Who is the 2nd Best Batsman in away conditions?

[Johan]

I am unable to understand why barrington is not considered as a same tier batsman as Hobbs , hutton etc even though his average is ridiculous in so many metrics.

This was an interesting era for English Cricket, where batting in England itself was much tougher than batting outside England, from this era...the away records and career averages are as follows. taking the 1960s

Barrington: 69.18 (58)
Cowdrey: 59.45 (44)
Dexter: 58.02 (47)

This extended into the 70s... until mid 70s. I'm gonna take a few Cricketers from the 1970s, take their peak and compare their away average at peak to their home average. Away average is in front of names and home average is in the brackets.

Boycott: 57.69 (47)
Knott: 42.27 (26)
Amiss: 56.53 (43)
Greig: 46.93 (36)

for reference, during Barrington's career, these were the numbers of English Batsmen overseas. Their RPI in brackets

Barrington: 69 (59.6)
Cowdrey: 62 (52.8)
Dexter: 58 (51.1)

it was at home where Barrington was super consistent and his record is quite impressive I'd say

Barrington: 52 (47.0)
Cowdrey: 42 (38.5)
Dexter: 43 (41.0)

His away record on the other hand...just isn't that good.

for example, Barrington in South Africa is amazing on sight, but in history of South African Cricket, there have been three serieses that exceed the overall average mark of 40 and Barrington's series was one of them, one being a flat South African tour, and one being a borderline minnow level West Indies being unable to bowl out a very strong South African batting. Here are the three serieses and while Barrington did average 101 in it and deserves credit, I just feel this context is valuable, the series was a bit of a runfest with Colin Bland (71), Eddie Barlow (58), Ted Dexter (57) and Graeme Pollock (57) all putting on heaps of runs. The first wicket where Barrington made a hundred was a light turner, somehow in South Africa. Description of the wicket where Barrington made his 148*, an actual slower turner in South Africa.

They were overwhelmingly superior on a pitch which took spin early in the match, due, in part, to the shortage of grass. This proved the only decisive game of the series and England were rather fortunate, not only to win the toss, but to find conditions so suitable to them. The South African batsmen had little answer to the spin of Allen and Titmus who shared 13 wickets, and their own attack was not the right type for such a pitch.

In India, for example, the first three games were draws and high scoring ones, in the first three games, around three thousand runs were scored but only 64 wickets fell out of the possible 120, other than his ton in second game neither performances mattered much. In the final two games, India won the series 2-0 and Barrington scored 14, 2, 20, 48. This time, all eighty wickets falling for 2000 runs.

Wicket for his first hundred in India

At Bombay, November 11, 12, 14, 15, 16. Drawn. England controlled the match throughout, but found the pitch too good to force victory. David Smith made his Test debut, he and Lock replacing Russell and White compared with the Lahore game. There were no new caps for India, Engineer missing his chance of keeping wicket through injury. Umrigar also had to stand down after being chosen.

Wicket for his second hundred, this one deserves some credit but the trend is followed.

At Kanpur, December 1, 2, 3, 5, 6. Drawn. For the first time in history England had to follow-on against India, but on a dead, easy pitch they saved the game without trouble. England gave one of their worst batting displays for many years. They were mesmerised by the clever, flighted leg-breaks and googlies of Gupte and later Borde. At the end of the third day they were 165 for eight and, although Barber batted determinedly and next morning Lock hit hard for his best Test score, India were able to enforce the follow-on with England 223 behind. There never looked a chance of them failing again, the arrears being cleared with only Richardson out. Richardson and Pullar began with 94 and Pullar and Barrington added 139. Mike Smith failed to score in either innings but Barrington and Dexter put on 206. Barrington made 172, his highest Test score, in six and three-quarter hours and Dexter's not out 126 took four and a quarter hours. With the pitch still easy Dexter saw no point in declaring.

Third hundred, this one was pretty much useless

At Delhi, December 13, 14, 16, 17, 18. Drawn. The last two days were washed out, but even if the game had gone the full time no other result seemed likely. More slow cricket took place and only 13 wickets fell in three days, five of them being sacrificed India won the toss and again England settled themselves to a long period in the field under perfect batting conditions. Jaisimha and Contractor opened with 121 with Jaisimha scoring considerably faster than his captain. Second out at 199, Jaisimha hit 127, his first Test century. It lasted four hours, ten minutes and included two 6's and fourteen 4's, the only mistake coming when he gave a chance to slip off Barber when 32.

I'll be blunt, I do rate flat wicket knocks, but mostly when they are against good attacks, what attacks did Barrington face in India? Amritstar Kripal Singh (58), Salim Durani (35), Vasant Ranjane (34), Polly Umrigar (42), Ramakant Desai (37) and Chandu Borde (46). Subhash Gupte was there, who averages 32 without New Zealand. I'd rate the series had he made runs on the spicy wickets, he didn't.

Now for the two wickets that actually had results and he failed on? they were actually sporting.

India gained a big advantage in winning the toss for the pitch took a fair amount of spin after the first day and rough patches from bowlers' footholds made conditions difficult, particularly for left-handed batsmen. Still, after the lifeless pitches of the three previous games, this made a welcome change and the cricket had plenty to interest the large crowds each day.

At Madras, January 10, 11, 13, 14, 15. India won by 128 runs and secured the series two-nil. The match followed the same pattern as at Calcutta, India taking advantage of winning the toss to run up a good total on a pitch which took spin. England, disappointing in their first innings, found the deficit too much for eventual recovery

in the 1962-63 Ashes, he played really well and deserves credit, still didn't score in the games that had a result but made a hundred and a ninety against Alan Davidson. In the 1966 Ashes however, he was outbatted by Bob Cowper, Bill Lawry, Doug Walters and arguably Bob Simpson. Should show you what kind of wickets there were in that series. Only two bowlers managed to average under 30, not a single one under 26.

and once again, the English win was through the courtesy of Boycott, Barber and Edrich.

Another factor is, he always got overshadowed by someone else's performances which led to wins.

1962 India – I already explained this, but him making heaps of runs in the first three games and then going missing on the sporting result oriented wickets was not a good look at all, Dexter's hundred again overshadowed his, Dexter made 50s on the spicy wickets too which Barrington did not. Cowdrey's hundreds in India are rated higher as they they came on spicy wickets.

1962-63 Ashes – Barrington was the highest run scorer, yet the English win was the courtesy of Ted Dexter, Colin Cowdrey and most importantly, Fred Trueman. Barrington and the English team were criticized heavily for not going for the win in Sydney and playing "negative" Cricket.

1964 South Africa – multiple higher scorers, Ted Dexter's hundred overshadowed his hundred at Wanderers, but it was actually Geoffrey Boycott who got the most praise for playing extremely clutch knocks in the final 2 games to save the games and get the victory for England in the series, his Yorkshire grit denying South Africa two victories.

1965-66 Ashes – Barber, Boycott and Edrich stole the show to put 488 on a pace friendly wicket, setting up an inning English victory, Barrington was outbatted by multiple, and didn't contribute to the English win though he did make a great hundred in the final inning of the Australian win.

for example, in Ashes tests where there was a result, he averages a respectable 40 but only has one hundred, his peer in Cowdrey had multiple performances that massively contributed to wins in Ashes games.

113 from 2-19 against a rampaging Davo, and then a 56*

93 against Davo, McKenzie and Benaud in a low scoring game, Trueman won this but without Cowdrey they'd lose

102 against probably the best attack ever.

All in all, this kind of stuff goes a long way to your legacy, Barrington not having them definitely had a negative effect.

All in all, I'm not saying he was not great away from home, but it's easy to see why he's not put in the class of say, Hammond, who won like 5 games in Australia by himself. Barrington was a god on flatter wickets and on light turners like Sydney or that one-time Durban wicket, but on pacey wickets he was widely considered inferior to Michael Colin Cowdrey, his home record is a little bad given the lack of hundreds and his only home Ashes hundred coming in the flattest match ever (two 600+ scores, draw before a wicket can fall in the third inning).

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Well I like you praising Viv so I won't push back.

 

[sayon basak]

Ken Barrington is quite similar to Malcom Marshall - An extraordinary record but lacks the longevity.

When you take into account that Marshall was a fast bowler, then it's clear that Marshall's longevity is more impressive than Ken's.