What is your ALL TIME WORLD XI TEAM for tests?

[ohnoitsyou]

Your first choice seems about right schearzie. Barnes did bowl successfully will the new ball, but in this team he is the spinner so he'll have to flight the ball more, and give it a rip. Something I'm sure he's more than capable off.

So much wrong with that

 

[watson]

So much wrong with that

His usual pace was about that of Alec Bedser, with a faster ball and a slower one, in well-concealed reserve, and the ability to bowl a yorker. He himself is content that he was essentially a spin bowler, that his movement through the air was, in modern technical language, swerve - obtained by spin - rather than `swing', which derives from the 'seam-up' method. Certainly he made the ball move both ways through the air, and-with a first and second-finger application rather similar to that of Ramadhin - he bowled both the offbreak and the legbreak. Indeed, he could bowl the googly at about slow-medium pace and where, in exceptional conditions, the pitch dictated it, he could be a fine slow bowler.

Sydney Barnes - cricket's living legend | Cricket Features | The Cricketer | ESPN Cricinfo

There is little doubt that Barnes was a finger spinner that could rip the ball when he needed to. And when I say 'flight' I don't mean like Bishan Bedi, I mean it in a Bill O'Reilly or Derek Underwood kind of way.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

There is little doubt that Barnes was a finger spinner that could rip the ball when he needed to. And when I say 'flight' I don't mean like Bishan Bedi, I mean it in a Bill O'Reilly or Derek Underwood kind of way.

Maybe he could be a fine slow bowler, but theres no way he's up there with a Murali or Warne as a genuine spinner. O'Reilly and Underwood are good comparisons, but you play players based on what they were to there era, and Barnes was a genuine quick, while O'Reilly and Underwood were medium at best.

 

[watson]

Maybe he could be a fine slow bowler, but theres no way he's up there with a Murali or Warne as a genuine spinner. O'Reilly and Underwood are good comparisons, but you play players based on what they were to there era, and Barnes was a genuine quick, while O'Reilly and Underwood were medium at best.

It depends on what kind of spinner tickles your fancy.

If you want a 'genuine' or conventional slow spinner then Murali or Warne are your men. If you want a 'medium spinner' (to use Arthur Mailey's terminology), then you would pick Barnes or O'Reilly as they were apparently similar bowlers in effect.

I'm not sure what

but you play players based on what they were to there era, and Barnes was a genuine quick

means. Barnes supposedly bowled at about 75mph (120kph) , and 75mph is 75mph no matter what era it is.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

It depends on what kind of spinner tickles your fancy.

If you want a 'genuine' or conventional slow spinner then Murali or Warne are your men. If you want a 'medium spinner' (to use Arthur Mailey's terminology), then you would pick Barnes or O'Reilly as they were apparently similar bowlers in effect.

I'm not sure what means. Barnes supposedly bowled at about 75mph (120kph) , and 75mph is 75mph no matter what era it is.

Its 120 in an era when 130 was 150

 

[Riggins]

iirc distance and time were both still constant measurements in that era.

 

[Prince EWS]

iirc distance and time were both still constant measurements in that era.

You old bastard.

 

[Riggins]

I just own a delorean.

 

[watson]

Its 120 in an era when 130 was 150

Do you mean that because Barnes was classified as a medium-fast bowler by his contemporaries then we should also do the same and classify him a medium-fast bowler rather than a spinner?

That's fair enough, but Arthur Mailey in his book '10 for 66 and all that' called Barnes and O'Reilly 'medium spinners'. Therefore, if by the 1920s cricket writers had formed the opinion that Barnes was a spin bowler, then it is very likely that Barnes was a spin bowler.

To us it seems odd that a spinner should open the bowling in a Test match because it happens so infrequently in modern cricket. However, from what I can gather, it was common place during the preWWI era.

 

[the big bambino]

Except he wasn't a spinner in the sense we know it. He spun the ball alright but at a very quick pace. His slips were much deeper than O'Reilly's for a start. Don't know when Mailey saw Barnes but since he once described Gloucestershire spinner Tom Goddard as a fast bowler we could probably reasonably conclude he was as silly as a goose.

 

[Prince EWS]

Tom Goddard was a fast bowler in the early part of his career though.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Do you mean that because Barnes was classified as a medium-fast bowler by his contemporaries then we should also do the same and classify him a medium-fast bowler rather than a spinner?

That's fair enough, but Arthur Mailey in his book '10 for 66 and all that' called Barnes and O'Reilly 'medium spinners'. Therefore, if by the 1920s cricket writers had formed the opinion that Barnes was a spin bowler, then it is very likely that Barnes was a spin bowler.

To us it seems odd that a spinner should open the bowling in a Test match because it happens so infrequently in modern cricket. However, from what I can gather, it was common place during the preWWI era.

Yep. Although tbf, i find this logic a lot harder to apply to Barnes than to the Larwood or Kortright. From what i gather Barnes was as great as he was, because he was quicker than most of his contemporaries, and could get more turn at the pace he bowled at that anyone else as well as having an amazing skill set. Always thought of him as about a Kulasekara, which yeah isn't fast at all, but quicker than a medium spinner.

 

[the big bambino]

Tom Goddard was a fast bowler in the early part of his career though.

True but the comment occurred in 1938. You'd have thought Mailey would have caught up with Goddard's change to off spin by then.

As for Barnes think Bedser and Tate.

 

[watson]

True but the comment occurred in 1938. You'd have thought Mailey would have caught up with Goddard's change to off spin by then.

As for Barnes think Bedser and Tate.

There is some truth in that description. Alec Bedser claimed that he spun his 'leg-cutter', and that the ball bent in the air due to swerve not swing. Swerve of course happens when the ball is spinning while swing merely depends on the positioning of the seam. Even Jack Bannister's description of his own dismissal by Bedser sounds identical to the description given by Clem Hill when he was dismissed by Barnes half a century earlier.

On the other hand, comparisons of Barnes with Tate might not be particularly accurate as he used pronouced 'body swing' (as Hammond called it) to bend the ball rather than apply spin.

The leg-cutter, the ball that bamboozled Don Bradman, was his special weapon. During his last interview, to commemorate his 90th birthday in 2008, he explained to me how it evolved during the MCC tour of Australia in 1946-7.

“My coach, Alan Peach, had taught me to hold the ball across the seam to stop it swinging. In the second Test in Sydney I was bowling to Syd Barnes and I’m thinking I can’t swing it in to him, he’s a fine leg-side player. So I held the new ball across the seam and it pitched and went away like a leg-break. Barnes came down the wicket and said, ‘What the hell’s going on?’

“Peter Smith was at mid-on and he said ‘you can’t hold a new ball like that’ and I said ‘why can’t I?’ and I ran up and did it again. And that’s when I found out I could do it. And I spun it. People don’t believe me, but I actually spun it.”

Simon Hughes: Alec Bedser was the Shane Warne of his time and tamer of Don Bradman - Telegraph

By now all the elements of Bedser's bowling were in place. Essentially his method was based on inswing, bowled into a consistent area back of a length and assisted by an absence of restriction on the number of fielders backward of square on the leg side. On wet wickets he could become unplayable. He could also bowl outswing, never stopped thinking and never stopped trying, which was possible well into cricketing old age thanks to his economy of action. He had height, strength, huge hands and ferociously strong wrists. There was also what was most often called his leg-cutter, though those who faced it insist this was an inadequate description. "It was swerve, not swing," says Jack Bannister, who as a tailender came out to face him on a wet wicket for MCC against the Champions in 1955. "I got one that was coming in towards leg stump. The ball ended up going past my right ear and a clod of earth past my left. He was bowling probably around 78, 79 miles an hour. I don't believe anyone has ever moved the ball that much at that pace."

Wisden - Alec Bedser

 

[watson]

However, having said all of the above, Barnes' skill and technique of spinning the ball appear to be far more elaborate than that of Bedser, and therefore Barnes can be more aptly categorised as a spin bowler. Check out the following diagrams!

Spin it like Sydney Barnes
http://prestonvillage.hitscricket.c...Spin it like Sydney Barnes - Richard Wyer.pdf

 

[the big bambino]

The generic categorisation of bowlers is usually based on their pace and their method obtaining movement forms a sub category. So a distinction is made between fast, fast medium and spin and then further distinctions on swing, seam, wrist spin, finger spin. I'd guess that is the reason why I've seen him often grouped with Tate and Bedser. To them I would include FR Foster (who was a champion) and George Geary (who is under rated and and a real asset to a touring side). Tate and Foster appear the fastest of the lot and gained wickets with pace off the pitch with a decided kick. Barnes and Bedser with spin/cut. Geary I believe was a cutter.

I believe that Barnes and Bedser's method of getting side movement by spin is fairly uncommon. Barnes death stared anyone who didn't understand that he spun rather than cut the ball. Believing the latter method required assistance from the wicket whereas he had the power to get movement unassisted.

Barnes adjusted his pace for conditions and opposition; reserving all his resources for test matches. This is a reason why he played relatively few games as he thought he wasn't being compensated adequately to justify the physical exertion needed for tests. So back to the leagues where he was paid well and where he could cut his pace and still get wickets on request.

So on pace he was fast medium and that's where I'd group him rather than on the method he used to get sideways movement.

 

[watson]

So on pace he was fast medium and that's where I'd group him rather than on the method he used to get sideways movement.

Let's assume that Barnes generally bowled at 120kph which is reasonably likely. Can 120kph be classified as 'fast-medium' bearing in mind that Glenn McGrath typically bowled at about135kph from memory.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Let's assume that Barnes generally bowled at 120kph which is reasonably likely. Can 120kph be classified as 'fast-medium' bearing in mind that Glenn McGrath typically bowled at about135kph from memory.

Bowlers like Asif and Vaas bowled high 120s.And McGrath did too at then end of his career, didn't he.

 

[the big bambino]

Let's assume that Barnes generally bowled at 120kph which is reasonably likely. Can 120kph be classified as 'fast-medium' bearing in mind that Glenn McGrath typically bowled at about135kph from memory.

George Davis estimated Tate at Kasper's pace. If Barnes was about Bedser's pace that would place him around mid 120s which is where Asif operated and did alot of his damage.

Note: What OS said.

 

[watson]

George Davis estimated Tate at Kasper's pace. If Barnes was about Bedser's pace that would place him around mid 120s which is where Asif operated and did alot of his damage.

Note: What OS said.

So I take it that 120 kph is 'fast-medium'. So perhaps 135 kph is 'fast', and 145 kph is 'express'. Or something like that.

Should Barnes drop his usual speed down to about 110 kph is allow the ball to turn more then I guess he would then be 'medium' paced. Warne incidently bowled at about the 80-90 kph mark whcih I'll take as a 'true' spinners speed.