• 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.

Neil Harvey vs Ken Barrington

Harvey or Barrington?


  • Total voters
    17

shortpitched713

International Captain

Let me know your thoughts on these 4 Teams
The team at the top is probably the best, because it's got Bradman, even if it does have a couple of frauds at the far corners.

I don't know all of the players in the 2nd and 3rd teams. But I would expect they're somewhat roughly equal to the 4th team, which would have the best reputation on this forum. If I had to give a tangible advantage to one team, it would be the 4th, and having a proper batting WK-batsman in Gilly. Those are extremely rare to find, even in this day and age, but in the past were almost completely unheard of (Walcott of course being the notable exception).
 

shortpitched713

International Captain
Let me know your thoughts on these 4 Teams
Please go to this thread, and offer your opinions on the below teams:


Did my own self draft (snake picks and everything) of 3 Post WWII Test XIs excluding currently active players, and here's the teams that I got. I like to call them the "You get everything XIs", because, well they each get basically everything they want to maximize strength in all areas:

Team 1

Bill Lawry
Sunil Gavaskar
Ken Barrington
Javed Miandad
Adam Gilchrist
Tony Greig
Shaun Pollock
Richard Hadlee
Malcolm Marshall
Shane Warne
Allan Donald


Team 2

Virender Sehwag
Matthew Hayden
Everton Weekes
Jacques Kallis
Viv Richards
AB de Villiers
Ian Botham
Vernon Philander
Joel Garner
Muttiah Muralitharan
Glenn McGrath


Team 3

Graeme Smith
Gordon Greenidge
Kumar Sangakkara
Brian Lara
Neil Harvey
Garry Sobers
Keith Miller
Imran Khan
Anil Kumble
Dale Steyn
Curtly Ambrose


I wanted to maintain comparable team balances for all, with 2 bowling all-rounders, a batting all-rounder, and a spinner for each team, so there is an "interesting" last pick for each of them, lol.

Might sim this later, but anyway, which of these teams do you guys find stronger?
 

CricketFan90s

U19 Vice-Captain
The team at the top is probably the best, because it's got Bradman, even if it does have a couple of frauds at the far corners.

I don't know all of the players in the 2nd and 3rd teams. But I would expect they're somewhat roughly equal to the 4th team, which would have the best reputation on this forum. If I had to give a tangible advantage to one team, it would be the 4th, and having a proper batting WK-batsman in Gilly. Those are extremely rare to find, even in this day and age, but in the past were almost completely unheard of (Walcott of course being the notable exception).
Bradman's Team is Perfect
1) Hobbs Sutcliffe were the best opening pair of that period.
2) Bradman the Best
3) Hammond Headley (2nd and 3rd best batsmen after Bradman in his time)
4) McCabe (Man in the crisis can be useful in the lower order)
5) Ames was best wicket keeper batsmen
6) reilly grimmett best leg spinners
7) Larwood and Barnes ( best fast bowler and medium pace bowler of that time)
8) Hammond and McCabe are 2 additional Medium pace bowlers
 

The Sean

Cricketer Of The Year
The team at the top is probably the best, because it's got Bradman, even if it does have a couple of frauds at the far corners.

I don't know all of the players in the 2nd and 3rd teams. But I would expect they're somewhat roughly equal to the 4th team, which would have the best reputation on this forum. If I had to give a tangible advantage to one team, it would be the 4th, and having a proper batting WK-batsman in Gilly. Those are extremely rare to find, even in this day and age, but in the past were almost completely unheard of (Walcott of course being the notable exception).
Even Walcott only kept for about a third of his Tests. Ames was probably the defining one pre-Gilly, and even that is tempered somewhat by his relatively ordinary record against Australia.
 

The Sean

Cricketer Of The Year
Been watching a bit of these lovely old ****s. Who is the better post WWII to Professional era (1945 -70) bat (Weekes and Sobers are the absolute best for mine)?

Should be Barrington I think. Even though Harvey seemed to strike the ball a bit better, compared to Barrington's style. Still weight of runs wins it for mine.
This is a pretty good comparison I reckon, because it's a glorious attacking strokeplayer who was revered by his peers irrespective of stats versus a relatively dour accumulator who seems to have gone somewhat unappreciated in his time but whose sheer weight of runs has increased his standing retrospectively.

May vs Barrington would be a similar one.
 

CricketFan90s

U19 Vice-Captain
Even Walcott only kept for about a third of his Tests. Ames was probably the defining one pre-Gilly, and even that is tempered somewhat by his relatively ordinary record against Australia.
Les Ames :
In Australia1932-1937101712796917.43022
In England1929-1938223061106148*46.08342
you are right about Ames but we don't have an Alternative in the 1901-1939 era

Walcott was 1948-1959 era and will prefer John Waite of South Africa as he was more experienced.
 

CricketFan90s

U19 Vice-Captain
Les Ames :
In Australia1932-1937101712796917.43022
In England1929-1938223061106148*46.08342
you are right about Ames but we don't have an Alternative in the 1901-1939 era

Walcott was 1948-1959 era and will prefer John Waite of South Africa as he was more experienced.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
So delightfully CW that a thread about Harvey Vs Barrington had more mention of Weekes than either of them in the first few posts. :laugh:
 

CricketFan90s

U19 Vice-Captain
Ashley Mallett on Neil Harvey

To me, Harvey was the best Australian batsman since Bradman. He had grit and style and a great sense of adventure. He was dubbed "pocket dynamo" by Ray Robinson, doyen of Australian cricketer writers, and he lived up to that tag.

The first big match I ever saw was the day at the SCG in 1954-55 when Harvey blasted the England attack for an amazing unconquered 92 in a total of 184. Australia lost the match by 38 runs but he won me forever. I have never seen the equal of Harvey's batting, and I've seen most of the great batsmen of the past 50-odd years.

He had all the shots, the drive, cut, pull and hook. Dapper, and fleet of foot, he was an electrifying batsman who could carve up an attack. His average is less than those of some who played for Australia recently, but Harvey batted against some of the greatest bowlers to bestride the Test stage: South Africa's Neil Adcock, Peter Heine and Hugh Tayfield; England's Alec Bedser, Frank Tyson, Brian Statham, Tony Lock and Jim Laker; and the West Indians Sobers, Wes Hall, Alf Valentine and Sonny Ramadhin.

The quality of the opposition counts when you are picking the best of the best. I fancy that if Harvey were playing today, using a modern bat against the weak West Indies, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and Sri Lankan attacks, he would average round 75 in Test cricket.
 

BazBall21

International Regular
Barrington maintained a Good Average in all conditions. However, he is like Boycott very defensive so in a Team if we compensate with other attacking batsmen he can be a good no3 player.

His Average In Australia was very good.
Weekes had one chance in Australia, against a good attack in very tough conditions. He was a back-foot maniac. Not convinced he wouldn’t have succeeded against the attacks Barrington faced in Australia.
 

CricketFan90s

U19 Vice-Captain
Weekes had one chance in Australia, against a good attack in very tough conditions. He was a back-foot maniac. Not convinced he wouldn’t have succeeded against the attacks Barrington faced in Australia.
i think you are right he faced first few years in Australia against Lindwall and Miller may be could have done better in 1960s.
 

CricketFan90s

U19 Vice-Captain
Weekes had one chance in Australia, against a good attack in very tough conditions. He was a back-foot maniac. Not convinced he wouldn’t have succeeded against the attacks Barrington faced in Australia.
but how can you proove that he was better than Barrington
 

BazBall21

International Regular
but how can you proove that he was better than Barrington
His superior range means that he is more dangerous. They have similar matchup-based caveats. Barrington has a better away record because of era tax. Barrington and Weekes are both killers in Asia, WI and NZ. Is Barrington better because he plundered a weaker attack in Australia than Weekes faced?
 

BazBall21

International Regular
Ashley Mallett on Neil Harvey

To me, Harvey was the best Australian batsman since Bradman. He had grit and style and a great sense of adventure. He was dubbed "pocket dynamo" by Ray Robinson, doyen of Australian cricketer writers, and he lived up to that tag.

The first big match I ever saw was the day at the SCG in 1954-55 when Harvey blasted the England attack for an amazing unconquered 92 in a total of 184. Australia lost the match by 38 runs but he won me forever. I have never seen the equal of Harvey's batting, and I've seen most of the great batsmen of the past 50-odd years.

He had all the shots, the drive, cut, pull and hook. Dapper, and fleet of foot, he was an electrifying batsman who could carve up an attack. His average is less than those of some who played for Australia recently, but Harvey batted against some of the greatest bowlers to bestride the Test stage: South Africa's Neil Adcock, Peter Heine and Hugh Tayfield; England's Alec Bedser, Frank Tyson, Brian Statham, Tony Lock and Jim Laker; and the West Indians Sobers, Wes Hall, Alf Valentine and Sonny Ramadhin.

The quality of the opposition counts when you are picking the best of the best. I fancy that if Harvey were playing today, using a modern bat against the weak West Indies, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and Sri Lankan attacks, he would average round 75 in Test cricket.
Him and Peter May both played in very tough conditions. Two of the best to average below 50 since WW1.
 

CricketFan90s

U19 Vice-Captain
His superior range means that he is more dangerous. They have similar matchup-based caveats. Barrington has a better away record because of era tax. Barrington and Weekes are both killers in Asia, WI and NZ. Is Barrington better because he plundered a weaker attack in Australia than Weekes faced?
this is a hypothetical question but we have to understand that Australia was still a Good Team in 1960s compared to England.
 

Top