Is it? Why? Genuine question, because I see these two as really close together in my own rankings (and the poll seems to reflect that too). I'm surprised at the idea that anyone would think one of these blokes is leagues ahead of the other.
Dravid had the significantly longer career and his peak which was as long as Barrington's whole entire career was better. In terms of years as well as matches. Barrington played in a soft era and entirely during his peak. IMO, rating Barrington over Dravid lies at the confluence of 2 pet peeves — just preferring bigger averages without taking career length into account as well as other context and over rating the guy in black and white because his weaknesses are less apparent.
Yep - Barrington was seen in his time as a great bloke and an above average one dimensional bat. Never among the best of his era. All people see now is the average without remembering what the draw % was of that time.
Fair enough, thanks for the response. I voted Dravid as well, but have just never thought there was much between them. I agree with your reasons for Dravid in terms of career length, era and peak, I just don't consider the gap to be anywhere near as wide as you do.
Barrington didn't have a short career. He was an England regular for a decade from 1959 to 1968 and played 82 Tests. At the time of his retirement, only three players had ever played more Tests for England.
His peak was not better, get your head out of your ass.
9 years is a much shorter career than Dravid's. He just came at a time when players were playing more than ever before. Bedser held the record for most test wickets after Grimmett despite only playing 7 years. And half of Dravid's peak was on the 90s so it was certainly a kinder era in comparison.
Yes it was but it just happened to be in colour. He averaged more against better bowlers on average and half of it was in a tougher era.
But he has a much more accomplished career. I'll flip this: Barrington has much of the same pitfalls that Dravid did but because his average didn't suffer from a full length career reactionary edgelords think he was the ****. Dravid was just better on every account.
Nine years isn't too short, but it is short relative to ATG discussions which he does have the right to be involved in. The RPW across Ken Barrington's overseas tests is 37.64. That's very high. Of course, his overseas record is still excellent, but he clearly had kind conditions away from home by and large.
Shhh you'll hurt the Barrington overraters. They're allergic to it. Telling them flashier average isn't necessarily better might cause their simpleton brains to overload and combust.
His peak average was similar to Barrington’s, slightly lower, and this is without taking into account even flatter pitches and more minnow bashing than Barrington ever had an opportunity to do. Both were similar types of player and it is not insane or crazy to rate one over the other, as you seem to think.
A case of the simpleton calling others simpletons if I ever heard of one.
See posts above. This is just false.
I don't care about Barrington but over rating him really is symptomatic of the worst tendencies on this forum. These 2 are nominally similar players but any in depth analysis makes one clearly better than the order. Claiming Barrington is better would be a bit like claiming Bedser over Anderson. It's just not a tenable opinion under any sort of scrutiny. Nice "no u" though.
What posts above? Where have you provided any evidence that that Dravid’s peak record is in anyway superior to Barrington’s?
Who the hell puts O’Reilly ahead of Warne/Murali?
@BazBall21 posted some good facts. Barrington fans really are allergic to numbers with context.
Well Bedser has a better overall average over a much smaller career and with the same limitations. That makes him a better bowler than Anderson by the same brain damaged logic that leads one to Barrington over Dravid.
The same kind of person that puts Barrington over Viv Richards. A moron.
