Ken Barrington vs Rahul Dravid

[Johan]

that’s not the comparison though. Viv, Sachin, Lara, Ponting all clearly in a different league. My struggle with Ken Barrington is mainly even contemporary accounts of him don’t view him in the elite tier of that era, and test cricket was so banal during that era, I mark it down.

True, I think a lot from the era rate even Colin Cowdrey Higher

 

[BazBall21]

Fair. I do think it also highlights his major strength, playing some of the most important knocks in crucial match situations.

Obviously there were a few good moments, but underwhelming overall imo and indicative of limitations.

 

[sayon basak]

True, I think a lot from the era rate even Colin Cowdrey Higher

In August 1959 a publication from Lahore posed the question of who was then the world's greatest batsman. It provided a short-list of five: May, Cowdrey, O'Neill, Hanif and Sobers. The conclusion was:

This honour for the moment lies between Garfield Sobers and Hanif Mohammad. As a run-getting machine Hanif wins. As an exhibitionist, in the true cricketing sense, Garfield Sobers claims the honour.

source: peterhrt

 

[OverratedSanity]

Obviously there were a few good moments, but underwhelming overall imo and indicative of limitations.

Which among Dravid, kallis or Sanga's records vs Australia would you rate higher (since they're the other two great batsmen of the era below sachin/Lara)?

Think they're approximately the same tbh. Dravid averages a couple of points lower than kallis, kallis scored more tons but Dravids best innings were arguably more impressive.

 

[Johan]

In August 1959 a publication from Lahore posed the question of who was then the world's greatest batsman. It provided a short-list of five: May, Cowdrey, O'Neill, Hanif and Sobers. The conclusion was:

This honour for the moment lies between Garfield Sobers and Hanif Mohammad. As a run-getting machine Hanif wins. As an exhibitionist, in the true cricketing sense, Garfield Sobers claims the honour.

source: peterhrt

I'm pretty sure Tom Graveny rated Cowdrey above Barrington too.

 

[Coronis]

I'm pretty sure Tom Graveny rated Cowdrey above Barrington too.

I believe some placed a lot more emphasis on home performance. Lets not forget Barrington being “boring”.

 

[Johan]

I believe some placed a lot more emphasis on home performance.

I believe the way people rated Cricketers before the stats became available so easily is fundamentally different than how we do it now.

 

[Coronis]

I believe the way people rated Cricketers before the stats became available so easily is fundamentally different than how we do it now.

Indeed. iirc Bradman didn’t even know he needed 4 runs to have an average of 100. In this day and age that would be all that would be talked about in the lead up to the second innings of that match.

 

[sayon basak]

I believe some placed a lot more emphasis on home performance.

Really? I thought they held flair and style higher.

 

[Coronis]

Really? I thought they held flair and style higher.

See my edit. But I think performance in England, particularly, was held in high regard by many English players and writers, no matter what country the player was from.

 

[Johan]

Indeed. iirc Bradman didn’t even know he needed 4 runs to have an average of 100. In this day and age that would be all that would be talked about in the lead up to the second innings of that match.

Yeah, I'm sure there were some statistician for Cricket back then too, but I think a lot of people from that time rate via memorable tours and hundreds instead of averages, that explains why May and Harvey are so much higher rated than their averages as they both have a plethora of amazing knocks and series, even moreso than guys who average higher than them. I reckon someone like Barrington would be more appreciated today, and someone like Stokes would be more appreicated in that age.

 

[sayon basak]

See my edit. But I think performance in England, particularly, was held in high regard by many English players and writers, no matter what country the player was from.

Wasn't Hanif rated highly among English writers? iirc John Arlott was a Hanif fan.

 

[Johan]

Wasn't Hanif rated highly among English writers?

That's mostly because he did very well in first class Cricket in England

 

[Coronis]

Yeah, I'm sure there were some statistician for Cricket back then too, but I think a lot of people from that time rate via memorable tours and hundreds instead of averages, that explains why May and Harvey are so much higher rated than their averages as they both have a plethora of amazing knocks and series, even moreso than guys who average higher than them. I reckon someone like Barrington would be more appreciated today, and someone like Stokes would be more appreicated in that age.

While I do like many things about the bygone days of cricket, their methods of rating players were quite flawed imo.

 

[Johan]

While I do like many things about the bygone days of cricket, their methods of rating players were quite flawed imo.

Yeah true, the besr method is probably something in middle of blind average reading and complete priority to one off matches/tours.

 

[BazBall21]

Which among Dravid, kallis or Sanga's records vs Australia would you rate higher (since they're the other two great batsmen of the era below sachin/Lara)?

Think they're approximately the same tbh. Dravid averages a couple of points lower than kallis, kallis scored more tons but Dravids best innings were arguably more impressive.

Tough comparisons because Kallis batted against them in South Africa and Dravid definitely faced stronger Australian attacks than Sangakkara.

 

[sayon basak]

While I do like many things about the bygone days of cricket, their methods of rating players were quite flawed imo.

I mean, obviously ours is gonna look correct to us. Pretty sure they would call us check-listers.

 

[Coronis]

I mean, obviously ours is gonna look correct to us. Pretty sure they would call us check-listers.

Cricket is much more than numbers.

“I was there, man”

 

[Johan]

I mean, obviously ours is gonna look correct to us. Pretty sure they would call us check-listers.

they'd be right if they say it to someone who rates Miandad highly.

Though, think balance between quality of knocks, quality of output and just sheer volume of output is important, and the method the forum should go by, but sadly most don't.

 

[sayon basak]

they'd be right if they say it to someone who rates Miandad highly.

Though, think balance between quality of knocks, quality of output and just sheer volume of output is important, and the method the forum should go by, but sadly most don't.

Don't think I rate Miandad much higher than Clive Lloyd. Don't know how that's unfair.