English ATG Team- Open Voting

[kyear2]

Barnes was quick when he wanted to be, but no where near as quick as Larwood, Trueman, Snow or Tyson who would all properly appreciate a shiny new ball.

Also, by operating with the new ball his prime wicket taking delivery - the leg-spinner - has been somewhat nullified. I don't think that it is possible for a finger spinner to impart maximum revs on a new ball.

Fully agree, was he supposedly that much faster than Underwood, Verity or O'Reilly? Any of the bolwers you mentioned would make better use of the new ball.

 

[Jager]

Fully agree, was he supposedly that much faster than Underwood, Verity or O'Reilly? Any of the bolwers you mentioned would make better use of the new ball.

I always consider Barnes as a bowler who sent them down at 120-ish and O'Reilly at 105 or so, for comparison.

 

[kyear2]

Don't think one can really rip a big leggie at 120ish?

 

[Michaelf7777777]

SF Barnes and Fred Trueman get my votes

 

[NUFAN]

I always consider Barnes as a bowler who sent them down at 120-ish and O'Reilly at 105 or so, for comparison.

So why would you want Barnes as one of your opening bowlers if he is going to bowl as quick as Arjuna Ranatunga?

 

[Eds]

Fred Trueman & Sydney Barnes.

 

[watson]

I always consider Barnes as a bowler who sent them down at 120-ish and O'Reilly at 105 or so, for comparison.

Bradman was under the impression that Barnes and O'Reilly were very similar bowlers. Granted he never saw Barnes in action, but it is very likely that he would have spoken to plenty of people who did.

Therefore, opening the bowling with Barnes would be like opening the bowling with O'Reilly, minus the googly, which Barnes never bowled. It's do-able of course, but I think that Trueman and Snow/Larwood would be more effective.

Barnes would be more likely to pick up wickets as a first change bowler once he could grip the ball better IMO.

 

[kingkallis]

Trueman & Barnes

 

[Eds]

At the end of the day, Sydney Barnes was an opening bowler. That's where he bowled. And in that position, he was more successful than any of the other options.

 

[Howe_zat]

At the end of the day, Sydney Barnes was an opening bowler. That's where he bowled. And in that position, he was more successful than any of the other options.

So were all the other options though.

 

[Eds]

So were all the other options though.

I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying.

I'm not just comparing Barnes to his contemporaries; I'm comparing him to the other options for this theoretical side, whom Barnes is competing with. He was more successful than the others as an opening bowler, therefore should be considered as one in a side such as this.

 

[watson]

At the end of the day, Sydney Barnes was an opening bowler. That's where he bowled. And in that position, he was more successful than any of the other options.

Every bowler selected thus far was an opening bowler, and was at their most successful in that position.

It's a matter of which opening bowler of the 3 selected (I assume there will be three) will be best in their new position as first change.

 

[Prince EWS]

Regardless of what Barnes bowled, he opened the bowling for the reason. If he was wasting it and would be just as effective with the older ball he'd surely have opened the bowling a lot less than he did; how often did O'Reilly open the bowling?

Whether Barnes opens the bowling the not, I'm going to roll with two genuine seamers + Barnes + a genuine spinner as my four man specialist bowling attack. Barnes was England's best ever bowler by a fair distance so I'd like to give him first crack and his usual role, but if he's to bowl first change instead so Bedser, Larwood or someone like that can open the bowling instead I'm not too fussed. I definitely want him in the side though so lets get that sorted first.

 

[watson]

I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying.

I'm not just comparing Barnes to his contemporaries; I'm comparing him to the other options for this theoretical side, whom Barnes is competing with. He was more successful than the others as an opening bowler, therefore should be considered as one in a side such as this.

And we're saying new ball bowlers should be fast given the choice. I can't see how Barnes would be an improvement over Trueman + Snow/Larwood with the new ball. Assuming that the Test match isn't being played on a sticky quagmire, that would be different. I'm thinking of a flat wicket, 2012 style.

 

[Prince EWS]

And we're saying new ball bowlers should be fast given the choice. I can't see how Barnes would be an improvement over Trueman + Snow/Larwood with the new ball. Assuming that the Test match isn't being played on a sticky quagmire, that would be different. I'm thinking of a flat wicket, 2012 style.

Barnes's job was to develop a style of bowling that would make him more successful than his contemporaries on the pitches he got; not to develop a style of bowling that would've been theoretically successful some 100+ years later. You're judging him by something that he was not only trying to attempt but something that would've been entirely useless to him at the time. Can you imagine the looks he would've got if he told his captain that he was developing an entire new action because he was trying to get the new pill in watson's all-time great team, even though it'd mean they'd almost certainly win less games at the time?

Was Barnes further ahead of the average opening bowler of his time than Snow was of his? Yes? Get him in tharrr then. It's the only even vaguely reasonable way to compare eras like this, otherwise I can just pick a team of team of sweve bowlers every time because I've arbitrarily decided the match is going to be played on an 1890 English sticky.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Harold Larwood
SF Barnes

*Assuming Trueman can be selected later and coming as first change although he won't be happy at all

 

[Cabinet96]

Barnes and Trueman for me too please.

 

[kyear2]

He succeeded when bowling on wet slow pitches and especially on the matting pitches of South Africa againts an infant and overmatched opponent. His style would not be effective on modern pitches with the new ball.

 

[Viscount Tom]

Trueman and Tyson.

 

[Howe_zat]

He succeeded when bowling on wet slow pitches and especially on the matting pitches of South Africa againts an infant and overmatched opponent. His style would not be effective on modern pitches with the new ball.

Have we said that we're picking a side to play modern cricket?