Kallis vs Sobers, Donald vs Steyn, Trott vs Pollock

[MrPrez]

I read that article watson. Nice to see Kallis get recognition

 

[popepouri]

Given that we always romanticize the past, 20 years from now, he'll go down as the best. Right now, some people will just nitpick his record.

 

[kyear2]

Doubt that, in that case Ken Barrington would be making most All Time teams. Deserved or not, a lot of people see Kallis as a selfish player who played for his average more than his tea,

 

[marc71178]

Don't think Jacques had too many issues about not getting enough tea at times through his career

 

[Prince EWS]

Doubt that, in that case Ken Barrington would be making most All Time teams. Deserved or not, a lot of people see Kallis as a selfish player who played for his average more than his tea,

Barrington only misses out on mine for longevity reasons. His First Class record definitely seems to suggest that if he had a Test career the length typical for someone of his stature, his average would be a lot lower. Trott is shaping up to be a modern-day Barrington - over-rated by some purely because he was so average for much of his career that he couldn't make the Test side in order to fail and deflate the average, and rated correctly by many for the completely wrong and very much irrelevant reasons (batting style, strike rate etc).

 

[displaced]

why is the lazy, hackneyed stereotype of Kallis as a 'selfish' cricketer still being pushed on here? It was never and never will be true

 

[Howe_zat]

So anyway I reckon Trott's a better bowler than Kallis

 

[Furball]

Doubt that, in that case Ken Barrington would be making most All Time teams. Deserved or not, a lot of people see Kallis as a selfish player who played for his average more than his tea,

Nah, won't happen.

There's a reason Viv Richards is almost universally regarded as the best batsman of his era despite some of his contemporaries having statistically better records.

People who rank the likes of Ponting, Tendulkar and Lara ahead of Kallis will still be around in 20-30 years time and will use the "I don't care what the stats say, I watched them" that the old timers like Burgey use now. () I know that Burgey, Sanz and Robelinda are on record as saying Viv was the best of the era.

 

[The Sean]

i know that burgey, sanz and robelinda are on record as saying viv was the best of the era.

+1

 

[Furball]

+1

Suspected you were a member of the Viv fan club but I couldn't recall a post off the top of my head where you'd said that.

 

[bagapath]

Barrington only misses out on mine for longevity reasons. His First Class record definitely seems to suggest that if he had a Test career the length typical for someone of his stature, his average would be a lot lower.

I dont know what you mean by that. Barrington had a very long test career and he was successful throughout. 82 tests. 6800 runs. 20 centuries. that is long enough by any standards.

In fact, when he retired in 1968, only three cricketers had played more tests than him in history.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

his finish was like dravid retiring today, as the fourth most capped player of alltime. no one said anything like he hadnt played enough test cricket then. and we shouldn't start now.

 

[Prince EWS]

I dont know what you mean by that. Barrington had a very long test career and he was successful throughout. 82 tests. 6800 runs. 20 centuries. that is long enough by any standards.

In fact, when he retired in 1968, only three cricketers had played more tests than him in history.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

his finish was like dravid retiring today, as the fourth most capped player of alltime. no one said anything like he hadnt played enough test cricket then. and we shouldn't start now.

I'm not saying his career wasn't long enough to form a meaningful sample size; I'm saying it wasn't as long as those of many in contention and that his average is largely a product of playing exclusively through his peak. Barrington is without doubt a top thirty batsman of all time but his longevity is an issue when comparing him to other players as while they may average slightly lower overall, you can find peaks in their careers that were as long as Barrington's entire career when you add it all up. That his First Class record is fairly average (well by ATG standards anyway!) suggests that if he'd been playing Tests throughout his whole career instead of being dropped early and re-emerging a better player later, then retiring from Tests before he did domestic cricket near his prime, he'd have averaged a fair bit lower.

The stats you've listed merely illustrate the growing number of Tests that were being played in that era. Barrington had a career that spanned 14 calender years, and in those 14 calender years he played in 82 out of England's 132 matches (only about 62%) - so effectively he played 8.697 years of cricket. The likes of Dravid (16.59), Tendulkar (21.58), Sobers (18.25), Hammond (17.16) etc effectively played a lot more after you standardise it all properly.

Barrington's career basically consisted of ATG batsman's peak without the average bits either side - he did have them though, difference is he spent them in country cricket instead of having his Test average take a hit. Again, no doubt in my mind that he was a great batsman, but this for me is why he's not really in World XI contention; not his strike rate or batting style.

 

[Satguru]

Barrington's career basically consisted of ATG batsman's peak without the average bits either side - he did have them though, difference is he spent them in country cricket instead of having his Test average take a hit. Again, no doubt in my mind that he was a great batsman, but this for me is why he's not really in World XI contention; not his strike rate or batting style.

What??!! an 82 match career averaging 58 is ridiculously great. he's being penalised for not having a bad trough in his test career? wow
Suppose ponting had retired after 100 odd matches averaging around 60, would you have said the same thing?

 

[Prince EWS]

What??!! an 82 match career averaging 58 is ridiculously great. he's being penalised for not having a bad trough in his test career? wow
Suppose ponting had retired after 100 odd matches averaging around 60, would you have said the same thing?

He's being punished for not having a Test career as comparatively long as others in similar company when everything is era-adjusted. He did have a couple of bad patches; luckily for his average he wasn't playing Test career at the time.

People are acting as if I'm saying the bloke wasn't a great batsman. I'd have him in the top 25-30 without hesitation; I just think a few others were better because they had longer periods of Test excellence.

 

[bagapath]

He's being punished for not having a Test career as comparatively long as others in similar company when everything is era-adjusted. He did have a couple of bad patches; luckily for his average he wasn't playing Test career at the time.

any selector worth his salt would not put an out of form batsman in the national team. so barrington or anyone not having to play test cricket when he is in poor form would be nothing to do with luck; it is just common sense.

People are acting as if I'm saying the bloke wasn't a great batsman. I'd have him in the top 25-30 without hesitation; I just think a few others were better because they had longer periods of Test excellence.

a 14 year test career studded with success is what bradman had too; just that WW2 came in between and made it 20. Botham played for 14 years. So did Malcolm Marshall. no one said marshall's great record is a result of the fact that he played his entire career while he was at his peak. also, you cant say marshall is greater than hadlee because hadlee played his 86 tests over 20 years while marshall featured in most of the games his team played during his career. this means nothing at all. you can say someone benefited from a short career if he played in 20 tests over 3 years and retired with a great average; not if he got 82 caps in 14 years and succeeded consistently.

so barrington's greatness is not under question at all. he stands tall in any comparison. just that he was a plodder and had a dead bat in comparison with other superstar batters with similar or inferior records. there is no one else who averaged 58+ after 80 tests, so there is no question of anyone with a better record. but there are plenty with better strike rates who get selected in all time XIs ahead of him.

 

[Prince EWS]

a 14 year test career studded with success is what bradman had too; just that WW2 came in between and made it 20. Botham played for 14 years. So did Malcolm Marshall. no one said marshall's great record is a result of the fact that he played his entire career while he was at his peak.

There's nothing wrong with playing for 14 years. Barrington effectively only played for about 9 though.

 

[bagapath]

There's nothing wrong with playing for 14 years. Barrington effectively only played for about 9 though.

so did miller. such things dont make them "lesser legends".

 

[Prince EWS]

so did miller. such things dont make them "lesser legends".

Well they do to me.

Miller obviously had a pretty good excuse though...

 

[bagapath]

Well they do to me.
Miller obviously had a pretty good excuse though...

I dont need any excuse to rate miller highly. 50 tests in the 1940s and 50s is a big enough sample for me to judge his class. when a person retires as the fourth most capped player in history, like barrington did, then i know he has played a **** load of test cricket that would have tested his class in all conditions against all opponents.

 

[Prince EWS]

As I said before; it's a question of longevity to me rather than sample size. I don't think you quite grasp the concept.