Barrington 30
1957: May 62, Barrington 39
1958: May 64, Barrington 32
1959: May 47, Barrington 54
Again, even though Barrington went on to great success in the 1960s (whereas May retired from Tests in 1961) it's not surprising that their contemporaries remembered May towering over him in the mid 50s. (Note that despite May being a 50s star and Barrington far more so in the 60s, they were born within a year of each other).
He's more of a Tony Lock.I wouldn't go as far to say Barrington was a fraud, but it is pretty hilarious that, when used properly, statistics of all things can be used to paint a more accurate picture of him. Fancy thinking he's a lock for an ATG Eng XI though.
I don't know how this has proved anything. Barrington's greatness started 1959 onwards and he went on to achieve what May didn't. Also don't know these statistics from only a part of his career and in domestic cricket paint more accurate picture than DoG's analysis.I wouldn't go as far to say Barrington was a fraud, but it is pretty hilarious that, when used properly, statistics of all things can be used to paint a more accurate picture of him. Fancy thinking he's a lock for an ATG Eng XI though.
1960s was pretty light on ATG bowlers compared to the 50s and 70sI don't know how this has proved anything. Barrington's greatness started 1959 onwards and he went on to achieve what May didn't. Also don't know these statistics from only a part of his career and in domestic cricket paint more accurate picture than DoG's analysis.
You're talking about Hayden in test cricket, whereas you were discrediting Barrington because of his FC record. In the end, this is a test cricket analysis. If a batsman averaged 70 in tests and 20 in FC cricket then he would still be one of the greatest test cricketers who ever lived.1960s was pretty light on ATG bowlers compared to the 50s and 70s
I think it proves a teeny bit. We don't rate Hayden that much for slaughtering popgun 2000s attacks right? Despite an insane century ratio
Close, but not quiteYou're talking about Hayden in test cricket, whereas you were discrediting Barrington because of his FC record. In the end, this is a test cricket analysis. If a batsman averaged 70 in tests and 20 in FC cricket then he would still be one of the greatest test cricketers who ever lived.