What is the most important criterion for someone to be classified as an ATG?

[Prince EWS]

Nor has he scored more than 5,000 Test runs.

Though that brings us nicely around to the man who actually does have the second highest Test average of those who have scored more than 5,000 runs, and he's even more under-appreciated than Sutcliffe...

...step forward Ken Barrington.

The only thing that stops me rating Barrington higher - and I mean, ATW team class - is his mediocre (well, comparatively anyway!) First Class record. County cricket was seen as being very important during his career and he didn't really play that many Tests either, so I can't shake the feeling that his Test record flatters him a touch. Still under-rated though, for mine.

 

[Cricket_God]

How good they were compared to their peers.

Its difficult as earlier cricket was played by handful of countries and that too as part-timers,
Compared to mowadays where there are so many first class cricketers.

 

[The Sean]

The only thing that stops me rating Barrington higher - and I mean, ATW team class - is his mediocre (well, comparatively anyway!) First Class record. County cricket was seen as being very important during his career and he didn't really play that many Tests either, so I can't shake the feeling that his Test record flatters him a touch. Still under-rated though, for mine.

I don't know, I reckon 82 Tests is a fair sample.

I agree with you about FC record though - when you consider how insanely prolific he was in Test cricket, Barrington's county record was almost inexplicably moderate. We've had discussions on here previously as to the logic or reasoning behind the likes of May and Cowdrey being considered greater players despite massively (and I mean not even close) inferior Test records.

Then again, I rate Compton ahead of Barrington and, while his record is considerably better than May/Cowdrey, it's still well behind old Ken.

 

[Prince EWS]

I don't know, I reckon 82 Tests is a fair sample.

Yeah, I wasn't trying to say it was a small sample size - just that he didn't spend his entire career in the Test team - he spent a fair portion of it dropped. I get the feeling that he played his entire peak in Tests and, unlike the other greats, didn't play too much either side of it. He wasn't selected too early on potential and persisted with for several Tests despite not being up to it yet, and he wasn't held on past his prime in the hope of him returning to lofty heights. I think this was primarily due to the fact that he was criminally under-rated in his own time but the upside to it for him is his huge career Test average.

I'm not saying he wasn't a great batsman - he certainly was, and is still under-rated to this very day - but he wasn't as good as his Test average suggests IMO.

 

[The Sean]

Yeah, I wasn't trying to say it was a small sample size - just that he didn't spend his entire career in the Test team - he spent a fair portion of it dropped. I get the feeling that he played his entire peak in Tests and, unlike the other greats, didn't play too much either side of it. He wasn't selected too early on potential and persisted with for several Tests despite not being up to it yet, and he wasn't held on past his prime in the hope of him returning to lofty heights. I think this was primarily due to the fact that he was criminally under-rated in his own time but the upside to it for him is his huge career Test average.

I'm not saying he wasn't a great batsman - he certainly was, and is still under-rated to this very day - but he wasn't as good as his Test average suggests IMO.

Yeah, don't disagree with any of that TBH. Reckon you've hit the nail pretty firmly on the head.