He never gets picked in drafts at all really until really late. I feel he just must have not scored enough tons to be lumped in the Pollock/Headley class coz he is statistically similar
Unfortunately for Eddie Paynter he was 30 years old when he got picked for his first Test match in 1931, and like a lot of players his career was interupted by the Second World War so that he was not able to play more than 20 Tests.
Of course once he was selected for England he was hugely successful and his average of 84.42 is second to only Bradman in Ashes encounters.
However, his FC record indicates why Paynter is less revered than other great players despite having a comparable Test average, and why he was quite old when he made his Test debut.
From 1926 to 1929 he made only 11 appearances for Lancashire, and without much success. It wasn't until 1930 that he made his first FC century against Warwickshire and then improved his reputation. Even so, he was inconsistent and was considered lucky at the time to be selected for the 1932 Bodyline series. In all he averaged a creditable 42.26 for his FC matches, but it's nothing outstanding.
Therefore, despite having a similar Test average Paynter's overall cricketing record contrasts with the likes of Graeme Pollock and George Headley who were successful and admired throughout their respective 27 year careers. Pollock made 20,940 runs at 54.27 and Headley made 9921 runs at 69.86. In consistency and stature Eddie Paynter pales in comparison.
There is also batting skill and technique to consider. No one who every watched Pollock and Headley dominate a bowling attack could fail to recognise that they were watching the absolute best. Paynter was considered to be a fine attacking batsman in his time, but few cricketing writers and critics would consider putting him on the same batting plane.
