• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Dennis Compton vs KF Barrington

NotMcKenzie

NotMcKenzie

International Debutant
Red_Ink_Squid said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...
There is no reason to rate someone higher because they were considered a prodigy whilst the other ultimately managed to perform better by dint of application. There is also no reason to consider someone better overall based on performances or potential in youth even though they cannot sustain it later on whilst the other is able to.
he wasn't as good after the age of 37 given most batsmen have retired from Tests before then.
Click to expand...
He averaged 42 after 1950, so 32. Omitting the 1950-51 Ashes in your spirit, he averaged 47, but this includes 90 against Pakistan. Against Australia (10 matches) and South Africa (14), he averaged 42.6 and 41.8 respectively.

Averaging 42 against Lindwall and Miller isn't low by any means, but it isn't 50 and by the same reasons you give for Compton, you could say they would have been more effective when younger being, you know, fast bowlers; being hypothetical, you can indeed argue how you want, so you can't rate someone based on it, can you, given you are filling in part of someone's career arc that didn't happen in making your argument. And your restriction of it to the 40s is again omitting a bad part of someone's career to make them look better. You say you aren't doing this-and-that whilst doing so.

Furthermore, my previous comparison of their ages shows that it not just 'playing at 38'. The vast majority of their careers were played over the same span of age. Stop trying to mislead.
 
Last edited:
Pap Finn Keighl

Pap Finn Keighl

International Debutant
ataraxia said:
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.


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.
Click to expand...
But they should rate him as Regular great if they believe in no slicing and dicing of a career.
 
ataraxia

ataraxia

International Coach
Pap Finn Keighl said:
I dont think so, there were many batsmen averaging mid 30s during WG's career
Click to expand...
many? and WG averaged over 39, easily superior considering he played in v. tough conditions at the beginning of his career which subsequent batsmen didn't have to face.
 
Red_Ink_Squid

Red_Ink_Squid

Cricketer Of The Year
NotMcKenzie said:
The vast majority of their careers were played over the same span of age. Stop trying to mislead.
Click to expand...
My point all along has been this: as with almost any two players, comparing them is not as simple as taking their raw Test averages. That is an ok starting point but it doesn't tell the story of either guy's careers. I jumped into this thread because you were saying it was disingenuous for another poster to dig into some of their numbers and adjust for the context. I believe that the context is very important.

If you reduce the topic of this thread to just their Test averages then there is no discussion. Barrington's is higher. But I think it is entirely relevant that Compton was great early and lost prime years to the War. I think it is fair to note that he played on late, through a decline, and therefore his Test career coincides less with his prime years as a batsman than does Barrington's. Barrington we know was not Test class for a significant chunk of his cricket career, but then when he got great he was able to sustain that level until a later age than most great batsmen in history. Compton scored huge runs against one of the best Test attacks of all time just after the war while Barrington has an incredible overseas record. They are both interesting careers and I think deserve deeper analysis than taking their Test averages as the watermark of their respective greatness.
 
NotMcKenzie

NotMcKenzie

International Debutant
Red_Ink_Squid said:
My point all along has been this: as with almost any two players, comparing them is not as simple as taking their raw Test averages. That is an ok starting point but it doesn't tell the story of either guy's careers. I jumped into this thread because you were saying it was disingenuous for another poster to dig into some of their numbers and adjust for the context. I believe that the context is very important.

If you reduce the topic of this thread to just their Test averages then there is no discussion. Barrington's is higher. But I think it is entirely relevant that Compton was great early and lost prime years to the War. I think it is fair to note that he played on late, through a decline, and therefore his Test career coincides less with his prime years as a batsman than does Barrington's. Barrington we know was not Test class for a significant chunk of his cricket career, but then when he got great he was able to sustain that level until a later age than most great batsmen in history. Compton scored huge runs against one of the best Test attacks of all time just after the war while Barrington has an incredible overseas record. They are both interesting careers and I think deserve deeper analysis than taking their Test averages as the watermark of their respective greatness.
Click to expand...
But only when it accords with your preconceptions. You are clearly deliberately failing to grasp the point I'm making: you are rating one better on a hypothetical career and on the basis that if one is good when young and poorer when older, that is for some reason better than someone who better when older than when they were younger. There is absolutely no reasoned basis for this. You say, 'not Test class for a significant chunk of his cricket career,' being at the start, and count that against someone, but when said chunk of lowered form is towards the end, suddenly it doesn't matter and should be discounted when judging a player to be replaced by something completely made up.

I suspect you know full well you are trying to discount part of a player's career to make them look better, and it's also veering into special pleading when faced with an example of someone who didn't fit themselves with this excuse pattern.

The attempt to be 'deep' is very often an attempt to mislead. To add 'context' in form of hypotheticals is dishonest as you don't actually know what might have happened.
 
Pap Finn Keighl

Pap Finn Keighl

International Debutant
ataraxia said:
many? and WG averaged over 39, easily superior considering he played in v. tough conditions at the beginning of his career which subsequent batsmen didn't have to face.
Click to expand...
He was super dominant for about 10 years, which is not even 1/4 of his career. Talk about slicing and dicing.
 
Red_Ink_Squid

Red_Ink_Squid

Cricketer Of The Year
NotMcKenzie said:
But only when it accords with your preconceptions. You are clearly deliberately failing to grasp the point I'm making: you are rating one better on a hypothetical career and on the basis that if one is good when young and poorer when older, that is for some reason better than someone who better when older than when they were younger. There is absolutely no reasoned basis for this. You say, 'not Test class for a significant chunk of his cricket career,' being at the start, and count that against someone, but when said chunk of lowered form is towards the end, suddenly it doesn't matter and should be discounted when judging a player to be replaced by something completely made up.

I suspect you know full well you are trying to discount part of a player's career to make them look better, and it's also veering into special pleading when faced with an example of someone who didn't fit themselves with this excuse pattern.

The attempt to be 'deep' is very often an attempt to mislead. To add 'context' in form of hypotheticals is dishonest as you don't actually know what might have happened.
Click to expand...
There's a lot of ad hominem/bad faith stuff in there so I'm inclined to drop this. I've not said anywhere that Compton was better than Barrington, once again all I'm saying is comparing the two purely on career Test average doesn't tell you everything. Replace these two players with any other two and I'll say the same.

For these guys they both had periods in there career where they weren't performing at ATG level (not exactly a criticism): for Barrington it was at the start of his career and for Compton it was at the end. I'm not saying that one of these is inherently superior than the other, my point is that only one of these periods is included in their Test stats. Looking purely at Test average you're including Compton's down period but excluding Barrington's. Hence I think it's a good idea to look a bit deeper than overall Test average.
 
NotMcKenzie

NotMcKenzie

International Debutant
Red_Ink_Squid said:
There's a lot of ad hominem/bad faith stuff in there so I'm inclined to drop this. I've not said anywhere that Compton was better than Barrington, once again all I'm saying is comparing the two purely on career Test average doesn't tell you everything. Replace these two players with any other two and I'll say the same.

For these guys they both had periods in there career where they weren't performing at ATG level (not exactly a criticism): for Barrington it was at the start of his career and for Compton it was at the end. I'm not saying that one of these is inherently superior than the other, my point is that only one of these periods is included in their Test stats. Looking purely at Test average you're including Compton's down period but excluding Barrington's. Hence I think it's a good idea to look a bit deeper than overall Test average.
Click to expand...
You are, and I'm not (breaking a career into portions is not 'comparing purely on test average'). And your 'looking deeper' is making stuff up; you might say that there's a basis to it, but it's still made up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top