Weekes v Barrington v Viv Richards (rank in order)

[DrWolverine]

Ken Barrington had great tours.

In WI : 5 Tests. 420 runs @ 47.
In Aus : 5 Tests. 464 runs @ 66.
In Aus : 5 Tests. 582 runs @ 73.
In NZ : 3 Tests. 294 runs @ 73.
In Pak : 2 Tests. 229 runs @ 77.
In Ind : 5 Tests. 594 runs @ 99.
In SA : 5 Tests. 504 runs @ 101.
Scored 500+ runs at home @ 76 vs Aus

Yes he lacked the longevity of other great batsmen and his batting was very defensive but he had an almost perfect record.

 

[Johan]

I think they are both fine players (and from everyting I understand fine people) whose averages flatter them, and are just out of that tier A elite group of batters because of length of career, unique accomplishments etc. I think Barrington had fewer soft runs than Weekes.

I generally think Weekes is the type of batsman you'd like way more tbh, Barrington being the stereotypical slow English plodder similar to Geoffrey Boycott, to Weekes being an all commanding stroke maker compared to the likes of Trumper and McCabe in his range and timing.

 

[DrWolverine]

I
Barrington being the stereotypical slow English plodder similar to Geoffrey Boycott

Who do you think is more boring to watch? Geoff Boycott or Ken Barrington?

 

[sayon basak]

Who do you think is more boring to watch? Geoff Boycott or Ken Barrington?

Neither of them were boring.

 

[Johan]

Who do you think is more boring to watch? Geoff Boycott or Ken Barrington?

Barrington was definitely more pleasant to watch, Boycott would be even more dour to watch.

In the 1950s, when Barrington was a young Surrey Batsman, he was actually a dashing strokemaker, likened to Denis Compton by many but his natural game just didn't get success, at 27-28 Years old, Barrington was barely averaging 30 odd in First Class Cricket despite having all the shots in his arsenal, and he was not even considered for the English national team, that is when he transformed and re-invented his batting style to be way more defensive, which wasn't his choice, he was asked to do so by Peter May and Sir Alec Bedser, and in just one season, his fortunes changed, 30 became 50. He would still have shades of his older self, would often launch the ball for a six to make a hundred and play strokes when got the chance.

Boycott was a defensive batsman from moment one, He neglected his own talents and skills, he thought it was his job to see the shine off the ball, when Tom Graveney heard that Boycott thought of his role as so little, he found it absurd that someone of Boycott's capability thought he just had to take the shine off the ball. Graveney thought a Boycott who let himself go would be up there with the immortals but that was to never materalise, that's not to say Boycott didn't attack when he could but he never even entertained the thought of being a strokemaker for large amounts of time, He would never have a party trick that involved a six to bring up a century.

Personal opinion is that Boycott and Barrington were both pretty similar, in quality and in style, neither had the self belief to really be an all time great and both didn't have the same sense of self great batsmen generally have, both were defensive, both were dropped in their careers atleast once for playing too slow, Barrington had a better average but Boycott achieved a much longer career and had more marquee performances at home and away from home, Barrington was a genuinely good person and was loved by everyone around him but was always internally battling with depression and anxiety, Boycott is not a very good person and was hated by everyone but ended up living a happier life, one thing their personalities shared was their iron will, both were fighters and never gave in. Both of them have similarities in a lot of things, and contrast at certain points as well.

 

[Coronis]

I have changed my vote in accordance with the changes of my rating of certain players.

 

[Johan]

The attack Weekes failed against in Australia was a lot better than the attacks Barrington faced. Most likely tougher pitches too given 50s tax. And Barrington has an average record against good pace at home. I will take Everton due to his strike rate.

Stats of visiting bowlers in Australia during the decades, remover 1920s and 1940s as war impacted.

1870s: 20.21 (England 20)
1880s: 18.90 (England 18)
1890s: 32.27 (England 32)
1900s: 27.60 (England 27)
1910s: 34.52 (England 26, South Africa 45)
1930s: 33.47. (England 28, West Indies 41, South Africa 41)
1950s: 30.21. (England 28, West Indies 27, South Africa 38)
1960s: 39.29. (England 39, West Indies 39, South Africa 38)
1970s: 32.01. (England 28, West Indies 36, Pakistan 39, India 27, New Zealand 36)
1980s: 33.82. (England 35, West Indies 27, New Zealand 32, India 33, Pakistan 45)
1990s: 37.37. (England 35, West Indies 30, South Africa 33, Pakistan 36, India 36, Sri Lanka 70, New Zealand 58)
2000s: 48.39. (England 50, West Indies 46, South Africa 42, Pakistan 51, India 46, New Zealand 50, Sri Lanka 51)
2010s: 43.59. (England 39, West Indies 122, South Africa 34, Pakistan 56, India 41, New Zealand 40, Sri Lanka 52)
2020s: 35.77. (England 34, West Indies 47, South Africa 50, Pakistan 34, India 28, New Zealand 54)


so 1960s Australia had substantially flatter pitches, and a much different, inferior attack.

 

[Coronis]

Stats of visiting bowlers in Australia during the decades, remover 1920s and 1940s as war impacted.

1870s: 20.21 (England 20)
1880s: 18.90 (England 18)
1890s: 32.27 (England 32)
1900s: 27.60 (England 27)
1910s: 34.52 (England 26, South Africa 45)
1930s: 33.47. (England 28, West Indies 41, South Africa 41)
1950s: 30.21. (England 28, West Indies 27, South Africa 38)
1960s: 39.29. (England 39, West Indies 39, South Africa 38)
1970s: 32.01. (England 28, West Indies 36, Pakistan 39, India 27, New Zealand 36)
1980s: 33.82. (England 35, West Indies 27, New Zealand 32, India 33, Pakistan 45)
1990s: 37.37. (England 35, West Indies 30, South Africa 33, Pakistan 36, India 36, Sri Lanka 70, New Zealand 58)
2000s: 48.39. (England 50, West Indies 46, South Africa 42, Pakistan 51, India 46, New Zealand 50, Sri Lanka 51)
2010s: 43.59. (England 39, West Indies 122, South Africa 34, Pakistan 56, India 41, New Zealand 40, Sri Lanka 52)
2020s: 35.77. (England 34, West Indies 47, South Africa 50, Pakistan 34, India 28, New Zealand 54)


so 1960s Australia had substantially flatter pitches, and a much different, inferior attack.

How are 1920’s more war impacted than 1910’s, I’m wondering…

 

[Johan]

How are 1920’s more war impacted than 1910’s, I’m wondering…

though, to give a more serious answer, I believe the wars had immense impact on the visiting bowling lineups in both the 1920s and 1940s, especially after the second war, the English attack and Cricket in general was at a true bottom point with all the pre war bowlers either retiring or being completely useless, so I ignored them as I think English Cricket in early 20s and late 40s was in a rebuilding phase after the two world wars. Cricket moreso abruptly stopped in the 1910s than it declined/was reeling from the war, the actual Cricket played in the 1910s would be with good, proper attacks not ravaged by wars.

 

[capt_Luffy]

How are 1920’s more war impacted than 1910’s, I’m wondering…

Majority of games in 1910s were pre War....

 

[Coronis]

Majority of games in 1910s were pre War....

Have to admit, this post made me laugh. Kudos