PlayerComparisons
International Debutant
Three ATG batsmen from the 50s and 60s. How would you rank them?
-
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.
Weekes vs Barrington vs Walcott
- Thread starter PlayerComparisons
- Start date
Slifer
International Captain
Barrington >Walcott>Weekes. Walcott's back to back series, at home, vs two atg attacks were amazing. 10 test, 20 innings, 8 hundreds 1500+ runs. And vs the likes of: Lindwall, Miller, Johnston, Ian Johnson, Benaud. For England: Statham, Trueman, Lock, Bailey, Wardle and Laker. Amazing stuff.
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
It was incredible batting, and I often wonder what his numbers might have been had he not then had to wait two years for another Test when he was in that kind of all-time form.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
@shortpitched713 will probably enjoy this thread.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Xenforo should allow us to have optional preferential voting IMO.
Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
Weekes by an absolute mile (not influenced at all by the fact I just picked him in the descending draft).
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Going to throw some random shade to making the thread exciting, @ankitj style:
I reckon @shortpitched713 only rates Weekes so highly because he engages in a lot of simulation tournaments that use raw averages as inputs, and as such Weekes often comes out looking like a gun.
Now I realise Barrington has an even higher average which debunks my theory slightly, but I'm sticking to it.
shortpitched713
International Captain
Nah, it's simple really.Going to throw some random shade to making the thread exciting, @ankitj style:
I reckon @shortpitched713 only rates Weekes so highly because he engages in a lot of simulation tournaments that use raw averages as inputs, and as such Weekes often comes out looking like a gun.
Now I realise Barrington has an even higher average which debunks my theory slightly, but I'm sticking to it.
I am of the latter group. The one that enjoys the art of batsmanship, of dominance and aggression in play, and the sheer joy of smacking the **** out of the ball.
I'm not beholden by the parochial considerations of English fans whose only colnnection to Hobbs is a piece of memorabilia he saw with his dad one day at Lords, or an Indian fan who is being paid by the government to promote the global commercial/industrial cult of Tendulkar. No way you can give me either of those "technical" masters like Hobbs of Tendulkar, or the even more dour reputation of Barrington over a Sobers or Weekes, no shot.
Last edited:
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Why do you rate Weekes over Walcott though?
Line and Length
Cricketer Of The Year
Barrington wasn't as dour as some would believe. He had to be the backbone of many England innings and, as such, batted accordingly. However, he brought up 4 of his Test centuries with a six.
PlayerComparisons
International Debutant
Very impressive
Coronis
Cricketer Of The Year
He also had a completely **** England tour where he scored 105 runs in 9 innings. And most of his hundreds in that streak are against a pathetic Indian attack, where Mankad was their best bowler… Somehow Barrington’s great tours of Australia and South Africa don’t mean squat.
trundler
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Eh, it's like the Hayden Vs Smith debate again. Being better away doesn't make a player automatically better than a rival if they're worse away. Barrington had a great series against Davidson in Australia but then sucked against good pace at home. Walcott murdered good bowling at home and didn't get to tour so much but had mixed returns when he did. The end result is about the same and they both averaged about the same so it's nonsensical to have one far ahead of the rest.
ZK$
U19 Cricketer
I agree that home and away performances should generally be rated equally, but I also think that you need to factor in home conditions. Otherwise, you’ll end up rating Ashwin and Philander as good as Warne and McGrath.
Around 1950 the authorities in England, Australia and South Africa came to the conclusion that conditions had been excessively favourable for batting for too long. Pitches during the 1950s would become more sporting, with a series of wet English summers aiding bowlers further. Within the four longer established Test-playing lands, by far the easiest place to bat was the Caribbean.
Average runs per wicket in Tests between England, Australia, South Africa and West Indies between 1949-50 and 1958-59:
In England: 28.10
In Australia: 27.01
In South Africa: 25.93
In West Indies: 39.58
During the five Tests between West Indies and Australia in the Caribbean in 1955, a record 21 centuries were scored. Only 27 hundreds were recorded during the entire decade in the 25 matches in Australia involving the four major teams. This makes comparisons between batsmen from this period tricky.
Here are the averages of the three leading run-scorers from each of the four major teams in matches against each other during the period in question:
In England: May 74, Worrell 59, Hutton 57, Compton 48, McGlew 40, Walcott 34, Morris 33, Weekes 33, Harvey 27, McLean 27, Waite 26, Miller 23.
In Australia: Hutton 50, McLean 41, May 39, Harvey 38, Miller 36, Worrell 33, McGlew 31, Morris 30, Waite 29, Weekes 24, Compton 20, Walcott 14.
In South Africa: Harvey 71, Morris 52, Miller 41, McGlew 34, Waite 31, Compton 24, McLean 24, May 15.
In West Indies: Harvey 108, Hutton 96, Walcott 84, Miller 73, Weekes 63, Compton 49, May 46, Morris 44, Worrell 36.
Nobody was successful everywhere. Hutton didn't play in South Africa during the 1950s but averaged over fifty everywhere else. He and Harvey boast higher averages in the West Indies than Walcott during his two great series. May dominates in England and Harvey in South Africa, while Hutton leads comfortably in Australia. Worrell was probably the highest rated of the Three Ws in England, if not elsewhere.
Home advantage appears to have been more of a factor in England.
Average runs per wicket in Tests between England, Australia, South Africa and West Indies between 1949-50 and 1958-59:
In England: 28.10
In Australia: 27.01
In South Africa: 25.93
In West Indies: 39.58
During the five Tests between West Indies and Australia in the Caribbean in 1955, a record 21 centuries were scored. Only 27 hundreds were recorded during the entire decade in the 25 matches in Australia involving the four major teams. This makes comparisons between batsmen from this period tricky.
Here are the averages of the three leading run-scorers from each of the four major teams in matches against each other during the period in question:
In England: May 74, Worrell 59, Hutton 57, Compton 48, McGlew 40, Walcott 34, Morris 33, Weekes 33, Harvey 27, McLean 27, Waite 26, Miller 23.
In Australia: Hutton 50, McLean 41, May 39, Harvey 38, Miller 36, Worrell 33, McGlew 31, Morris 30, Waite 29, Weekes 24, Compton 20, Walcott 14.
In South Africa: Harvey 71, Morris 52, Miller 41, McGlew 34, Waite 31, Compton 24, McLean 24, May 15.
In West Indies: Harvey 108, Hutton 96, Walcott 84, Miller 73, Weekes 63, Compton 49, May 46, Morris 44, Worrell 36.
Nobody was successful everywhere. Hutton didn't play in South Africa during the 1950s but averaged over fifty everywhere else. He and Harvey boast higher averages in the West Indies than Walcott during his two great series. May dominates in England and Harvey in South Africa, while Hutton leads comfortably in Australia. Worrell was probably the highest rated of the Three Ws in England, if not elsewhere.
Home advantage appears to have been more of a factor in England.
shortpitched713
International Captain
There is further evidence of the very large difference in batting conditions during the 1950s when looking at the less-experienced Test teams.
New Zealand, India and Pakistan did not visit Australia during the decade. Between them they took part in seven away series in England, South Africa and West Indies. Combining all these series, the three leading run-scorers from each of the three teams returned averages as follows:
In England: Manjrekar 26, Hanif 22, MacGibbon 19, Umrigar 18, Wazar Mohammad 18, Bert Sutcliffe 17, Reid 16, Roy 13.
In South Africa: Sutcliffe 38, Reid 29, MacGibbon 12.
In West Indies: Hanif 69, Umrigar 62, Saeed Ahmed 56, Wazar 55, Roy 47, Manjrekar 36.
Four of the five to tour both England and West Indies managed averages more than three times higher in the Caribbean.
New Zealand, India and Pakistan did not visit Australia during the decade. Between them they took part in seven away series in England, South Africa and West Indies. Combining all these series, the three leading run-scorers from each of the three teams returned averages as follows:
In England: Manjrekar 26, Hanif 22, MacGibbon 19, Umrigar 18, Wazar Mohammad 18, Bert Sutcliffe 17, Reid 16, Roy 13.
In South Africa: Sutcliffe 38, Reid 29, MacGibbon 12.
In West Indies: Hanif 69, Umrigar 62, Saeed Ahmed 56, Wazar 55, Roy 47, Manjrekar 36.
Four of the five to tour both England and West Indies managed averages more than three times higher in the Caribbean.