Virat Kohli vs Ken Barrington

[PlayerComparisons]

Two matchwinners

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Two matchwinners

Are they two d!cks also? If not, Ken wins.

 

[howitzer]

Are they two d!cks also? If not, Ken wins.

Barrington was pretty popular by all accounts. The antithesis of a dick.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Kohli is a very nice man

 

[ataraxia]

Kohli is a very nice man

Indeed; he's happy to accept defeat.

 

[ma1978]

This is the poll results of people who only look at statistics and ignore context. Ken Barrington played in the most boring era of test cricket and was not seen as a star in his day. Put up some runs on feathebead wickets but did very little of true note.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

This is the poll results of people who only look at statistics and ignore context. Ken Barrington played in the most boring era of test cricket and was not seen as a star in his day. Put up some runs on feathebead wickets but did very little of true note.

Kohli will probably win this poll in a few years tbf

 

[ma1978]

Kohli will probably win this poll in a few years tbf

Kohli will probably hit 3-4 centuries in the 10 home tests and everyone will be fellating him for that 50+ average and 30+ centuries. It makes no difference.

The fact of the matter is that none of that should have an impact on Kohli’s legacy which was a large proportion of the greatest innings played byan Indian batsman.

and way ahead of Barrington already.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Kohli will probably hit 3-4 centuries in the 10 home tests and everyone will be fellating him for that 50+ average and 30+ centuries. It makes no difference.

The fact of the matter is that none of that should have an impact on Kohli’s legacy which was a large proportion of the greatest innings played byan Indian batsman.

and way ahead of Barrington already.

Yea that’s true. Kohli already has better longevity as well.

 

[kyear2]

This is the poll results of people who only look at statistics and ignore context. Ken Barrington played in the most boring era of test cricket and was not seen as a star in his day. Put up some runs on feathebead wickets but did very little of true note.

Not necessarily feather beds, but not exactly against the strongest of bowing opposition ever either. That combined with the minimalistic approach to graft, it's sometimes surprising to see him rated among the upper echelon of batsmen ratings.

I'm not convinced that this era is as tough as some profess either, but there are some solid attacks and a few standouts if not ATGs (yet?). Not that convinced with regards to Kholi, and he's really over rated in some circles, but the poll shouldn't be this far apart either.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Kohlis era is much tougher. Smith and Williamson are the only batters in this era averaging significantly over 50 (with a big sample size).

 

[kyear2]

Marnus and Root aren't doing too badly.

But yes, compared that that era, definitely tougher.

 

[ma1978]

Barrington is not even in the conversation. Was the Mohammed Yousuf of his era

people just like him here because he batted slowly without regard for winning

 

[howitzer]

Barrington is not even in the conversation. Was the Mohammed Yousuf of his era

people just like him here because he batted slowly without regard for winning

Yet people like Compton and May despite them scoring at pretty much the same rate.

 

[kyear2]

Yet people like Compton and May despite them scoring at pretty much the same rate.

Again, the issue with listening to peer reviews. It's all about favorites, or how the looked while doing it. I guess 4 blocks and a boundary looked better than blocks and singles in-between.

 

[ma1978]

Yet people like Compton and May despite them scoring at pretty much the same rate.

none of those guys are considered anywhere near the pantheon because that era was so miserable

sobers stood out quite uniquely

 

[howitzer]

none of those guys are considered anywhere near the pantheon because that era was so miserable

sobers stood out quite uniquely

Barrington did average about ten more than them though, and i've seen people rate Compton higher than him, specifically citing his more attacking approach to batting when this argument is clearly wrong. Dravid scored at roughly the same rate as all of these and played in a much faster scoring era generally. What are your thoughts on him?

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Dravid’s strike rate probably isn’t any better than Boycotts when you adjust for eras

 

[kyear2]

Barrington did average about ten more than them though, and i've seen people rate Compton higher than him, specifically citing his more attacking approach to batting when this argument is clearly wrong. Dravid scored at roughly the same rate as all of these and played in a much faster scoring era generally. What are your thoughts on him?

And not nearly as much of a fan as most. Again, no need to go as slowly as he did.

 

[Coronis]

Barrington is not even in the conversation. Was the Mohammed Yousuf of his era

Never expected this comparison.