What did Sydney Barnes bowl?

[SJS]

Charled Macartney (Australian skipper and great batsman) maintains that at Leeds in July 1909, Barnes bowled the legendry Victor Trunper .....'with a sort of ball that a batsman sees only when he is tight (drunk). I was at the other end, I should know !'

More on what he bowled ...

It is ...at any rate clear that Barnes executed his leg break without turning the wrist, an action which gives some notice to the batsman. Appartently Barnes manipulated the leg turn mainly by leverage of the third finger - as most leg spinners do, though most of them need to twist over the wrist."

This probably explains his maintaing the seam position as would an inswing bowler so that the ball would swing inwards in the air and still break away on pitching.

....Mentally mingle the best of Tate and Bedser; length, pace, swing, then add a tincture of Orielly, then maybe some adumbration will emerge or loom of Barnes in full spate.

 

[SJS]

Boy, did he last !!

In his sixtieth year he was fit and able enough to hold his own in the tight and technically and tempramentally challenging air of Lancashire league contests; for Rawtenstall, in 1932 (he was born in 1873) his bowling figures were 440 overs, 819 runs, 113 wickets at 7.25 ! In 1929, he took 114 at 6.62 !

It was in 1929 that Patsy Hendren journeyed to Lancashire to play as professional in place of an injured pro. It was allowed in those days for leagues to call up Lords for replacements. As Middlesex weren't playing Hendren packed his bags and left, Here is how he puts it.

' A lovely day and the groundsman was putting the finishing touches to the pitch. I pressed the turf

' " Plenty of runs in it?" I said

' " Yes Sir, a beauty for a one day match, though I say it myself"'

Patsy fondled the turf

' " Yes it IS a beauty.... By the way, its a good game this afternoon?"

' " Oh ay, Sir - a local Derby; Castleton Moore against Rochedale. There'll be a full house"

' " I am told if the Pro does pretty well they send the collection round the crowd?"

' "Oh ay Sir - and there will be a good 'un this match believe you me" "

Once more Patsy admired the pitch.

' " Yes its a beauty. And a good collection(from the crowd) for fifty runs ? By the way, who's the pro for the other side today"

' " Sydney Barnes, Sir"
' " Oh gawd"

....

' We won the toss and I managed to hang on. They didnt put up a batsman's score on the board - just fall of wickets and last man out; you know, 120-7-13.

'When a new batsman came in, he called down the pitch "You are forty-nine"

'If I'd had any sense I'd have said to Barney, 50/50 shares in the collection. But I didnt and next ball from him pitched on my leg stump and tok the off, a brute of a ball !'

 

[SJS]

Jack Hobbs on Barnes

Most of the quotes so far have been from Cardus's book.

Here is what the greatest opening batsman of all time had to say of Barnes.'

"Syd Barnes, SF, I've always put at the very top. He was the best bowler ever. I dont think even now there was anyone better, although, I admit, there are others almost his equals, like Bill ORielly. Syd hated batsmen. He had the leg break, the off-break and he was FAST...tall and made the ball get up unpleasant heights"

 

[SJS]

Some more on what he bowled !!

My trump card in the Spofforth-Barnes-Trumble dispute is this - Spofforth's most dangerous ball, as everybody agreed, who saw him, was the off break. As everybody knows ....... the "Barnes ball" spun the other way - from the leg to the off.

Now there is a counter, an answer, to the off-break, which comes into the bat. There is a stroke for the off break - and on a good wicket even the 'modern' leg-cluster of fieldsmen is no guaranteed answer.....

The spinning away ball, at Barnes' pace, only subtely short of length that impels a forward push, is nine times out of ten.....certain to find the bat's edge. There is another point in favour of the claim for ascendency of Barnes: his velocity off the pitch off the beautifully-prepared wickets laid down in Australia in the 1900's onward......The most marvellous fact of all the marvellous bowling conquests of Barnes is that it was in Australia, in the days of Australia's prolific run harvest, that the greatest of them were witnessed.

- Cardus​

 

[SJS]

The Don on Barnes

"Barnes and O'Riely were the two greatest bowlers who ever lived. Each was undoubtedly the greatest of his time...

From all accounts, they were similar in style. Barnes was faster, but he didn't have the googly. They were both aggressive and could deliver perhaps the hardest of all deliveries to keep out - the very quick leg-break.

O'Rielly was reletless and unforgiving if you managed to strike him to the boundary. Reports suggest that Barnes was in some ways similar in character.

He may have had more variety in his deliveries than O'Rielly. Barnes bowled fast off-breaks (besides the leg-breaks), out swingers and in swingers. Like O'Rielly he would have been a handful for the best batsman of any era"

- Don Bradman​

 

[chaminda_00]

Thanks for that SJS, well is seems that he bowled leg breaks at similar pace to Afridi, but a lot more accurate. But with his extra pace he was capable of doing more with the ball then the average leggie and could bowl in swingers and out swingers at similar pace to his leg breaks. Well all in all he seems to be a freck of a bowler that could do about anything with the ball.

 

[SJS]

Thanks for that SJS, well is seems that he bowled leg breaks at similar pace to Afridi, but a lot more accurate. But with his extra pace he was capable of doing more with the ball then the average leggie and could bowl in swingers and out swingers at similar pace to his leg breaks. Well all in all he seems to be a freck of a bowler that could do about anything with the ball.

He was much much faster than Afridi.

He is compared to Orielly who was pretty quick though a spinner and with Bedser and Tate who were medium pacers.

 

[archie mac]

He was much much faster than Afridi.

He is compared to Orielly who was pretty quick though a spinner and with Bedser and Tate who were medium pacers.

I become quite confused with these old players, I always thought Hugh Trumble to be an off-spinner but Peter Sharpman (writer) claims that he was in fact a lot faster.

Also 'Terror Turner' was once clocked at 55 miles an hour?

And we have the 'Demon' Spofforth credited with a stumping by Jack Blackham off his bowling, and this when he was quite young?

 

[SJS]

I become quite confused with these old players, I always thought Hugh Trumble to be an off-spinner but Peter Sharpman (writer) claims that he was in fact a lot faster.

Also 'Terror Turner' was once clocked at 55 miles an hour?

And we have the 'Demon' Spofforth credited with a stumping by Jack Blackham off his bowling, and this when he was quite young?

1. Cardus was talking of who was the greatest bowler, till then, ever. It seems he had a difference of opinion with Hugh Trumble who favoured Spofforth over Barnes. So Cardus calls it the "Spofforth-Barnes-Trumble dispute"

2. Re Turner draw your own conclusion from this...

He stands about 5 ft. 9 in., and bowls right hand, above medium pace, with a beautifully easy delivery, his hand not being very high at the moment the ball quits it. He has a fine break from the off, and bowls a wonderful yorker, but the great thing about him is that he makes the ball rise from the pitch faster perhaps than any bowler we have seen.

Turner in his rather long rhythmic run and beautiful right-arm action without any effort to make the most of his medium height--five feet nine inches. He delivered the ball almost facing square down the pitch, and, added to his off-break with slightly varied pace about fast-medium, was ability to turn the ball from leg, send down a fast yorker, and, above all, to get quick lift from the turf. As sufficient evidence of Turner's skill, Sir Stanley Jackson said in last year's Wisden, I always regarded Charles Turner as the best medium-paced bowler I ever played against....-

- Wisden 1889​

3. As for the stumping, yesterday the England keeper was standing right on the stumps to Hoggard when Afridi was batting and cooly collected the deliveries outside the off stump !! I am sure he wanted to stump Afridi if he went out of the crease and missed. It is possible if the bowler has control and both he and keeper know what he is going to bowl.

Here are some more cases of stumpings of medium to real fast bowlers that you may find interesting.

Bowler......Stumpings in test match bowling
Barnes......4
Turner.......6
Davidson...1
Bedser......3
Tate..........1
Constantine...2

I am sure there are many more

 

[chaminda_00]

Yeah i've seen Darren Berry stump guys of the bowling of Paul Reiffel, so its not uncommon for a really good keeper to be able to take a stumping of a fast bowler.

All this talk about pace bowlers bowling off breaks and leg breaks still happens now. Kaspa bowls a off break (off cutter) these days and guys like Stryis and Kluesener bowl a lot of fast off breaks, but all these guys would still be classifed as pace bowlers.

 

[SJS]

All this talk about pace bowlers bowling off breaks and leg breaks still happens now. Kaspa bowls a off break (off cutter) these days and guys like Stryis and Kluesener bowl a lot of fast off breaks, but all these guys would still be classifed as pace bowlers.

And off-cutter was a later terminology. As was a tendency to equate off-break with off-spin with slow bowling.

Originally, with over arm bowling almost all bowlers tried to move the ball in from the off. This was called an off-break. Whether it was slow off-break or fast offf-break was an appendage to the description.

Almost all the early fast bowlers bowled off-breaks.

Later when bowlers like Branes started bowling leg-breaks(purely called so due to the movement from leg to off from the pitch) and did it at high pace and did it with consistent line and length (not associated then with leg break), it became clear that a new weapon had been discovered and more and more bowlers started learning to master the control of this type of bowling.

Another fact to remember is that in the earlies times mid 19th century, the grounds were horrendous (not that the wickets were great) so that the ball got roughened up quick time. Thus swerve wasnt available to the bowlers and breaking off the wicket was the best bet. The wicket conditions encouraged that too.

 

[a massive zebra]

Plum Warner on Barnes

Barnes, whose pace was fast-medium, brought the ball down from a great height, broke both ways, and had a deceptive flight. He possessed very strong and long fingers, and his leg-break especially came very fast off the pitch. He made full use of the width of the crease, and in this way often deceived the batsman as to the exact course his leg-break, which he cut rather than spun, was taking through the air. The Australians aver that he is the greatest bowler England has ever sent to Australia, and I fancy the South Africans would be of the same opinion, as they saw him on their matting wickets. He was a strong man, and never gave in or relaxed his efforts for a moment. With F.R. Foster at the other end we had the perfect combination: a finer pair of opening bowlers never represented England, at all events on Australian wickets. One might point out that George Lohmann's average in test matches against the old enemy is actually far superior, but it must be remembered that Barnes had to bowl against Australian batting at its strongest and best, whereas Lohmann met the Australians at period when batting was not their strongest suit. They had great bowlers - Spofforth, Palmer, Garrett, Boyle, Giffen, Turner, Ferris, Jones, Trumble, etc. - but their batsmen, as a whole, were considerably below the standard they have obtained since 1896. That Lohmann was a complete master of his art there cannot be two opinions. He took a fairly long run to the crease, his arm was high, he could turn the ball both ways, and over and over again he deceived the batsmen with his clever variation of pace, a catch and bowl, or a catch at mid-off or in the deep field, often resulting. But that he was a greater bowler than Barnes I find it hard to believe. He would be a rash man who gave his verdict for Lohmann over Barnes. They were both very great, and the wisest thing to do is to give each a First Class in any Honours School, but I doubt Lohmann would have had the same success had he played on the hard Australian wickets of 20 years later against the much more accomplished batsmen Barnes had to contend with.

- Taken from Gentlemen V Players 1806-1949

 

[Debris]

I become quite confused with these old players, I always thought Hugh Trumble to be an off-spinner but Peter Sharpman (writer) claims that he was in fact a lot faster.

Also 'Terror Turner' was once clocked at 55 miles an hour?

And we have the 'Demon' Spofforth credited with a stumping by Jack Blackham off his bowling, and this when he was quite young?

Jack Blackham was reputed to stand up to the stumps to everybody, even the fastest bowlers of the day. He was the first great keeper for Australia, although I can't speak for the state of his teeth.

 

[Migara]

He bowled leg breaks at medium pace. He also swung them in at the same pace and worse of all he swung them in, very sharply from oustside the off stump, they pitched on the leg stump, broke away like leg breaks and knocked off stumps out of the ground !!

Sorry, that's not possible. Swing and spin cannot occur together. For spin to occur ball has to spin forwards with an angled seam. For swing to occur, ball has to spin backwards to keep the seam straight. Backward spun balls do not turn, or turn very little (unless it is a tennis ball), and forward sun balls do not swing. The swing which early literature describes IMO is the drift that spinners get.

 

[NasserFan207]

Honestly it sounds like reverse swing to me.

 

[Migara]

Honestly it sounds like reverse swing to me.

still ball cannot turn if it spins backward, and cannot swing if it spins forward, at least within parameters of cricket.

 

[ankitj]

I am confused about the forward spin thing, Migara. To spin the ball it must be imparted lateral spin I thought. A forward spun ball is same as topspinner, isn't it? It will only dip downwards and mover quicker after pitching rather than spinning in either direction.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Sorry, that's not possible. Swing and spin cannot occur together. For spin to occur ball has to spin forwards with an angled seam. For swing to occur, ball has to spin backwards to keep the seam straight. Backward spun balls do not turn, or turn very little (unless it is a tennis ball), and forward sun balls do not swing. The swing which early literature describes IMO is the drift that spinners get.

Why does a ball spinning forwards not swing?

 

[Migara]

For a off spinner the seam (rather the direction of rotation) should be in // position (top spinner || and leggie \\). Because hitting the seam provides bounce most spinners spin it along the seam. The rotation is towards the batsman. OK, it jas lateral and foward spin both. The degree of spin will depend on how much each component is.

For a in swinger the seam is in the exact position to that of an off break (//). But this one spins towards bowler due to the release.

 

[Migara]

Why does a ball spinning forwards not swing?

I haven't seen it any where yet.
And I've seen Anil Kumble sending some 115k top spinners with perfect upright seam and enormous amounts of spin, but never seen anything swing even marginally, while Prasad and co. bowling 120k stuff swinging it prodigiously,

And other instance it might happen is after pitching. I've seen balls swing after pitching if seam stays up right and maintains backward spin or stays still. Never seen it happening with forward spin.

And I've seen an article too stating the same, but since I cannot find a link to it, will not bring it to the discussion.