George Headley vs Ken Barrington

[DrWolverine]

Test batting

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Headley

 

[capt_Luffy]

This is the type of comparison where the only reason someone can vote for Barrington is just by purely looking at stats without context

 

[sayon basak]

Headley is close to top 10. Barrington is probably outside top 20.

 

[Coronis]

George Headley had oodles of talent and skill. Obviously it was out of his control but both he and Pollock only played ~20 tests, so I do downgrade them a bit, which I think is fair.

 

[DrWolverine]

I just don’t understand why Ken Barrington is rated so low.

I can understand why he gets deducted a few points for longevity against players who played more than a decade but it makes no sense against Headley

 

[capt_Luffy]

I just don’t understand why Ken Barrington is rated so low.

I can understand why he gets deducted a few points for longevity against players who played more than a decade but it makes no sense against Headley

Headley played over 2 tbf

 

[sayon basak]

I just don’t understand why Ken Barrington is rated so low.

I can understand why he gets deducted a few points for longevity against players who played more than a decade but it makes no sense against Headley

England won 3 out of the 23 Ashes matches he played, he scored 6, 35, 0* and 1 in them.

 

[DrWolverine]

Ken Barrington
vs Aus : 23 Tests. 2111 runs. Avg of 63. 13 50s. 5 100s.
in Aus : 10 Tests. 1046 runs @ 70.

 

[DrWolverine]

Will you blame Richard Hadlee for NZ not winning as well?

 

[Coronis]

Headley played over 2 tbf

Counting Headley’s post war matches is like counting Barrington’s 1955 matches

 

[sayon basak]

Will you blame Richard Hadlee for NZ not winning as well?

I would have understood if Barrington had played for NZ. He didn't.

 

[Coronis]

I would have understood if Barrington had played for NZ. He didn't.

And they only lost 5 matches. This is where some context is needed. The vast majority of Ashes tests during his time were draws.

 

[kyear2]

Yes they were, and part of the reason for that, and why cricket was seen by many to be on the decline, was because of the ridiculously slow nature of scoring. Barrington was very much seen to be part of that problem.

 

[Coronis]

Yes they were, and part of the reason for that, and why cricket was seen by many to be on the decline, was because of the ridiculously slow nature of scoring. Barrington was very much seen to be part of that problem.

No worse than the majority of batsmen on both teams tbh. Reckon Zak Crawley as part of the solution should get bonus points for that?

 

[Johan]

I just don’t understand why Ken Barrington is rated so low.

I can understand why he gets deducted a few points for longevity against players who played more than a decade but it makes no sense against Headley

he is kind of basically Kallis without the longevity, so he's rightly rated below the 2000s crew while Headley I'm pretty sure is rated above them.

 

[Johan]

George Headley had oodles of talent and skill. Obviously it was out of his control but both he and Pollock only played ~20 tests, so I do downgrade them a bit, which I think is fair.

Weekes or Headley

 

[Coronis]

Weekes or Headley

What about them

 

[Johan]

What about them

Whose a better Batsmen between Everton Weekes and George Headley

 

[DrWolverine]

Barrington