Career Averages that dont do justice

[social]

I've always assumed Barned to a huge turner of the ball bowling at about 125 kph which is a deadly combo, not the Shahid Afridi kind but rather the very-very fast version of a Mcgill or a Mushtaq, there has been clearly none-a-better bowler than him.

And then you see the "protective" equipment used in those days and realise that the "fastest" bowlers (which did not include Barnes) could not possibly have bowled at 125 ks or else the injury toll would've been just horrendous

The safest bet is to assume he was a Kumble-style bowler competing against rank amateurs on largely very poor wickets

 

[Migara]

Because I don't bury players, write them off and completely forget what they've achieved when they're out of form.

Only if they are non Asian. Piss poor TBH.

 

[Richard]

And then you see the "protective" equipment used in those days and realise that the "fastest" bowlers (which did not include Barnes) could not possibly have bowled at 125 ks or else the injury toll would've been just horrendous

What about those who played in the 1970s when protective equipment was hardly The Ritz? Was the injury toll horrendous then? No. People found a way to avert the danger then, as they did in the 1900s and other decades.

There is no plausible reason to suggest that the fastest bowling which is possible now was not the fastest possible 100-110 years ago. Requirements have not changed, and the requirements are not technology-reliant.

The safest bet is to assume he was a Kumble-style bowler competing against rank amateurs on largely very poor wickets

He played against a hell of a lot of professionals, very good professionals at that, and amateurs who had to be damn good else they'd not have got a game amongst such professionals.

 

[social]

What about those who played in the 1970s when protective equipment was hardly The Ritz? Was the injury toll horrendous then? No. People found a way to avert the danger then, as they did in the 1900s and other decades.

There is no plausible reason to suggest that the fastest bowling which is possible now was not the fastest possible 100-110 years ago. Requirements have not changed, and the requirements are not technology-reliant.

He played against a hell of a lot of professionals, very good professionals at that, and amateurs who had to be damn good else they'd not have got a game amongst such professionals.

Jesse Owens (and the athletes that he competed against) was also damned good "for the time" but the problem is that he'd have finished 10-15 metres behind Usain Bolt and he had the benefit of another 30 years of technical development when compared to Barnes

As I said before, to say that "there is enough evidence of Barnes being pre-eminent over any other bowler ever to have picked-up a ball" (your words, not mine) is simply a massive stretch

 

[Richard]

Not as much of a stretch as comparing cricket to athletics. As I said, the requirements for spinning the ball, swinging it, bowling it quickly, seeing it to hit it, having the technique to play shots, etc. - none of that has changed in 100+ years. That's why people are so wide of the mark when they say "such-and-such sport has evolved, so therefore cricket must have gotten such-and-such in the same time".

 

[social]

Not as much of a stretch as comparing cricket to athletics. As I said, the requirements for spinning the ball, swinging it, bowling it quickly, seeing it to hit it, having the technique to play shots, etc. - none of that has changed in 100+ years. That's why people are so wide of the mark when they say "such-and-such sport has evolved, so therefore cricket must have gotten such-and-such in the same time".

All true but even if you ignore the obvious physical development of the athletes, it still omits the following:

a. the ball has changed;

b. the bowler must deliver a ball from a certain distance;

c. the pitch must be turf;

d. the pitch must be covered; and

e. the rest of the world is invited

In short, it's a different sport

 

[Teja.]

All true but even if you ignore the obvious physical development of the athletes, it still omits the following:

a. the ball has changed;

b. the bowler must deliver a ball from a certain distance;

c. the pitch must be turf;

d. the pitch must be covered; and

e. the rest of the world is invited

In short, it's a different sport

Not to mention drug tests and rules against tampering.

 

[Aritro]

Yeah, Aussies should score higher, Asians should ne lower. Great logic. Doesn't need that much of typing if you put it that wat.

 

[Richard]

All true but even if you ignore the obvious physical development of the athletes, it still omits the following:

a. the ball has changed;

b. the bowler must deliver a ball from a certain distance;

c. the pitch must be turf;

d. the pitch must be covered; and

e. the rest of the world is invited

In short, it's a different sport

All important changes, and all changes for the better, without doubt (IMO, at least). However, none of them have changed the fact that someone who can spin the ball lots at sharper pace than most who can spin the ball lots is going to be effective way beyond the dreams of most\anyone.

How many times, too, I wonder, did Barnes bowl on non-turf wickets? I'd bet no more than a tiny number of his games in Test, First-Class and Minor County cricket were on matting.

 

[Richard]

Not to mention drug tests and rules against tampering.

Drug tests were only brought in in response to performance-enhancing drugs (or, more accurately, what The Self-Appointed Authorities Of What's Performance-Enhancing WADA have decreed is performance-enhancing). They themselves haven't been around all that long, and the lag-time between said drugs being developed and outlawed wasn't enormous, UIMM.

 

[Furball]

All important changes, and all changes for the better, without doubt (IMO, at least). However, none of them have changed the fact that someone who can spin the ball lots at sharper pace than most who can spin the ball lots is going to be effective way beyond the dreams of most\anyone.

How many times, too, I wonder, did Barnes bowl on non-turf wickets? I'd bet no more than a tiny number of his games in Test, First-Class and Minor County cricket were on matting.

Weren't early tours to South Africa played on matting?

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Too high

Steve Waugh- Propped up by 46 not outs. In a lesser team and batting at 4 he'd scrape 42-44.

Samaraweera- His combined Test and FC stats make him look like the best allrounder ever. Needless to say he isn't.

Kallis- Despite being an excellent batsman, 55 in tests and 45 in ODIs feels bloated and oversells him a wee bit.

Too low

Flintoff's bowling- His last 150 wickets came at 27. Pity his first 70 were not.

Mark Waugh- Perhaps more than any modern batsman.

Atherton- He was always worth more as a batsman than his 37 suggests.

 

[Richard]

Weren't early tours to South Africa played on matting?

I think so (mostly, perhaps not exclusively by 1900) but those games make-up no more than a miniscule proportion of Barnes' career. Did he make more than 1 tour there?

 

[Migara]

I can remember some one saying that keeper stood up to Fred "Demon" Spofforth, who was considrered to be lightening by the standards of the day. I can't find any keeper agreeing to do it today even to a lively fast medium bowler like Ishant SHarma or Thilan Thushara. Never mind Akthars, Lees, Bollingers, Nannes', Jhonsons and Bonds

 

[Pothas]

Too high

Steve Waugh- Propped up by 46 not outs. In a lesser team and batting at 4 he'd scrape 42-44.

No.

 

[Streetwise]

No.

Why bother.

 

[jeevan]

Average more then 20 in seam-friendly conditions.

That's why Sehwag's average is 53. Otherwise it would be 60+. So, like Ponting, he has a significant inability to score more than 20 in certain situations, and like him pays for it in his average despite both of them making hay when things favor them.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

That's why Sehwag's average is 53. Otherwise it would be 60+. So, like Ponting, he has a significant inability to score more than 20 in certain situations, and like him pays for it in his average despite both of them making hay when things favor them.

Yeah he'd probably average 65 if his entire career was played in the subcontient. His record outside the subcontient gives a better indication. Still good, but not a world beater.

 

[social]

All important changes, and all changes for the better, without doubt (IMO, at least). However, none of them have changed the fact that someone who can spin the ball lots at sharper pace than most who can spin the ball lots is going to be effective way beyond the dreams of most\anyone.

How many times, too, I wonder, did Barnes bowl on non-turf wickets? I'd bet no more than a tiny number of his games in Test, First-Class and Minor County cricket were on matting.

Barnes' most succesful test series was in 1913-4 against SA ON MATTING when he took 49 wickets @ 10, a figure that represents more than 25% of his total test wicket tally

Matting wickets (even today's variety) are an absolute minefield so you can almost totally discount those figures

When you also consider that the remainder of his career was played on uncovered wickets, I think it's fair to view his figures with a degree of scepticism

 

[Xuhaib]

I find it funny how much people diss Mo Yo and Mahela.Yes they are not in the same class og Lara,Sachin,Ponting but one quality both have is when they get in on a sub cont track they don't just make runs they keep plundering them and royally **** you.Its a quality they have and they should both be appreciated for it.