DoG's Top 100 Test Batsmen - The Top 25

[Coronis]

Neither Hammond or Headley should've returned to test cricket after the war. Bradman was the only one of the three who was anywhere near the batsman he was before the war.

Gavaskar going now also means that - as far as this study is concerned - the top three Test openers of all time are English.

Something I whole heartedly agree with.

 

[Riggins]

The first 10 years of his career still counts for a long time, especually playing tests as rarely as he did.

I don't really have an opinion on it either way, but you can't up someone for - maintaining their average, " especially playing not very many games. " - maybe despite playing rarely, but even then.

 

[Days of Grace]

16. Ken Barrington (England) (1955-1968)

Career Length (Days): 4795
Percentage of team's matches played: 65%
Career Average: 58.67
Adjusted career average: 55.52
Adjusted away average: 61.45 (rank 4)
Adjusted top-opposition average: 50.93
Top Tier centuries: 0
Second tier centuries: 7
Third tier centuries: 9
Significant innings: 32
Significant innings per match: 0.39

Great innings: 0

Innings worth average: 3.66

25 Test peak adjusted average: 71.50 (1964-1967) (rank 10)
50 Test peak adjusted average: 59.34 (1961-1968)

Quality Points: 639 (rank 10)
Career Points: 65
Peak Points: 140
TOTAL POINTS: 844


Despite averaging 58.67 and a monumental 69.18 away from home (which have been adjusted down to 55.52 and 61.45 respectively) Barrington does not find a place in the top 10. One of the reasons is that he never played a great innings. He also scored a lot of runs in high scoring draws which were almost the norm in test cricket in the 1960s. Also, in 15 matches against top-tier opposition, Barrington only averaged 36.14 (adjusted up from 32.14) with no centuries. He was dropped from the England side in the 1950s, eliminated almost all risk from his game, and returned in the 1960s to dominate a somewhat dull, slow-scoring era in English cricket. He is a product of his times. But he is still one of the top 20 batsmen of all time. And Kenny would be happy with that.

 

[NUFAN]

Wow. No top tier centuries, no great innings sounds like a soulless accumulator who is lucky to be so high.

 

[Flem274*]

kyear to jizz

 

[hendrix]

Wow. No top tier centuries, no great innings sounds like a soulless accumulator who is lucky to be so high.

Yeah, but I also like that the system is even enough to have major outliers capable of getting up so high if they really excelled in a particular factor (in this case, just piling on the runs).

I don't think we'll see anyone else like him in the top 15, but it's nice to have a reminder of the diversity of point scoring here. MoYo and his ridiculous peak, Laxman and his great innings etc etc

 

[NUFAN]

Yeah, but I also like that the system is even enough to have major outliers capable of getting up so high if they really excelled in a particular factor (in this case, just piling on the runs).

I don't think we'll see anyone else like him in the top 15, but it's nice to have a reminder of the diversity of point scoring here. MoYo and his ridiculous peak, Laxman and his great innings etc etc

Yep, you've worded that well, I agree.

I've thought this before, but its just easy to see why Barrington isn't rated as highly as his record/ranking suggests.

 

[Days of Grace]

He scored a lot of runs in India in the early 1960s when England didn't take a full-strength team and there was almost no TV coverage to speak of. If he did the same thing today, he would be jizzed over by a number of fans.

 

[ankitj]

So composition of top 15:

Aus, Eng, WI: 4 each
SA, Ind, SL: 1 each

EDIT: Keen to know who will be the last batsman without a great innings.

 

[The Sean]

So composition of top 15:

Aus, Eng, WI: 4 each
SA, Ind, SL: 1 each

EDIT: Keen to know who will be the last batsman without a great innings.

Looking through he remaining 15, I can't believe any of them will be without a great innings, so I'd say it has to be Barrington.

 

[ankitj]

Just rechecked. What DoG said was that Weekes was one of the 3 batsmen with no great innings in top 50. I thought he had said that of top 25. So I guess, yes, Barrington is the last one without great innings.

 

[Burgey]

How ****ing great was Allan Border? Seriously.

 

[smash84]

How ****ing great was Allan Border? Seriously.

According to this list just above inzy

 

[Howe_zat]

Wow. No top tier centuries, no great innings sounds like a soulless accumulator who is lucky to be so high.

Not sure that's fair. If you look at his "innings worth average" it is up there with many of the best. So the fact that he never got that higher than the threshold for great must mean that he made up for it at the bottom end - i.e. he was slmost never dismissed for nothing. It speaks of a hugely reliable player who would pretty much always get some runs regardless of a situation.

So comparing for example Inzamam, who it seems had 7 great innings:

0-10: 26 Barrington, 49 Inzamam
10-30: 26 Barrington, 30 Inzamam

It's the starts that make the difference. And even if they don't come up as "significant innings" they do make a difference, especially for a middle order player. They stall collapses, blunt good spells and form partnerships that can make a crucial difference.

I'm pretty okay with players making up their average at the lower end. I think we're a bit too quick to dismiss the difference between 5 and 25, because it's a hell of a lot more that the difference between 300 and 350 in a match.

 

[kyear2]

Wow. No top tier centuries, no great innings sounds like a soulless accumulator who is lucky to be so high.

Fully agree, thought he would be lower. The fact that he is higher than Pollock and Weekes shows that numbers can never tell the entire story. Understandable though as it is a statistical analysis.

 

[centurymaker]

a bit shocked about his career points

 

[marc71178]

Fully agree, thought he would be lower. The fact that he is higher than Pollock and Weekes shows that numbers can never tell the entire story. Understandable though as it is a statistical analysis.

The fact that Headley still hasn't appeared show that tbh.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Surprised to see Barrington without any great innings or top tier century

 

[The Sean]

The fact that Headley still hasn't appeared show that tbh.

The more I think about it, Headley's final ranking will be really interesting. On the one hand, it wouldn't surprise me if his Innings Worth was second only to Bradman's - or at least in the very top handful.

On the other hand, his career points could be a real mixed bag. His career length was 24 years, but due to playing on after the war and the long gap between his last two series he actually only played in 22 of the West Indies' 45 Tests during that period - less than 50%. I imagine he'll take a hit for that.

 

[ankitj]

BTW, I now remember Wisden 100 ranked Barrington even higher. He was ranked #7 behind Bradman, Tendulkar, Richards, Sobers, Border and Hobbs in that order. Here is the reference.