Dennis Compton vs KF Barrington

[Line and Length]

I didn’t read the rest of your post. It was just that bit in isolation that had me gasping for air.

I had the same reaction to hb's comment on PFK's posting.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Don't forget, Compton was not quite 39 when he played his last test; Barrington was a way off 38, so they finished at similar enough ages. Both played the majority of their test cricket later on: 70 matches after the age of 28 or so for Compton, 80 matches after the age of 28 for Barrington.

Suddenly, they look very similar in terms of career timing.

If you reduce their careers to the above numbers then the two players might look similar on paper, but those numbers miss some very important context. Compton was a prodigy of the game, debuting in Tests as a teenager and I believe still remains the youngest England player to score a Test century. That he was only able to play relatively few Tests before he turned 28 was due to the not insignificant matter of a World War.

Barrington developed into a great batsmen relatively late. He was less than a year younger than Peter May but didn't break into the Test side as a regular until about 8 years later than May did. He had a good but not exceptional first class career prior to that. That he played most of his Tests after the age of 28 reflects the fact that that it wasn't until around then that he got really good.

How you account for the prime years some cricketers lost to wars is up to you, but I do think it's fair to say that Compton was a world class player for far longer than Barrington was.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

If you reduce their careers to the above numbers then the two players might look similar on paper, but those numbers miss some very important context. Compton was a prodigy of the game, debuting in Tests as a teenager and I believe still remains the youngest England player to score a Test century. That he was only able to play relatively few Tests before he turned 28 was due to the not insignificant matter of a World War.

Barrington developed into a great batsmen relatively late. He was less than a year younger than Peter May but didn't break into the Test side as a regular until about 8 years later than May did. He had a good but not exceptional first class career prior to that. That he played most of his Tests after the age of 28 reflects the fact that that it wasn't until around then that he got really good.

How you account for the prime years some cricketers lost to wars is up to you, but I do think it's fair to say that Compton was a world class player for far longer than Barrington was.

I'm not meaning to spend time putting Compton down (though clearly that hasn't stopped the other side of the equation doing likewise), but none of that means anything. To play this exercise, i'll note that debuting in tests as a teenager is not necessarily a reliable guide to quality over a whole career, and you could say he played his first five tests against teams with only one quality bowler each, for example. Fact is that if late-career decline is an excuse for lopping part off Compton's career in order to make comparisons, they both played the vast majority of their tests over the same span of age.

And about WWII, I also accounted for it earlier, though perhaps in a way you didn't:

Lindwall and Miller were 25 and 26 respectively when they made their test debuts, so probably lost several years to WWII as well.

Compton averaged 42.84 when one or the other or both of those two were playing.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

I love how the English sip their wine and go "we should judge players on their overall careers" and then pull off stunts like WG GRACE BEST CRICKETER OMG BECAUSE HE PLAYED TILL 50 SO STATS AFFECTED OTHERWISE CHECK HOW HE WAS WHEN HE WAS 35"

Exactly.
Either WG was a regular great player or Most Dominant cricketer ever who ruined his stats by playing longer. Majority of CW will rate him as a regular great it seems. Sad.. But thats how they Think.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

That's the context of the conversation, and you know it. See the first paragraph of your previous comment.



Why? How good a player is is based on how well they—y'know—perform, and if they have a period where they do badly, that needs to be counted in as well. You can't judge to an ideal 'everything going well', otherwise you just end saying something that is on the same level of argument as 'they'd have averaged over 100 if you removed all their scores of 99 or below.'


Neither. False dichotomy, false choice, etc. That he batted like bilge for the second half of his career can't be discounted just because you don't like it, which is basically what your argument is. Also, where do you draw the line? What about a 29 year career? 28? 25? 23? 20? 19? 16? 14? 11? 9? 7? 5? 2? 'Oh, they did better earlier on, must be late career decline', 'later' being two tests later perhaps.



You are doing the converse, punishing players who don't play some arbitrary length of time, not that you are perceptive enough to see that. And you are also begging the question with late career decline: some have declined more than others, statistically some might be able to hold their own. For all you know, Barrington might have had a sound enough technique to keep going at a similar level for another few years.

Futhermore, what is a 'similar career'? In this case, whatever satifies @Pap Finn Keighl's predetermined notions: two careers will be similar when he likes the outcome, and not similar enough when he doesn't.

Slcing and dicing careers to make a point about someone's career as a whole is a thoroughly dishonest exercise.

That was an example, he already did enough to be ranked 2nd greatest to Bradman with his first 15 years. Which is a reasonable career length. You can not take it back, he achieved it already.
Imagine Viv Richards starts playing again International cricket and retiring after 2 years with a career average of 42, he is no longer an ATG. Lol.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

I think we all should wait players to die before calling them ATGs.

 

[harsh.ag]

Player A and B both start their career in 1990 at the age of 20. Player A retires in 2003 with 100 tests, 8000 runs @ 55 at the age of 33. At this point, player B has 100 tests, 8800 runs @ 58. He then plays till 2008, retires with 125 tests, 10500 runs @ 54.

In this particular hypothetical scenario, it would indeed be dumb to rate Player A higher (unless there are other important factors etc etc).

 

[trundler]

Instinctively people do take long peaks and late career declinedy for guys with really long careers into account. See: Richards, IVA and Ponting, RT. It's only with players from the distant past that this becomes a mere abstraction since we only have raw numbers and no context. Now PFK does have a tendency to present his dodgy assumptions as Euclidean postulates that seamlessly flow from one to the next without having much ground to stand on in actuality.

There are a lot of things that make this comparison pretty tricky in hindsight. Compton's unique circumstances being chief among them. All contemporary writers talk of Compton as a cultural icon that transcended sport in Britain's rebuilding phase after the War. There is also the fact that FC cricket was still fairly important in those days and Compton held several records there, including the most productive FC season ever, a century of centuries (and with an outstanding centuries to marches ratio too).

Barrington's Ashes record is frankly insane and I just can't comprehend how it doesn't automatically boost his reputation as one of England's finest. His strike rate was broadly in the same range as May and Compton (low 40s, not bad given the era — Hutton famously had one in the 30s). His reputation for selfishness comes from s singular innings against NZ where he played slowly against a subpar attack but in his memoirs Barrington attributes this to poor form brought upon by nervous fatigue. I remember doing some stat munching and he was playing about 38 matches a season then and suffice to say mental health was not really well understood in those days. People bring up his record against Hall and Griffith as an explanation for his underrating but as far as holes in one's record go, this one's nothing unusual really.


Barrington to bat for my life and Compton to bat for my pleasure it is then.

 

[Jack1]

Barrington

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I can't be arsed looking up record books, but there was a time when Barrington held the record for reaching a Test Century with a 6 on the most occasions.

 

[Coronis]

iirc Barrington was originally a strokeplayer but changed to be more of a stonewaller because it was more successful for him. If Bradman hadn’t existed he’d definitely be on my shortlist for the #3 spot in an ATG XI.

I can’t remember the bloke who did the historical strike rates for test players (Charles Davis or someone?) but something that did surprise me was a lot of older players with very different reputations (e.g boring accumulator vs flashy strokeplayer) actually ended up with similar strike rates to one another.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

I'm not meaning to spend time putting Compton down (though clearly that hasn't stopped the other side of the equation doing likewise), but none of that means anything. To play this exercise, i'll note that debuting in tests as a teenager is not necessarily a reliable guide to quality over a whole career, and you could say he played his first five tests against teams with only one quality bowler each, for example. Fact is that if late-career decline is an excuse for lopping part off Compton's career in order to make comparisons, they both played the vast majority of their tests over the same span of age.

Likewise, I'm not trying to downplay Barrington. I've not even answered the OP which is definitely a close enough call to warrant discussion: they are both undeniable England greats. My point was that when you compare the full arc of these guys' careers, there is a clear longevity argument for Compton and I don't think it is outrageous of someone to not hold it against Compton that he wasn't as good after the age of 37 given most batsmen have retired from Tests before then. That seems a very reasonable thing to take into account for any batsman who played on so late.

The two both had unusual career arcs (one the prodigy, the other the late bloomer) and although their age when scoring runs in Tests may map onto each other relatively closely, their two careers didn't. Personally, Barrington not being good enough to make the England side (or sometimes the Surrey 1st XI) in his mid twenties is more interesting to me than Compton batting below his career Test average at the age of 38. I'd weight that higher in a comparison between the two. However Compton's twilight years decline but not Barrington's unusually slow start factor into their Test averages. The default for us is to only compare Test records but this misses a huge chunk of the dataset that we hold for Barrington: and his First Class record compared to Compton's paints a very different picture to their raw Test averages.

And about WWII, I also accounted for it earlier, though perhaps in a way you didn't:

Lindwall and Miller were 25 and 26 respectively when they made their test debuts, so probably lost several years to WWII as well.

Compton averaged 42.84 when one or the other or both of those two were playing.

Don't really want to get into this as it's hypothetical so you can argue however you want, but:
-An average of 43 vs one of the best new ball pairings to have played the game is actually pretty good (and is very close to Barrington's FC career average)
-I'm sure you're aware that Compton's record against Lindwall and Miller is dragged down by one outright terrible series he had (while playing with a major knee injury that needed surgery) in 1950-51, where he averaged ~7 and stands as a total anomaly on his record. His record against them in the 40s was incredible (average >50 away and >60 at home) so the insinuation that he couldn't play against Lindwall and Miller is a sneaky one when his performances against them are legendary. (Please note I'm not saying that that '50/'51 series should be stripped from Compton's record, more that if we're hypothesising as to how well Compton would have done in the early 1940s against that pair, his record against them in the mid-late 40s is probably more indicative than his performance against them in the 50s.)
-However you interpolate between twenty year old Compton scoring a Test century against Bill O'Reilly shortly before the War and him scoring huge runs against one of the GOAT Test sides after the War, I don't think it's crazy to acknowledge that he was a batting great much younger than Barrington was, hence has an advantage in longevity terms.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Player A and B both start their career in 1990 at the age of 20. Player A retires in 2003 with 100 tests, 8000 runs @ 55 at the age of 33. At this point, player B has 100 tests, 8800 runs @ 58. He then plays till 2008, retires with 125 tests, 10500 runs @ 54.

In this particular hypothetical scenario, it would indeed be dumb to rate Player A higher (unless there are other important factors etc etc).

Exactly

 

[Ymaxxx]

ik i started on compton's side. But i realised something about Barrington. His ability of playing spin is superior. At home he averages 45 (his fc average) and 69 away. His 69 indicates he was capable of handling spin.

While for Compton it was pace. Compton (at prime) goes at 65 at home. and 50 away. Overall 60 at home and 35 away.

If these are prime years compared. Compton and Barrington have become literal opposite players in addition to the prodigy vs late bloomer tag. And are absolute equals in terms of stature.

Now Compton had 6 whole years of his prime sucked away to boost his overall career stats in the end. Barrington on the other hand was Jimmy Anderson but as a batsman. So lets fix that? Lets add those 6years performances by adding average match played per year with his bat average of the years before ww2.

52.4 at 9 innings/year for six years = 2829 runs

chance of remaining not out for compton = 0.1145
not outs in new innings = 6
Compton overall career becomes

Innings 131 (n.o 15)	runs 5807	average 50.6
add new innings 54 (n.o 6)	add new runs 2829
164	8636	new average becomes 52.65

Denis Compton will have 52.65 average (with 20 years) and Ken Barrington will have 58.67 average (with 13 years)

"What about Barrington's decline?" Barrington didnt exactly have a decline or peak. but for the sake of it lets just add it in as presumed debut years where he struggled to get in. In the final year he averaged 45.8 (pretty much his debuting years)

45.8 at 10 innings/year for seven years = 3206 runs
chance of remaining not out for barrington = 0.1145
not outs in new innings = 8
Barrington overall career becomes

Innings 131 (n.o 15)	runs 6806	average 58.67
add new innings 70 (n.o 8)	add new runs 3206
178	10012	new average becomes 56.2

Answer is loud and clear, Barrington + decline + matched years = 56.2 avg ?
while Compton + decline + matched years = 52.65

 

[Lillian Thomson]

That post is the embodiment of an adult experiencing joy.

 

[ataraxia]

Exactly.
Either WG was a regular great player or Most Dominant cricketer ever who ruined his stats by playing longer. Majority of CW will rate him as a regular great it seems. Sad.. But thats how they Think.

fwiw I take longevity into account. But... nah to this. WG has ridiculous career stats considering his era, it wasn't until Ranji/Fry in the twilight of his career that better batting stats came along. And then he got all those wickets as well. Most of CW either declines to rate him or thinks he's in the AT top echelon of players. Barely anyone rates him as a regular great and they never will, for good reason.

His 69 indicates he was capable of handling spin.

lol. not really. Barrington's home FC pitch was The Oval -- perhaps the most spin-friendly surface in the world at that time. And Barrington's FC average at The Oval was a mere 41.8. Compare May's 47.8. Or Compton's 51.5.

 

[Starfighter]

The Oval during Compton's earlier career at least was probably the flattest surface in England, and one of the flattest in the world, thanks to 'Bosser' Martin and his massive roller.

 

[Prince EWS]

The Oval during Compton's earlier career at least was probably the flattest surface in England, and one of the flattest in the world, thanks to 'Bosser' Martin and his massive roller.

Is that what they called it back then?

 

[ataraxia]

The Oval during Compton's earlier career at least was probably the flattest surface in England, and one of the flattest in the world, thanks to 'Bosser' Martin and his massive roller.

Ah yeah, Hutton's 364...

 

[AndrewB]

iirc Barrington was originally a strokeplayer but changed to be more of a stonewaller because it was more successful for him. If Bradman hadn’t existed he’d definitely be on my shortlist for the #3 spot in an ATG XI.

I can’t remember the bloke who did the historical strike rates for test players (Charles Davis or someone?) but something that did surprise me was a lot of older players with very different reputations (e.g boring accumulator vs flashy strokeplayer) actually ended up with similar strike rates to one another.

http://www.sportstats.com.au/hotscore.html gives some of the strike rates calculated by Charles Davis.