Peter May vs Denis Compton

[Johan]

It's just that Barrington's stats are too Much. Though reckon even 5 decades ago calling him better than either here, especially Compton, would be a huge hot take.

Indeed, @peterhrt posted this for Batters who never played in the subcontinent.

Compton 1306 runs @ 87.06. 7 centuries
Hassett 826 @ 82.60. 4 centuries
Duleepsinhji 301 @ 75.25. 1 century
Rhodes 599 @ 66.55. 2 centuries
Worrell 4373 @ 64.30. 14 centuries
H Sutcliffe 523 @ 59.11. 2 centuries
Hobbs 593 @ 53.90. 2 centuries
Tarrant 1002 @ 41.75. 1 century
Tate 1193 @ 36.15. 3 centuries
Hirst 71 @ 35.50
Macartney 336 @ 24.00
FS Jackson 77 @ 15.40

even if one wants to point fingers at the attack he faced, I'll point out he is outperforming people like Hassett and even Sutcliffe, so, a pretty great record if you take this seriously. Hell, he has half of Worrell's tons in 1/5 the games and is averaging far more and they're mostly from a similar generation.

and Yeah, Compton seems higher rated by peer reputation, though again that probably has something to do with longetivity (20 vs 10), home record (60 vs 50) and Barrington playing in an era of draws, and obviously, Barrington being a grafter, Compton being a stroke maker, Barrington having a lowkey personality and Compton being widely dubbed the Golden Boy of English Cricket.

not to mention, Compton was superior in England and in the West Indies, that may sound trivial compared to Barrington averaging more than double in Australia (albeit, contextual) and South Africa, but in England and West Indies Compton played 64% of his games and Barrington played 68% of his games, which makes sense considering the era. the places where Barrington enjoys a far heftier advantages only made up for 32% of his games and 36% for Compton, this is including Asia where Compton never got a chance.

Also, both the individuals bowed out at a similar age, but Compton was test class far earlier while Barrington was a low 30s averaging first class Batsmen until 1959, a fair cut off would be Compton in early 38 against Barrington who retired at the age of 37, Barrington still average more but Compton kills him on longevity and a much higher portion of career in a bowling era.

Compton after 19 years of Cricket: 5,565 @ 52.5, 17 tons.
Barrington after 10 years of Cricket: 6,806 @ 58.6, 20 tons.

I definitely think Compton vs Barrington is a more fun and a closer discussion than May vs Barrington, the advantages are significant for Compton even if I think he is somewhat behind Barrington on quality overall.

 

[Johan]

I think had Compton retired when May did, i.e., when his knee injury resurfaced at age 30, I would probably rate him with the 2000s brigade. He was averaging 61 with 50 away by then.

same, I rate him around De Villiers, though even if he retired right before his final series I think he'd he rated higher, he was averaging 52.5 after 73 tests and 19 years into his career, his 1950s average at the point was 45 and his away average was 40+ with the injury series. averages 52.8 without the injury series too.

 

[Johan]

great videos on all three, recommended to anyone who likes them.

 

[sayon basak]

[

great videos on all three, recommended to anyone who likes them.

https://youtu.be/FQVql8hZc5c?si=LCR40eVXQpuDN0qZ

 

[peterhrt]

Barrington just isn't rated it feels like.

The discrepancy between reputation and averages for certain players of the 1960s can be explained by some of the cricket played at the time. One example is the final Test of the 1962-63 Ashes at Sydney.

The series was level at 1-1 going into the last Test and anticipation was keen. Australia held the Ashes so the onus was on England to make the running. They duly won the toss and batted. At the end of the first day they had crawled to 195-5. Barrington batted virtually all day for 101 with just four boundaries. England were eventually all out for 321. Despite all his positive talk, Benaud's team took their time establishing a narrow lead. Burge got a slow hundred while Simpson's 32 took 115 minutes.

Going in again on Day 4 England really needed to get a move on. Instead they opened with Illingworth, whose protests cost him his tour good conduct bonus, and inexplicably sent Barrington in at number three again. This time he ground out 94 in four and a half hours, finding the boundary only twice. Australia were set 241 at a run a minute.

Gettable by today's standards but the mindset was different then. To their credit, Harvey and O'Neill made an effort, but Lawry had other ideas. Batting even slower than usual, he ensured neither side could win by occupying the crease throughout for 45 not out as the hosts finished on 152 for 4 from 72 overs. A frustrated crowd had been barracking throughout the match, and as the players left the field at the end both teams were loudly booed.

Reporting for the BBC and Daily Telegraph, Swanton described the match as "grim". Another called the attitude of both sides "mean and miserable".

Back at Lord's, panic measures were discussed. Returning to the old lbw law, bringing back amateur status, inviting West Indies to tour more often. That summer the first one-day competition was launched and an experimental match staged at Lord's with four stumps. The visiting West Indians cheered everyone up - until England played Australia again. Ten of the remaining fifteen Ashes Tests of the decade were drawn.

 

[capt_Luffy]

The discrepancy between reputation and averages for certain players of the 1960s can be explained by some of the cricket played at the time. One example is the final Test of the 1962-63 Ashes at Sydney.

The series was level at 1-1 going into the last Test and anticipation was keen. Australia held the Ashes so the onus was on England to make the running. They duly won the toss and batted. At the end of the first day they had crawled to 195-5. Barrington batted virtually all day for 101 with just four boundaries. England were eventually all out for 321. Despite all his positive talk, Benaud's team took their time establishing a narrow lead. Burge got a slow hundred while Simpson's 32 took 115 minutes.

Going in again on Day 4 England really needed to get a move on. Instead they opened with Illingworth, whose protests cost him his tour good conduct bonus, and inexplicably put Barrington in at number three again. This time he ground out 94 in four and a half hours, finding the boundary only twice. Australia were set 241 at a run a minute.

Gettable by today's standards but the mindset was different then. To their credit, Harvey and O'Neill made an effort, but Lawry had other ideas. Batting even slower than usual, he ensured neither side could win by occupying the crease throughout for 45 not out as the hosts finished on 152 for 4 from 72 overs. A frustrated crowd had been barracking throughout the match, and as the players left the field at the end both teams were loudly booed.

Reporting for the BBC and Daily Telegraph, Swanton described the match as "grim". Another called the attitude of both sides "mean and miserable".

Back at Lord's, panic measures were discussed. Returning to the old lbw law, bringing back amateur status, inviting West Indies to tour more often. That summer the first one-day competition was launched and an experimental match staged at Lord's with four stumps. The visiting West Indians cheered everyone up - until England played Australia again. Ten of the remaining fifteen Ashes Tests of the decade were drawn.

Excellent post as always and thanks for the additional context. This really explains so much why someone like Kanhai was rated higher than Barrington.

 

[Johan]

The discrepancy between reputation and averages for certain players of the 1960s can be explained by some of the cricket played at the time. One example is the final Test of the 1962-63 Ashes at Sydney.

The series was level at 1-1 going into the last Test and anticipation was keen. Australia held the Ashes so the onus was on England to make the running. They duly won the toss and batted. At the end of the first day they had crawled to 195-5. Barrington batted virtually all day for 101 with just four boundaries. England were eventually all out for 321. Despite all his positive talk, Benaud's team took their time establishing a narrow lead. Burge got a slow hundred while Simpson's 32 took 115 minutes.

Going in again on Day 4 England really needed to get a move on. Instead they opened with Illingworth, whose protests cost him his tour good conduct bonus, and inexplicably put Barrington in at number three again. This time he ground out 94 in four and a half hours, finding the boundary only twice. Australia were set 241 at a run a minute.

Gettable by today's standards but the mindset was different then. To their credit, Harvey and O'Neill made an effort, but Lawry had other ideas. Batting even slower than usual, he ensured neither side could win by occupying the crease throughout for 45 not out as the hosts finished on 152 for 4 from 72 overs. A frustrated crowd had been barracking throughout the match, and as the players left the field at the end both teams were loudly booed.

Reporting for the BBC and Daily Telegraph, Swanton described the match as "grim". Another called the attitude of both sides "mean and miserable".

Back at Lord's, panic measures were discussed. Returning to the old lbw law, bringing back amateur status, inviting West Indies to tour more often. That summer the first one-day competition was launched and an experimental match staged at Lord's with four stumps. The visiting West Indians cheered everyone up - until England played Australia again. Ten of the remaining fifteen Ashes Tests of the decade were drawn.

Oh, I see. I'm guessing due to contexts like this Barrington's Ashes record is not actually anywhere near as good as it looks on paper, Makes sense considering if a batsmen from England averages 65 in Ashes without any caveats or downsides, I'd still rate the Sydney performance as a positive considering the quality of the attack but that does deserve a big asterisk next to it, especially considering if Australia really were playing for a draw then it's very possible that they simply wanted Barrington to bat until the end of time.

I can only imagine the reception such a performance would get if it happened, say, in the 2025 Ashes by an English Batsmen.

 

[Coronis]

Oh, I see. I'm guessing due to contexts like this Barrington's Ashes record is not actually anywhere near as good as it looks on paper, Makes sense considering if a batsmen from England averages 65 in Ashes without any caveats or downsides, I'd still rate the Sydney performance as a positive considering the quality of the attack but that does deserve a big asterisk next to it, especially considering if Australia really were playing for a draw then it's very possible that they simply wanted Barrington to bat until the end of time.

I can only imagine the reception such a performance would get if it happened, say, in the 2025 Ashes by an English Batsmen.

Yep they probably stopped trying to get him out.

 

[Johan]

Yep they probably stopped trying to get him out.

in Sydney test with the context Peter posted? it's definitely possible they got all defensive since it really does seem like Australia played for a draw, happens.

 

[capt_Luffy]

in Sydney test with the context Peter posted? it's definitely possible they got all defensive since it really does seem like Australia played for a draw, happens.

I would definitely argue with the context of didn't looked like they wanted Ken to bat either. Even O'Neill and Harvey tried to chase

 

[Johan]

I would definitely argue with the context of didn't looked like they wanted Ken to bat either. Even O'Neill and Harvey tried to chase

It really sounds like Lawry, Simpson and Benaud didn't though, I think Australia would've been very happy with a draw, as I said I'd have the performance in net positive but probably not as high as it sounds on paper

 

[capt_Luffy]

It really sounds like Lawry, Simpson and Benaud didn't though, I think Australia would've been very happy with a draw, as I said I'd have the performance in net positive but probably not as high as it sounds on paper

Tbf it looks like England played for the draw as well (arguably more so). So probs Barrington batted like his team wanted?

 

[Johan]

Tbf it looks like England played for the draw as well (arguably more so). So probs Barrington batted like his team wanted?

to me it reads like England just didn't have much capability, kind of accurate to even current day England.

 

[Johan]

does Barrington have any match winning winning/defining knocks in Ashes? @peterhrt

 

[ataraxia]

The discrepancy between reputation and averages for certain players of the 1960s can be explained by some of the cricket played at the time. One example is the final Test of the 1962-63 Ashes at Sydney.

The series was level at 1-1 going into the last Test and anticipation was keen. Australia held the Ashes so the onus was on England to make the running. They duly won the toss and batted. At the end of the first day they had crawled to 195-5. Barrington batted virtually all day for 101 with just four boundaries. England were eventually all out for 321. Despite all his positive talk, Benaud's team took their time establishing a narrow lead. Burge got a slow hundred while Simpson's 32 took 115 minutes.

Going in again on Day 4 England really needed to get a move on. Instead they opened with Illingworth, whose protests cost him his tour good conduct bonus, and inexplicably sent Barrington in at number three again. This time he ground out 94 in four and a half hours, finding the boundary only twice. Australia were set 241 at a run a minute.

Gettable by today's standards but the mindset was different then. To their credit, Harvey and O'Neill made an effort, but Lawry had other ideas. Batting even slower than usual, he ensured neither side could win by occupying the crease throughout for 45 not out as the hosts finished on 152 for 4 from 72 overs. A frustrated crowd had been barracking throughout the match, and as the players left the field at the end both teams were loudly booed.

Reporting for the BBC and Daily Telegraph, Swanton described the match as "grim". Another called the attitude of both sides "mean and miserable".

Back at Lord's, panic measures were discussed. Returning to the old lbw law, bringing back amateur status, inviting West Indies to tour more often. That summer the first one-day competition was launched and an experimental match staged at Lord's with four stumps. The visiting West Indians cheered everyone up - until England played Australia again. Ten of the remaining fifteen Ashes Tests of the decade were drawn.

@thierry henry

 

[Coronis]

in Sydney test with the context Peter posted? it's definitely possible they got all defensive since it really does seem like Australia played for a draw, happens.

The idea of bowlers deliberately not trying to get a batsman out to try and downplay their innings, regardless of how good/bad an innings was, is ridiculous imo.

 

[Johan]

The idea of bowlers deliberately not trying to get a batsman out to try and downplay their innings, regardless of how good/bad an innings was, is ridiculous imo.

Yeah probably a bit too far from me, what I wanted to say was I can see it being a defensive sort of bowling/fielding setting, rather than them putting zero effort, my bad.

 

[peterhrt]

does Barrington have any match winning winning/defining knocks in Ashes? @peterhrt

Short answer is no. England won only three of Barrington's 23 Ashes Tests. His scores were 6, 35, 0* and 1.

His best innings against Australia was probably the 132* that helped save the Adelaide Test of 1963. The 256 at Old Trafford the following year was on a pitch widely condemned as offering nothing to bowlers and "doing nothing for the image of cricket". There was only time for two overs in the third innings. It was Barrington's only Ashes hundred in England. Simpson's 311 in the same match was also his sole three figure score there.

 

[peterhrt]

Tbf it looks like England played for the draw as well (arguably more so). So probs Barrington batted like his team wanted?

Barrington wasn't normally the type to go against the captain's instructions. Despite his dashing image, Dexter was a pretty negative captain. So were fellow ex-amateurs May, Cowdrey and Mike Smith.

Before the war batsmen were rarely criticised for slow scoring. In timeless Tests it was often encouraged. The 1960s were different. The public and media had become deeply dissatisfied with the way the game was going. Administrators feared the writing was on the wall. There was plenty of slow batting but Barrington and Lawry, in particular, sometimes appeared completely disinterested in moving the game along, even when conditions were favourable.

Unlike Boycott, there was rarely evidence they were going against their captains' wishes. An exception was Barrington's 137 in seven and a quarter hours against New Zealand, after which he was dropped as a disciplinary measure.

 

[Johan]

Short answer is no. England won only three of Barrington's 23 Ashes Tests. His scores were 6, 35, 0* and 1.

His best innings against Australia was probably the 132* that helped save the Adelaide Test of 1963. The 256 at Old Trafford the following year was on a pitch widely condemned as offering nothing to bowlers and "doing nothing for the image of cricket". There was only time for two overs in the third innings. It was Barrington's only Ashes hundred in England. Simpson's 311 in the same match was also his sole three figure score there.

Kind of dissapointing, considering he got some generous pitches in Australia as well, I'd expect him to win some games which would add a lot to his legacy.