SF Barnes

[SJS]

I may be wrong but I do not recall any/much mention of one of the fastest (if not the fastest) bowler Australia has ever produced. Ernie Jones too has a solid claim in that short list of the fastest bowlers of all time.

CB Fry, that marvelous cricketer and one of the greatest all round sportsmen the world has ever seen writes in detail about this great bowler. Fry, a bum chum of Ranji. also puts to rest the widely held vies that Ranji regarded Jones as someone who has an ilegal action. According to Fry he was just alluding to his great pace when he called him "that chucker".

Jones, according to Fry was.....

"the best genuinely fast bowler Australia has ever had (who) was uncomfortably fast, so that when one got to the other end one felt inclined to let loose the painter against the drivable medium pacers. Hence Jones often deserved the wickets which were credited to someone else."

"...the distinctive factor in Australia's victory, as well as in the drawn matches, was the bowling of Ernest Jones. It was an era of Fast bowling, when the critical phase for the professed batsman was to escape an accident early in his innings from the fast bowler. This although all the medium fast bowling was of very high standards. Before the first Test match I said to Ranji that we should have trouble with the Australian bowling. Look at the magnificient medium pace bowlers (lively medium that is) - Hugh Trumble, Monty Noble and W Howell. All of them quite in the first standard. I added that I regarded Noble as quiyte the best of his kind I had ever played against. "Yes," said Ranji,"but the man we have to fear is that chucker." This reference to Ernest Jones does not mean that Ranji thought that Jones's action was unfair, but (just) that his pace was dangerous. As Ranji was a master craftsman in dealing with very fast bowling even on fiery wickets, his judgement of the situation is interesting. If he did not fear fast bowling for himself, he feared it for others.

"On the history of the series of Test Matches he was abundantly right. Jones did the damage, yet all the batsmen who played for England that year were strong players of fast bowling. Here in parenthesis I may remark that with the exception of Larwood, modern generation of batsmen have never seen anything like the fast bowling as this term was exemplified by E. Jones, Lockwood, Richardson, C.J. Kortright, Mold, S.M.J.Woods, J. Sharpe and one or two others of that era. Just as the batsmen of those days had no conception of leg break bowling as it is known now.

"Day in and day out Jones was the fastest of the fast but not faster than Kortright on his day. In the first Test match played at Nottingham that year the wicket was of perfect Nottingham Marl, just as good as nowadays. I made 50 in the first innings and was batting for an hour in the second, and I saw plenty of Jones's bowling. I never appeared a ball from him which appeared to be short, and never one much more than waist high. Yet when I went to look at the wicket at lunch-time on the first day the marks he had made with the ball were perfectly distinct and his usual length had been just about half way down the pitch ! I was fond of hooking the short ball but I did not get a single ball from him which I could hook. The simple fact was that Jones, with his pace, could pitch the ball half way down the pitch and still the ball was good length."​

C.B. Fry in "Life Worth Living" (First Published in 1939)​

Fascinating stuff. His remarks on Larwood's pace are very interesting as are the one's about batsmen of that era having no concept of the leg break of the late thirties (Grimmett, Orielly, Mailey etc)

 

[Goughy]

Very interesting stuff, though Im not sure I understand the logic of "Jones, with his pace, could pitch the ball half way down the pitch and still the ball was good length."

 

[SJS]

Very interesting stuff, though Im not sure I understand the logic of "Jones, with his pace, could pitch the ball half way down the pitch and still the ball was good length."

Normally the good length is determined as a length where you are not able to decide very quickly whether to go forward or back as you can with half volleys or very short pitched stuff. What he means, in my opinion, is that although he was pitching half way down the wicket, because of his immense speed, the batsman still did not have the time to realise that it was that short. Also the fact that it did not rise as one expects such short fast balls to, it did not appear short enough to pull or hook.

I think it is basically a combination of very high speed and the tendency for the ball to keep low (relatively speaking) that makes him say that it was (appeared to be) good length. He uses "was" because as far as the batsmen were concerned it was like a good length ball since they couldn't take advantage of its being short.

 

[The Sean]

Fascinating to see that Fry felt that the Golden Age quicks were faster than all who came after WWI bar Larwood - meaning that he considered that collective to be quicker than Gregory, McDonald, Voce, Bowes, Farnes, Allen, Martindale etc. Very interesting indeed.

Ernie Jones has always seemed quite a character to me. Whereas I've always thought of Spofforth as the ancient (cricketing) world's Lillee - mixing fiery aggression with cleverness and variation, I have in my mind equated Jones with Merv Hughes - a big, moustachioed lump of a man who charged in and bowled his heart out, not with any great subtlety or analysis but with a lot of speed, stamina and determination.

His most famous delivery was not one which took a wicket. Indeed, accounts vary over exactly when (or even IF) it ever actually happened, and whether it was a short ball or a beamer. I am talking of course of the famous incident when Ernie bowled a ball which whistled straight through WG Grace's beard. While WG's face turned like thunder, Ernie's response: "Sorry Doc, she slipped."

 

[The Sean]

"...so that when one got to the other end one felt inclined to let loose the painter against the drivable medium pacers. Hence Jones often deserved the wickets which were credited to someone else."

The more things change, the more things stay the same - I reckon Wasim Akram and Jason Gillespie, to name but two, could have some sympathy for this.

 

[Manee]

Ernie Jones has always seemed quite a character to me. Whereas I've always thought of Spofforth as the ancient (cricketing) world's Lillee - mixing fiery aggression with cleverness and variation, I have in my mind equated Jones with Merv Hughes - a big, moustachioed lump of a man who charged in and bowled his heart out, not with any great subtlety or analysis but with a lot of speed, stamina and determination.

I feel out of my place with some cricket historians in this thread, but wasn't Spofforth's first wicket in Test cricket stumped?

 

[fredfertang]

I feel out of my place with some cricket historians in this thread, but wasn't Spofforth's first wicket in Test cricket stumped?

Cracking spot that!!

The Melbourne Argus had this to say

“He took a run of 10 or 12 yards, and amidst a somewhat bewildering movement of legs and arms, hurled the ball forward with a velocity and recklessness as to the consequences enough to make all timid people tremble for the safety of the batsman, the wicketkeeper and even the longstop ........................ Shaw manifestly did not like to have so hot a fire opened upon him, and the only person perfectly cool was the wicketkeeper Blackham"

So it sounds like the stumping says more about Blackham than it does about the "Demon"

 

[Manee]

Cracking spot that!!

The Melbourne Argus had this to say

“He took a run of 10 or 12 yards, and amidst a somewhat bewildering movement of legs and arms, hurled the ball forward with a velocity and recklessness as to the consequences enough to make all timid people tremble for the safety of the batsman, the wicketkeeper and even the longstop ........................ Shaw manifestly did not like to have so hot a fire opened upon him, and the only person perfectly cool was the wicketkeeper Blackham"

So it sounds like the stumping says more about Blackham than it does about the "Demon"

Unfortunately, I refuse to believe that a bowler of near 90mph could have the keeper standing up lest he be Mcgrath-like in accuracy and possess little to no bounce.

 

[fredfertang]

On an 1870's pitch I would think that standing up to someone of "military medium" would be fraught with danger

 

[SJS]

Unfortunately, I refuse to believe that a bowler of near 90mph could have the keeper standing up lest he be Mcgrath-like in accuracy and possess little to no bounce.

First of all, Spofforth did not bowl at 90 mph. He did bowl some very quick balls but most of the time he wasnt above fast medium.

Secondly, wicket keepers did not stand up to him all the time.

Finally, why do you assume he wasn't as accurate as McGrath ?

 

[SJS]

A lovely picture of Ted Macdonald bowling in a match.

Ted Macdonald

 

[SJS]

First of all, Spofforth did not bowl at 90 mph. He did bowl some very quick balls but most of the time he wasnt above fast medium.

Secondly, wicket keepers did not stand up to him all the time.

Finally, why do you assume he wasn't as accurate as McGrath ?

By the way, while keepers are most diificult to compare over a century since the change in wickets/ground conditions, dramatic change in protective equipment has changed the way in which keepers approach the job more than the other disciplines.

The long stop was one of the most important fielders in the side at one time. It appears laughable today and one would wonder what kind of nincompoops were keeping wickets if the best fielder had to be posted right behind the keeper almost on the fence. Well that has to do more with quality of wickets to start with than anything else.

Blackham became the first wicket keeper to stand up AND dispense with the long stop. It was looked at incredulously by the cricketing fraternity. It was unheard of. So whatever we say of standards, comparing to those days and the conditions as pevailed then, he must have been tremendous.

Bradman once saw a pair of gloves belonging to this "Prince amongst wicket-keepers" and was amazed at how little protection they offered. He writes ...

"He must have been stoic to have kept in them. Without doubt a modern player would have had his hands ruined if he was to use them for any length of time against fast bowling."​

 

[The Sean]

Unfortunately, I refuse to believe that a bowler of near 90mph could have the keeper standing up lest he be Mcgrath-like in accuracy and possess little to no bounce.

Spofforth didn't bowl anywhere near 90mph - hence my comment about mixing fiery agression (which he had in spades) with cleverness and variation. Despite a reputation these days as some kind of express-paced tearaway, he generally bowled what we would consider medium pace to fast medium, with the occasional very fast ball thrown in.

 

[SJS]

Denzil Batchelor, one of the greatest cricket writers of all time writes of Larwood...

There was no reason to suppose that Australian ascendency was to be challenged. And then came Larwood.

He came, as I remember, in that first Sydney Test, bowling with the press box behind him, with Allen, Voce, Leyland and Verity craning forward at short legs and silly mid on. He bowled faster than anyone I have ever seen bowl; faster than Lindwall, far faster than McCarthy. He bowled, according to my memory, far fewer bouncers than Voce; but he rose, at terriffic and dangerous pace, to threaten the short ribs; to threaten the heart. If you played a stroke at him, it was apt to be a defensive dab liable to send the ball in the hands of that on-side field. Such was leg theory and Larwood was the theorist transformed into lightening action. Those who argued against this form of attack said "it wasn't cricket. It got its effects, it got its wickets, from intimidation." Those who defended it said : "No game is worth playing by men without a spice of danger. Here is the game. There is the danger. Where are the men ?"

It remains to say that Larwood was (also) the most accurate bowler of all time.​

For me the most interesting comment there is that his rising balls, rising at dangerous pace, did not threaten the head of the batsman. No, far from it. They did not even threaten the upper ribs. They threatened "the short ribs". They were frighteningly fast, deadly accurate, of a length and height that prevented you from playing a stroke and not high enough for you to duck under them at the last moment. No surprise that Larwood did not hit too many Australians nor could they get out of his way.

His great speed combined with his unerring accuracy made him, at his peak (which was at that time 1932-33) one of the greatest and fastest bowlers of all time if not the greatest.

Hence the legend of Larwood. Other than Bradman, I have read no account by any contemporary cricketer of Larwood (or writer) who did not stand in awe of his bowling at that time. The greatest tragedy of 1932-33 was not that the relations between England and Australia came to breaking point but that the reactions of the authorities deprived the game and posterity of one of the greatest spectacles we may have seen/read/heard in 1934 - Don Bradman (without doubt a phenomenon and the only player with the skill, the eye, the footwork to tackle this great bowler) getting to terms with Larwood bowling at his peak.

For me, Bradman's legacy is lessened by the removal of Larwood from the scene when both were at their peak.

 

[Goughy]

The greatest tragedy of 1932-33 was not that the relations between England and Australia came to breaking point but that the reactions of the authorities deprived the game and posterity of one of the greatest spectacles we may have seen/read/heard in 1934 - Don Bradman (without doubt a phenomenon and the only player with the skill, the eye, the footwork to tackle this great bowler) getting to terms with Larwood bowling at his peak.

For me, Bradman's legacy is lessened by the removal of Larwood from the scene when both were at their peak.

As big a hero as Larwood was to me, I think 34 would have been a disappointment. Larwood, himself, recognised that he was far faster in Australia than England due to the footing. Larwood could not have replicated the speeds he bowled in the Bodyline series if he had played in 34.

Still a crying shame though.

 

[luckyeddie]

Thats not correct.

Its true he used his fingers to impart leg spin and not really the wrist as is done by leg spinners but that does not mean he bowled like Iverson. Ralph Barker's account is slightly misleading in this regard.

A regular leg spinner uses the wrist to get most of the turn. In fact the wrist turned at 45 to 60 degrees to the arm as you can see in these pictures of Warne and Grimmett below below

So they get most of the effort on the ball from the wrist movement at the time of release. Hence the term wrist spinner.

Barnes was different from these leg spinners in that he did not bend his wrist at all. His wrist was firm in line with his bowling arm as would be for a medium pacer, He just used his very long fingers to snap almost violently at the time of release. The fact that he did not turn his wrist at all is what made the ball spin viciously in the air "without losing the integrity of the seam position". The seam continued in the direction in which it was pointing as it would do for a seamer. This is why his deliveries could first swing in the air, and then after pitching, break away like a leg break making him near impossible to play.

He could control the swing and extent of break off the wicket by merely adjusting the direction in which the seam was poniting. Thats why he was not a wrist spinner but a swerve and break bowler and he bowled at fairly high speeds and released the ball from a very high point - again something regular leg spinners dont do. His arm was very erect during delivery and the wrist was not bent. There arent many pictures of Barnes available but you can get an idea from this sequence.

Very impressive, SJS. He truly was a remarkable man, and it's no surprise that he was a mystery. He even had time to have a shave between images 2 and 3. He might also have been the inspiration for the 'statue ball' much beloved by at least one of his modern-day twirly compatriots, because by image 4, his moustache had grown back.

 

[Manee]

Finally, why do you assume he wasn't as accurate as McGrath ?

I meant if he bowled at the extreme pace that people said.

 

[The Sean]

A lovely picture of Ted Macdonald bowling in a match.

Ted Macdonald

The accounts of MacDonald's run-up and action never fail to mention the effortless smoothness and beauty he bowled with. Like Michael Holding some five decades later, there are stories of the umpires noting that they could not hear his footsteps in the turf as he ran up behind them. He played just 11 Tests, and had only one really successful series, yet built up a magnificent record in County cricket and left very few of those who faced him in any doubt about his greatness.

He was another who met a tragic early end when he died in freakish circumstances at the age of just 46. Having collided with another car, he got out and moved to check on the other driver - only to be knocked down and killed by a third car as it then drove past.

 

[SJS]

The accounts of MacDonald's run-up and action never fail to mention the effortless smoothness and beauty he bowled with. Like Michael Holding some five decades later, there are stories of the umpires noting that they could not hear his footsteps in the turf as he ran up behind them. He played just 11 Tests, and had only one really successful series, yet built up a magnificent record in County cricket and left very few of those who faced him in any doubt about his greatness.

He was another who met a tragic early end when he died in freakish circumstances at the age of just 46. Having collided with another car, he got out and moved to check on the other driver - only to be knocked down and killed by a third car as it then drove past.

Bradman thought very highly of him. In Farewell to cricket he writes.

" Gregory was without doubt the superior player because of his superlative fielding and fine batting but purely as a bowler, Macdonald was his superior.

The tall Victorian had a perfect rhythmic action, incredible stamina and real pace plus the ability to do things with the ball.

Taking everything into consideration, he would probably win a cricket Gallup Poll - take the points of the best of all fast bowlers. Very close behind him, in my opinion (on his 1948 form) is Ray Lindwall."​

 

[fredfertang]

I have heard it said, by a man who to my certain knowledge met Jack Gregory, that the reason why MacDonald left Australia was because the authorities in Tasmania were after him for fraud - an Australian writer called Nick Richardson, who wrote a "biography" of Ricky Ponting has apparently written a biography of MacDonald but can't find a publisher - I suppose it's inevitable, but still sad, that publishers are more interested in a 2002 book about Punter than they are in a full length biography of one of the legendary figures of the game