Line and Length
Cricketer Of The Year
What I see as worthless is trying to equate one career to another in terms of time span. In the final analysis we can only compare one career to another.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Dennis Compton vs KF Barrington
- Thread starter The King
- Start date
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
Clearly Denis Compton as he was mentioned in Fawlty Towers even though he’d been out of Test Cricket for twice as long as Barrington.
Pap Finn Keighl
International Debutant
Not fair at all.
Career A
10 years 65 avg ( Retired at the beginning of decline )
Career B
20 years 60 avg
(10 years 70 avg + 10 yrs 50 avg )
B is better.
Line and Length
Cricketer Of The Year
Cherry picking segments of longer careers has been done before and is regarded, by most, as a poor way to present an argument.
Pap Finn Keighl
International Debutant
Its natural to players decline in long run, whoever played longer should not be punished if their stats are affected during this extra years. Especially considering the other player did absolutely nothing in the said period.
NotMcKenzie
International Debutant
Why should someone be rewarded for hanging around when they no longer are capable of doing the job?
And as Coronis said,
not that I'd expect you to register that.
This comparison has little relation to the numbers of the two players we're discussing. In the first nine years of his career, Compton averaged 62.88: 48.07 against Australia, and consequently much more against much much weaker sides. In the second nine, he averaged 46.16, exceeding fifty only in four matches against Pakistan. If you cut off Compton's career at 13 years (the length of Barrington's), he averaged 59.01, so about the same as Barrington, but over 37 matches rather than 82. If for some reason of 'fairness', we lop off the two tests Barrington played in 1955, he averaged 59.76.
Point is you can slice'n'dice how you want, none of it necessarily actually proves anything; you just put in whatever meaning you already intended on putting before you started any statistical exercise.
NotMcKenzie
International Debutant
Lindwall and Miller were 25 and 26 respectively when they made their test debuts, so probably lost several years to WWII as well.
Compton averaged 42.84 when one or the other or both of those two were playing.
Pap Finn Keighl
International Debutant
I am not talking about Compton vs Barrington. Its applicable for evey player.
If 2 players performed equally for a certain period before showing a dip in form, and one decided to retire and other goes on ( might be still useful for the team / might be a stupid decision.. Commitment, confidence, passion, selfishness.. Whatever ) they should be regarded as equally good players.
Assume, a wk batsman has a 30 year career(1980-2010) in which first 15 years he averaged 75 and only 15 in next 15 years ( he is still a great player due to super human wk skills )
Final avg is 45.
Where would you rank him among batsmen.
2nd to Bradman or Equivalent of Azhar?
Punishing players for playing longer is plain stupidity. Career stats makes sense only when comparing similar careers,
otherwise, it becomes " Dhawan and Viv are equally good odi batsmen.. Check their stats" type of argument.
TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Ricky Ponting likes this post
NotMcKenzie
International Debutant
That's the context of the conversation, and you know it. See the first paragraph of your previous comment.
Why? How good a player is is based on how well they—y'know—perform, and if they have a period where they do badly, that needs to be counted in as well. You can't judge to an ideal 'everything going well', otherwise you just end saying something that is on the same level of argument as 'they'd have averaged over 100 if you removed all their scores of 99 or below.'
Neither. False dichotomy, false choice, etc. That he batted like bilge for the second half of his career can't be discounted just because you don't like it, which is basically what your argument is. Also, where do you draw the line? What about a 29 year career? 28? 25? 23? 20? 19? 16? 14? 11? 9? 7? 5? 2? 'Oh, they did better earlier on, must be late career decline', 'later' being two tests later perhaps.
You are doing the converse, punishing players who don't play some arbitrary length of time, not that you are perceptive enough to see that. And you are also begging the question with late career decline: some have declined more than others, statistically some might be able to hold their own. For all you know, Barrington might have had a sound enough technique to keep going at a similar level for another few years.
Futhermore, what is a 'similar career'? In this case, whatever satifies @Pap Finn Keighl's predetermined notions: two careers will be similar when he likes the outcome, and not similar enough when he doesn't.
Slcing and dicing careers to make a point about someone's career as a whole is a thoroughly dishonest exercise.
Last edited:
NotMcKenzie
International Debutant
Don't forget, Compton was not quite 39 when he played his last test; Barrington was a way off 38, so they finished at similar enough ages. Both played the majority of their test cricket later on: 70 matches after the age of 28 or so for Compton, 80 matches after the age of 28 for Barrington.
Suddenly, they look very similar in terms of career timing.
What does that do to your argument then, you two?
Suddenly, they look very similar in terms of career timing.
What does that do to your argument then, you two?
Line and Length
Cricketer Of The Year
"Punishing players for playing longer is plain stupidity" is one of the most ridiculous statements I've read on CW. Who is "punishing" a player whose has a longer career? We are simply comparing players based on their careers, not "punishing" those who have greater longevity. If we follow your logic, some members (including me) are "rewarding" players who, for one reason or another, retire early.
Threads such as this are all about making comparisons, not "punishing" players. In the final wash-up comparisons have to look at entire careers, not cherry-picking segments of a career. Every player will have peaks and troughs in their careers. Some are at their best early in their careers while others improve with experience.
Threads such as this are all about making comparisons, not "punishing" players. In the final wash-up comparisons have to look at entire careers, not cherry-picking segments of a career. Every player will have peaks and troughs in their careers. Some are at their best early in their careers while others improve with experience.
Ymaxxx
School Boy/Girl Captain
but ty mckenzie (no seriously) for bringing the age thing into light. I will consider myself incorrect then for pushing compton higher.
although i'll have you corrected, Compton started his career as a 18 year old, while Barrington as a 24 year old. They both did retire at the same age of 38
although i'll have you corrected, Compton started his career as a 18 year old, while Barrington as a 24 year old. They both did retire at the same age of 38
Last edited:
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
I think there is merit in considering what PFK said in terms of judging the impact of a player on a team. But there is also the risk of using any underperformance as the "played on longer just for his struggling side" write-off.
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
Not a sentence I ever expected to read on Cricket Web.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
BUt if the alternative is a worse player, surely the side benefits from the great continuing to play on even if his personal stats go south due to that?
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
I didn’t read the rest of your post. It was just that bit in isolation that had me gasping for air.