Best number 3 of all time?

[HookShot]

I think it's more a case of he was never mentioned in the same terms as May and Compton - I bet if we had an "England players draft" Barrington would get picked before them.

Besides the issue of stylish batting, you can see why the older England fans in the 1980s (with a bias towards remembering Ashes Tests) would have happier memories of May and Compton, who played in the Ashes wins in 1953, 54/5, 56, than of Barrington, who played in the 5 series in the 60s, none of which England won. Although Barrington was clearly England's top batsman in those series, and has a far better average against Australia than May or Compton, you couldn't say "remember that great innings by Ken which won/retained us the Ashes?" He didn't even play a notable innings in any of the Tests which England won.

Richie Benaud called May not merely the greatest English batsman to emerge since the war but the only great one

Peter May: England’s greatest post-war batsman? – Almanack tribute

“The beau ideal of English batsmanship and sportsmanship”

wisden.com

Barrington, like Boycott was a defensive batsman who was more likely to save a Test match than win one.

May and Compton on-the-other-hand looked to dominate the bowling and take charge of the Test match; and that‘s why the likes of Richie Benaud rate them so highly.

Personally, I play Peter May at number 4 in my England ATG team and let Barrington, Cowdrey and Root ‘fight’ for the number 5 spot.

 

[HookShot]

Number 3s should be counter-attacking batsman who can reclaim the momentum after the fall of early of a wicket, or take the game away from the opposition if the openers do well.

I don’t think that Barrington fitted this role very well, and so was better used as a middle order anchor. Walter Hammond was a “forcing batsman“ (as they used to call them in the 1930s) who could throttle the bowling when in good form, which was most of the time. And so I think that Hammond is probably England’s greatest number 3. Garry Sobers and Geoff Boycott admired Ted Dexter‘s attacking skills (averaged about 50 at first drop), but unfortunately he was quite inconsistent.

 

[Prince EWS]

Number threes should be good at making runs at number three. Imposing your personal #intent preferences on them is counterproductive.

 

[Victor Ian]

A good number three should be able to make runs at four, five and six, so that they can bat there and never be found out at three.

Sachin Tendulkar batting bowling stats, averages and cricket statistics, 2024

Find out the complete career history of Sachin Tendulkar including highest scores, centuries, half centuries, wickets and more

www.espncricinfo.com

 

[_00_deathscar]

A good number three should be able to make runs at four, five and six, so that they can bat there and never be found out at three.

Sachin Tendulkar batting bowling stats, averages and cricket statistics, 2024

Find out the complete career history of Sachin Tendulkar including highest scores, centuries, half centuries, wickets and more

www.espncricinfo.com

Should have hidden lower down the order yes

Allan Border batting bowling stats, averages and cricket statistics, 2024

Find out the complete career history of Allan Border including highest scores, centuries, half centuries, wickets and more

www.espncricinfo.com

 

[Coronis]

Number 3s should be counter-attacking batsman who can reclaim the momentum after the fall of early of a wicket, or take the game away from the opposition if the openers do well.

I don’t think that Barrington fitted this role very well, and so was better used as a middle order anchor. Walter Hammond was a “forcing batsman“ (as they used to call them in the 1930s) who could throttle the bowling when in good form, which was most of the time. And so I think that Hammond is probably England’s greatest number 3. Garry Sobers and Geoff Boycott admired Ted Dexter‘s attacking skills (averaged about 50 at first drop), but unfortunately he was quite inconsistent.

Yeah Hammond’s 45 SR is much more forceful and attacking than Barringtons 41.

Number threes should be good at making runs at number three.

By god he’s done it.

 

[slowfinger]

Number 3s should be counter-attacking batsman who can reclaim the momentum after the fall of early of a wicket, or take the game away from the opposition if the openers do well.

I don’t think that Barrington fitted this role very well, and so was better used as a middle order anchor. Walter Hammond was a “forcing batsman“ (as they used to call them in the 1930s) who could throttle the bowling when in good form, which was most of the time. And so I think that Hammond is probably England’s greatest number 3. Garry Sobers and Geoff Boycott admired Ted Dexter‘s attacking skills (averaged about 50 at first drop), but unfortunately he was quite inconsistent.

Number threes should be good at making runs at number three. Imposing your personal #intent preferences on them is counterproductive.

I think the two quotes aren’t mutually exclusive. in order to be good at making runs at 3 it may be preferable to be able to counter attack, reclaim the momentum, steady the ship etc….

 

[HookShot]

Number threes should be good at making runs at number three. Imposing your personal #intent preferences on them is counterproductive.

Obviously Barrington would walk into the current England team as the number 3 because none of the other tried batsman are able to make consistent runs In that position. But when constructing ATG teams we can choose from a wide range of batsman with different techniques and temperaments. And I think that ‘counter-attacking’ batsman are ideally the best type of batsman for the number 3 position. Ponting springs to mind as the modern ‘archetype‘ who can set the tempo of the innings.

Incidentally, to my knowledge Boycott and Barrington are the only batsman in history to be dropped for being too slow…..

Even by the standards of his time, Barrington’s rate attracted criticism. In 1965, for example, he took 435 minutes to reach 137 against New Zealand and was dropped by way of punishment. Nothing can detract from his overall statistics, however, and quite unlike Boycott, Barrington was universally praised as a person.

The Slows - The Full Toss

England’s failure in the 2019 Ashes was due partially to the immovable object that was Steve Smith, but equally to the calamity that was its own top order, who had lost a few matches before the Ashes and nearly embarrassed them very badly against Ireland. The problem at root (with the exception...

www.thefulltoss.com

 

[Nintendo]

Obviously Barrington would walk into the current England team as the number 3 because none of the other tried batsman are able to make consistent runs In that position. But when constructing ATG teams we can choose from a wide range of batsman with different techniques and temperaments. And I think that ‘counter-attacking’ batsman are ideally the best type of batsman for the number 3 position. Ponting springs to mind as the modern ‘archetype‘ who can set the tempo of the innings.

Incidentally, to my knowledge Boycott and Barrington are the only batsman in history to be dropped for being too slow…..

The Slows - The Full Toss

England’s failure in the 2019 Ashes was due partially to the immovable object that was Steve Smith, but equally to the calamity that was its own top order, who had lost a few matches before the Ashes and nearly embarrassed them very badly against Ireland. The problem at root (with the exception...

www.thefulltoss.com

Why does a #3 ideally need to be attacking though? If I open my ATG lineup with sehwag and have Gilchrist at 7 (Just for example) why do you need someone who score quicker at 3 aswell.

 

[Flem274*]

This is why partially ATG sides are so divorced from how real cricket teams work.

#3 is one of the hardest spots to fill. You pick who is good enough. Given a rare choice between two good #3s then you have a few options. The most common seems to be one gets a promotion to open (another hard spot to fill).

 

[ataraxia]

Incidentally, to my knowledge Boycott and Barrington are the only batsman in history to be dropped for being too slow…..

Ganteaume

 

[AndrewB]

Also Tavare in 1984, to some extent (he wasn't scoring especially heavily but would probably have played a few more Tests if he'd scored the runs faster).

 

[NZTailender]

Why does a #3 ideally need to be attacking though? If I open my ATG lineup with sehwag and have Gilchrist at 7 (Just for example) why do you need someone who score quicker at 3 aswell.

I always thought your 4 or 5 should be attacking. There to counter-attack, or ice the cake.

Number 3 should be someone with great all-round batting ability, which is usually why the best batsmen ends up there.

 

[Coronis]

Tbh I always thought that 3 and 4 should be more stabilizing in general rather than aggressive necessarily, to head off a potential collapse in case the openers go cheap.

 

[Shri]

or Rob Quiney

The name quiney sounds like a last name made up by australians

 

[TheJediBrah]

The name quiney sounds like a last name made up by australians

Try saying it without an Australian accent, doesn't work

 

[Days of Grace]

Think I’ve posted this before but Barrington, May, and Compton all have career S/Rs in the low 40s, according to Charles Davis. And yet May and Compton were seen as more attacking. Perhaps because they were easier on the eye and played in winning teams people think they must have scored at a faster clip than Barrington.

 

[AndrewB]

For Compton especially the over-rates were higher so he’d be scoring more runs in a session than Barrington.

 

[BazBall21]

May had much tougher conditions than Barrington

 

[HookShot]