James Anderson vs Ken Barrington

[PlayerComparisons]

Barrington's solid defence led to the view that he was too slow when batting. However, it's worth remembering he brought up 4 of his Test centuries with a six and, in the 5th Test of the '65/66 Ashes series played in Melbourne, he scored a century off 122 balls. As a young player he was a free scoring attacking player but, after being dropped, he opened his stance and became a more defensive leg side player. He may not have played a lot of match winning innings but he had a reputation for saving matches. A lot of his slow scoring could be attributed to opponents bowling wide of Barrington's off stump. This was a two-fold tactic. It restricted his leg-side scoring and was tempting him to play uncharacteristic shots.
Barrington's batting improved with the quality of the opposition; he averaged 39.87 in the County Championship 45.63 in first-class cricket 58.67 in Test cricket and 63.96 against Australia. Of players with a completed career, only Don Bradman with his average of 99.94 made more than Barrington's 6,806 Test runs at a higher average.

Unlike Anderson, Barrington had other strings to his bow. He took 273 wickets @ 32.6 in first class ricket, including 29 Test wickets. He even took the gloves as a stand-in 'keeper at Test level.

BTW how come this become a Barrington v Boycott (and Pietersen) discussion in a James Anderson v Ken Barrington discussion.

Footnote: In case CW members hadn't guessed, I'm an unabashed Barrington fan.

Barrington is probably the most underrated player on this forum

 

[peterhrt]

Barrington is perhaps the most difficult English batsman of all to assess. There are so many contradictions. During his playing days he was not rated particularly highly. Certainly behind Cowdrey and Dexter, and later Graveney and Boycott. When Cowdrey and Barrington faced the same fast bowlers, Cowdrey seemed to have all the time in the world while Barrington hung on grimly.

There was hypocrisy surrounding their slow scoring, which was not unrelated to social class barriers. When Cowdrey scored slowly it was put down to lack of killer instinct. Almost as though he was too decent a chap to ruin some poor fellow's bowling figures. With Barrington the explanation was selfishness. Selector Doug Insole told Barrington to his face that his batting was selfish. He would never have dared say that to Cowdrey or Dexter.

Among former professional batsmen, Trueman ranked Barrington (and Graveney) a tier below Compton and Washbrook and a couple of tiers below Hutton. Admittedly Trueman and Barrington had a well-publicised spat over a disputed catch in a county game.

Barrington is often compared with Boycott but they were very different. Boycott started with little natural ability but worked his way up through sheer willpower and obsessive practice. Barrington, according to Dexter and others, had abundant talent and all the shots but chose to suppress them because he was worried sick about being dropped. A few months after averaging 66 in Australia he was dropped for the last three Tests of the 1966 series against West Indies.

When the Centenary Test of 1977 encouraged a series of all-time England teams, Barrington was never mentioned even as a candidate. Come 2009 and Barrington takes his place in Cricinfo's team with seven out of ten judges' votes. This was not simply Statsguru revisionism but a reassessment by experienced journalists. David Frith: Ken Barrington is often forgotten when England's best are being discussed - a criminal oversight.

It is also true that the reputations of Cowdrey and Boycott off the field have declined since retirement, while that of Barrington has been enhanced with evidence of the selfless support he provided to others after his playing days.

Further clouding of the overall ranking of English batsmen results from the hype surrounding the likes of Root and Pietersen when modern media shamelessly promotes its own product.

In the end the weighting of all the conflicting data, statistical and otherwise, about Barrington perhaps more than any other English batsman, comes down to personal interpretation.

Apologies for another over-long post.

 

[Coronis]

Barrington is perhaps the most difficult English batsman of all to assess. There are so many contradictions. During his playing days he was not rated particularly highly. Certainly behind Cowdrey and Dexter, and later Boycott. When Cowdrey and Barrington faced the same fast bowlers, Cowdrey seemed to have all the time in the world while Barrington hung on grimly.

There was hypocrisy surrounding their slow scoring, which was not unrelated to social class barriers. When Cowdrey scored slowly it was put down to lack of killer instinct. Almost as though he was too decent a chap to ruin some poor fellow's bowling figures. With Barrington the explanation was selfishness. Selector Doug Insole told Barrington to his face that his batting was selfish. He would never have dared say that to Cowdrey or Dexter.

Among former professional batsmen, Trueman ranked Barrington (and Graveney) a tier below Compton and Washbrook and a couple of tiers below Hutton. Admittedly Trueman and Barrington had a well-publicised spat over a disputed catch in a county game.

Barrington is often compared with Boycott but they were very different. Boycott started with little natural ability but worked his way up through sheer willpower and obsessive practice. Barrington, according to Dexter and others, had abundant talent and all the shots but chose to suppress them because he was worried sick about being dropped. A few months after averaging 66 in Australia he was dropped for the last three Tests of the 1966 series against West Indies.

When the Centenary Test of 1977 encouraged a series of all-time England teams, Barrington was never mentioned even as a candidate. Come 2009 and Barrington takes his place in Cricinfo's team with seven out of ten judges' votes. This was not simply Statsguru revisionism but a reassessment by experienced journalists. David Frith: Ken Barrington is often forgotten when England's best are being discussed - a criminal oversight.

It is also true that the reputations of Cowdrey and Boycott off the field have declined since retirement, while that of Barrington has been enhanced with evidence of the selfless support he provided to others after his playing days.

Further clouding of the overall ranking of English batsmen results from the hype surrounding the likes of Root and Pietersen when modern media shamelessly promotes its own product.

In the end the weighting of all the conflicting data, statistical and otherwise, about Barrington perhaps more than any other English batsman, comes down to personal interpretation.

Apologies for another over-long post.

Never apologise mate, your posts here are easily some of the most thought provoking and insightful we get.

 

[peterhrt]

Never apologise mate, your posts here are easily some of the most thought provoking and insightful we get.

Thank you for your kind words. Also enjoy your own posts, not least the controversial ones.

 

[BazBall21]

Barrington is perhaps the most difficult English batsman of all to assess. There are so many contradictions. During his playing days he was not rated particularly highly. Certainly behind Cowdrey and Dexter, and later Graveney and Boycott. When Cowdrey and Barrington faced the same fast bowlers, Cowdrey seemed to have all the time in the world while Barrington hung on grimly.

There was hypocrisy surrounding their slow scoring, which was not unrelated to social class barriers. When Cowdrey scored slowly it was put down to lack of killer instinct. Almost as though he was too decent a chap to ruin some poor fellow's bowling figures. With Barrington the explanation was selfishness. Selector Doug Insole told Barrington to his face that his batting was selfish. He would never have dared say that to Cowdrey or Dexter.

Among former professional batsmen, Trueman ranked Barrington (and Graveney) a tier below Compton and Washbrook and a couple of tiers below Hutton. Admittedly Trueman and Barrington had a well-publicised spat over a disputed catch in a county game.

Barrington is often compared with Boycott but they were very different. Boycott started with little natural ability but worked his way up through sheer willpower and obsessive practice. Barrington, according to Dexter and others, had abundant talent and all the shots but chose to suppress them because he was worried sick about being dropped. A few months after averaging 66 in Australia he was dropped for the last three Tests of the 1966 series against West Indies.

When the Centenary Test of 1977 encouraged a series of all-time England teams, Barrington was never mentioned even as a candidate. Come 2009 and Barrington takes his place in Cricinfo's team with seven out of ten judges' votes. This was not simply Statsguru revisionism but a reassessment by experienced journalists. David Frith: Ken Barrington is often forgotten when England's best are being discussed - a criminal oversight.

It is also true that the reputations of Cowdrey and Boycott off the field have declined since retirement, while that of Barrington has been enhanced with evidence of the selfless support he provided to others after his playing days.

Further clouding of the overall ranking of English batsmen results from the hype surrounding the likes of Root and Pietersen when modern media shamelessly promotes its own product.

In the end the weighting of all the conflicting data, statistical and otherwise, about Barrington perhaps more than any other English batsman, comes down to personal interpretation.

Apologies for another over-long post.

Agree completely on the second paragraph.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Pietersen isn’t even comparable to Barrington. Guy was a decent batsman, Barrington was arguably the best batsman in the world for years. Root tho is debatable.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I think Barrington is probably the better player; but I voted for Anderson for his sheer tenacity and longevity. Playing almost 200 tests as a pacer, well in your 40s; that's really commendable.