Do you consider Malcolm Marshall...

[Richard]

History treats Barnes surprisingly kindly in my view. That he was a very good bowler can’t be doubted but he did get nearly half of his test wickets at less than 10 apiece (and had it not been for Herby Taylor that average would have been considerably less) against a South African side that great grandpa Dickinson would have treated with the same disdain as the current generation treats Bangladesh.

I don't know about that. Up to the series against Australia in 1902/03, for sure. But from the time they beat England (admittedly not a truly representative best-XI of England, but certainly not a team that disgraced the name of Test cricket) in 1905/06 and acquired the famed wristspin trio of Schwarz, Vogler and Faulkner SA were more comparable to the WI teams of the last 6-7 years than Bangladesh or, more recently still, Zimbabwe.

BTW, it'd be great-great-grandad who'd have been the one judging the SA teams of the late-19th early-20th centuries. Great-grandad's time of starting to watch the game was more the 1920s - not sure he had much notable memory of pre-WW1 cricket. Not that the two of us ever spoke much about it as I was only 13 (and not quite yet so into the game as I have been since the summer of '98) when he left us.

 

[fredfertang]

I don't know about that. Up to the series against Australia in 1902/03, for sure. But from the time they beat England (admittedly not a truly representative best-XI of England, but certainly not a team that disgraced the name of Test cricket) in 1905/06 and acquired the famed wristspin trio of Schwarz, Vogler and Faulkner SA were more comparable to the WI teams of the last 6-7 years than Bangladesh or, more recently still, Zimbabwe.

BTW, it'd be great-great-grandad who'd have been the one judging the SA teams of the late-19th early-20th centuries. Great-grandad's time of starting to watch the game was more the 1920s - not sure he had much notable memory of pre-WW1 cricket. Not that the two of us ever spoke much about it as I was only 13 (and not quite yet so into the game as I have been since the summer of '98) when he left us.

Agreed they performed very well in 05/06 but they were woeful in the triangular series in 1912 and at home in 13/14, the only times Barnes faced them

 

[Richard]

Sides don't really go from substandard to up-to-standard and back again in my book though, else Bangladesh would already have done that a few times. And everything England did between 1986 and 1989 would be demoted from Test cricket as well.

South Africa still had some terrible series' after 1905/06 (some in recent times) but I've always tended to count them as worthy of Test status from that series onwards and never for anything before that.

Similar with New Zealand as of 1960/61.

 

[fredfertang]

I don't really disagree with you Richard - I'm just a little surprised that Barnes reputation has endured down the years in a way that some others, particularly George Lohmann, whose tests were all against Australia, haven't

 

[Goughy]

Im not sure it is possible to rank players (apart from Bradman) with any certainty.

Marshall is certainly up there though.

 

[Ikki]

Sides don't really go from substandard to up-to-standard and back again in my book though

 

[Richard]

Banally posting 3 Laugh smilies rarely got anyone anywhere. In fact posts purely composed of such a thing, in reply to posts that aren't funny, is best described as spamming the forum.

 

[Richard]

I don't really disagree with you Richard - I'm just a little surprised that Barnes reputation has endured down the years in a way that some others, particularly George Lohmann, whose tests were all against Australia, haven't

I don't know about anyone else, but Barnes and Lohmann are treated by me totally differently because of the fact that Barnes was a 20th-century player and Lohmann a 19th-century one.

That Lohmann was the best bowler of the 19th-century is, to me, highly likely. That he was one of them is beyond question. However, I've always been happiest to draw a line at 1899 (the turn of the century is the most convenient place, though obviously some of the changes which form the reason for the desire for the line-drawing were gradual) and say that anything then and before is something I'm only keen to compare with itself, and likewise from 1900 onwards.

Any player from 1899 backwards I'm happy only comparing with other players from 1899 backwards.

 

[social]

Hmmm,

a. A professional athlete, documented on film and anywhere else you care to name, bowling at 95 mph and swinging the ball both ways

b. A guy no-one in living memory saw or documented and of whom so little is known that people like Bradman refer to him as a "leg-spinner without a wrong-un" whilst others claim was a pace bowler

Tough one

 

[Richard]

You seem to have misread. Nowhere is anyone suggesting to compare Marshall and Barnes. In fact, quite the opposite. To compare Marshall with everyone but Barnes!!!!!!!!!!

 

[sledger]

Not a lot between Barnes and Marshall imo, but I'd pick Marshall as being marginally ahead.

 

[fredfertang]

I don't know about anyone else, but Barnes and Lohmann are treated by me totally differently because of the fact that Barnes was a 20th-century player and Lohmann a 19th-century one.

That Lohmann was the best bowler of the 19th-century is, to me, highly likely. That he was one of them is beyond question. However, I've always been happiest to draw a line at 1899 (the turn of the century is the most convenient place, though obviously some of the changes which form the reason for the desire for the line-drawing were gradual) and say that anything then and before is something I'm only keen to compare with itself, and likewise from 1900 onwards.

Any player from 1899 backwards I'm happy only comparing with other players from 1899 backwards.

Hmm - Barnes' and Lohmann's careers overlapped yet you feel unable to compare them

 

[Richard]

They overlapped, but hardly by a lot. Lohmann is listed as 1884-1896, Barnes played just 4 First-Class matches in that time and just 6 in the 19th-century.

I've never considered Barnes a 19th-century player at all, though doubtless had he been backed stronger by someone who recognised his rare talent and was willing to make allowances for his 60-years-ahead-of-time personality then he would have been.

 

[Beleg]

Ambrose, Donald and possibly Akram a wee bit better. But it's the difference between Chicken Tikka Masala and Chicken Masala Tikka.

 

[Uppercut]

History treats Barnes surprisingly kindly in my view. That he was a very good bowler can’t be doubted but he did get nearly half of his test wickets at less than 10 apiece (and had it not been for Herby Taylor that average would have been considerably less) against a South African side that great grandpa Dickinson would have treated with the same disdain as the current generation treats Bangladesh.

His wickets against Australia (and arguably he missed the series involving the strongest Australian sides of his era) and Yorkshire (who he only bowled against 4 times in championship cricket) cost about 22 and 26 each so rather different

As for Maco he was undoubtedly a great – a shorter man with a magnificent action, terrific pace and a lethal breakback – a latter day Harold Larwood – but not quite as good

It is indeed funny how it's much harder to be taken seriously dissecting the careers of legendary figures as opposed to modern players. If someone played 27 tests in this era, half against Bangladesh and half against test-standard sides, it would be a story of a player who was never 100% proven or an unfulfilled talent, rather than the greatest bowler of all time. I seem to remember SJS doing some similar analysis on Sunil Gavaskar's career and coming up with some similar trends that made him appear less legendary than the scripture reads, but his status means he's immune to all such reasoning.

Maybe that's why i try to just not compare players across eras at all.

 

[Richard]

As I say, I don't think comparing SA of 1912 to Bangladesh is fair. WI of 2007 would be a better comparison. Actually possibly not even that; possibly more WI of 2000. A team with many excellent players but who were just not allowed to play because their opposition was of such tremendous calibre.

And as I've also said, if Barnes had played all Tests during his time as well as regular cricket for a First-Class county, he'd have played 40-odd Tests, 300-odd First-Class games and would almost certainly be irrefutably the greatest bowler in history. The only reason he didn't do this was because of attitudes ahead of his time - nothing at all to do with ability.

 

[Uppercut]

As I say, I don't think comparing SA of 1912 to Bangladesh is fair. WI of 2007 would be a better comparison. Actually possibly not even that; possibly more WI of 2000. A team with many excellent players but who were just not allowed to play because their opposition was of such tremendous calibre.

And as I've also said, if Barnes had played all Tests during his time as well as regular cricket for a First-Class county, he'd have played 40-odd Tests, 300-odd First-Class games and would almost certainly be irrefutably the greatest bowler in history. The only reason he didn't do this was because of attitudes ahead of his time - nothing at all to do with ability.

Think about it Dicko. It's not that far from the case of someone like Shane Bond, only more extreme. Someone plays 20 tests against quality sides averages 21.5. He also plays seven tests against a particularly weak side and averages around 10. Due to weird selection policies, injuries, retirement, whatever, he doesn't play any more test matches. If someone emerged and did that over the next few years, would you consider him the best bowler of all time?

 

[Richard]

Bond's case isn't comparable to that though - as I say, Bond's average against Test-class sides is 26.5. And for the last time - SA of 1912 weren't comparable to either Bangladesh or Zimbabwe that Bond faced.

Aside from the fact that Bond doesn't have the ability to do something no other bowler has ever done - ie, bowl fast Leg-Breaks.

 

[Uppercut]

Bond's case isn't comparable to that though - as I say, Bond's average against Test-class sides is 26.5. And for the last time - SA of 1912 weren't comparable to either Bangladesh or Zimbabwe that Bond faced.

Aside from the fact that Bond doesn't have the ability to do something no other bowler has ever done - ie, bowl fast Leg-Breaks.

Obviously, that's why i said a more extreme example. Take the Bond reference out of my post and it still completely stands.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Difficult comparison to make. I prefer Lillee, Hadlee, McGrath and Ambrose as bowlers, though. Also Holding, but that's mainly an aesthetic thing.