• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

jimmy101

Cricketer Of The Year
THE CURIOSITY XIs

How did Spofforth, Noble, Barnes, and Lohmann really bowl, and how would they go against Bradman or a modern genius like Barry Ruchards?
- Spofforth v Bradman, I have an instinct that Spofforth would win the battle. As evidenced a couple of times during his career, Bradman was susceptible to extreme pace & so I believe that Spoffoth would have most likely figured the Don out whilst bowling at 80%, exploring Bradman's thinking as a batsman. Then, as so often was the case with Spofforth dismissals, Bradman would fall prey to a deadly quicker ball, perfectly aimed, just short of a length, without any hint of change in his action, which would rise a lot sooner on Bradman than he'd previously expected.

Bradman c Oldfield b Spofforth 23

- Barnes v Richards. Tough one, but again I'd have to side with the bowler. Whilst Richards scored mountains of runs against the bowlers of the 70's & 80's, he never would have faced anyone quite like Barnes who seemed to have bowled swinging deliveries which also span sharply & was approximately as fast as Alec Bedser, if you can believe that. However, if Barnes didn't get Richards early I could see Richards adapting to his bowling & succeeding. If we wanted to stack the odds in Barnes' favour however we could always say that the wicket is sticky, in which case it would be hard to see Richards scoring more than 50. Even when Richards is settled at the crease, Barnes would most likely bowl him with a fizzing leg break which keeps abnormally low, or possibly have him stumped.

70's Kingsmead pitch: Richards c Hammond b Barnes 88

1900's Headingley pitch (sticky) Richards b Barnes 12

Controversial I know, at the end of the day this is just speculation.
 
Last edited:

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
-


- Barnes v Richards. Tough one, but again I'd have to side with the bowler. Whilst Richards scored mountains of runs against the bowlers of the 70's & 80's, he never would have faced anyone quite like Barnes who seemed to have bowled swinging deliveries which also span sharply & was approximately as fast as Alec Bedser, if you can believe that.

.
I don't buy a lot of this stuff about Barnes being able to bowl quick stuff with swung AND spun. Physics just doesn't allow something travelling quick to spin sharply, regardless of the revs put on the ball.
 

Shady Slim

International Coach
one thing to note with these curiousity XIs for me is partnerships, both batting and bowling

it's harder to bowl to barry richards and george headley than to just richards

though likewise

it's harder to face barnes and lohmann than just barnes
 

jimmy101

Cricketer Of The Year
I don't buy a lot of this stuff about Barnes being able to bowl quick stuff with swung AND spun. Physics just doesn't allow something travelling quick to spin sharply, regardless of the revs put on the ball.
Yeah, it's pretty hard to fathom. One thing we know for sure is that Barnes did indeed spin the ball & did so off a run-up of at least 5 paces. He obviously understood & implemented the art of swing bowling too, however, whether he spun & swung the ball all in the same delivery is where the debate lies. Barnes also had those monstrously long & dexterous fingers which would have given the ball all kinds of flight.
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I don't buy a lot of this stuff about Barnes being able to bowl quick stuff with swung AND spun. Physics just doesn't allow something travelling quick to spin sharply, regardless of the revs put on the ball.
Agree with the first part but disagree with the second.

Swing and spin together is impossible, but it is possible for a quickish delivery to spin quite a bit. That's what cutters are, basically. The "swing" that people said Barnes got was in all probability the drift he got in the air due to the revs he put on the ball. I imagine Barnes' bowling to be Afridi on steroids. (ie) spin bowler who bowled relatively quick and got the ball to drift and spin at pace.
 

watson

Banned
Yeah, it's pretty hard to fathom. One thing we know for sure is that Barnes did indeed spin the ball & did so off a run-up of at least 5 paces. He obviously understood & implemented the art of swing bowling too, however, whether he spun & swung the ball all in the same delivery is where the debate lies. Barnes also had those monstrously long & dexterous fingers which would have given the ball all kinds of flight.
It appears that Barnes, when bowling his 'inswerver' did slow the delivery a bit, and toss it up outside of the off-stump to tease the batsman into a big drive. Since the batsman was expecting the usual leg-break, because the ball was bowled with a typical leg-break action, they would sometimes be bowled after the ball 'inswerved' towards the stumps rather than carry-on straight and spin away.

GREAT BOWLER.

BARNES AND HIS METHODS.

OFF AND LEG BREAKS.

HOW BATSMEN ABE DECEIVED.


7 August 1912

The most talked of bowler since A. C. MacLaren sprung him on the world of cricket ten years ago has been S. F. Barnes, of Warwickshire, Lancashire, Staffordshire, and England. He was, when discovered, the best right-handed medium paced bowler in England. He is now the best of his type in the world; and has been so for some years wrote E. H. D. Sewell in the 'Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic' recently.

Barnes claim to the position of best bowler in the world is based on his ability to pitch a leg-break a good length on the wlcket, conjoined with the power to spin the ball for that break enough to make the ball turn on a good wlcket. Some have bowled the legbreak as fast or faster than he, notably Joseph Vine, but nobody has been able to make the ball deviate after pitching on a run-getting surface to the same extent as he.

That Is why I treat his leg-break as Plate 1 In Barnes menu. Good length varies according to the state of the pitch and the stature of the batsman, but for a bowler of Barnes' speed I have taken six yards trom the stumps as Barnes best length. The ordinary leg-break pitching six yards from the stumps may be played with safety for ever by a good batsman, chiefly by employing back play. But Barnes' bowling is so quick off the pitch that he compels forward play from nearly enveryone except players like Fry, Faulkner, and Spooner, who are the best exponents of the art of watching the ball from the pitch now playing......


In the last test match at Lord's Barnes bowled one off-break to Schwarz which pitched fully eight inches outside the off-stump and missed the leg-stump. The batsman having no time to get his leg across. He would have cost his side four byes and himself a stinging crack on the thigh had he done so. This ball followed very shortly a good specimen of the one I have diagrammed in Plate I, and that, as Mitchell told me directly afterwards, he couldn't touch once a year.......

Besides his ordinary (extraordinary?) leg-break and off-break, Barnes can also bowl the In-swerve. It often happens that a bowler, after applying leg-break spin, sees the ball 'float' inwards toward the batsman, or if It started on his leg-stump, away from him on the leg side. Against a head wind, or one blowing from third-man, Barnes can do this at will; indeed, be can do It on a still day.

The particular deception in this is that after long bored to death with fast leg-breaks and off-breaks, the batsman, on seeing the ball In the air well outside his off stump, apparently over-teased, gets across his wicket to collect the four runs offering through the covers. But this is no half-volley. Losing its initial momentum, but retaining much of its lateral spin, the ball now becomes more susceptible to the air preasure which is acting with great force on its righthand surface (looking at it through the would be striker's spectacles) - and therefore deviates suddenly from the off into the batsman.
If he is too planted on his feet, set for the offside four, the umpire generally errs and gives him out lbw because such a ball will never hit the stumps after pitching a goodish length. If the batsman just sees in time what is happening, and is very quick on his pins to boot, he may get tack in time and make short-leg do the rest, or get out of his trouble as best he may. In any event this inswerver is not an easy ball. In considering it one has to remember especially that it is bowled more or less with leg-break action. This being so the batsman thinks, if It is pitching short, that here is a certain four cut, and if well up a driven four. Whereas it is neither, and thus determined attack has to be changed while the ball is travelling about four yards into solid defence. In the face of these facts, is Barnes' success to be wondered at?.....

07 Aug 1912 - A GREAT BOWLER. - Trove
 
Last edited:

a massive zebra

International Captain
- Spofforth v Bradman, I have an instinct that Spofforth would win the battle. As evidenced a couple of times during his career, Bradman was susceptible to extreme pace & so I believe that Spoffoth would have most likely figured the Don out whilst bowling at 80%, exploring Bradman's thinking as a batsman. Then, as so often was the case with Spofforth dismissals, Bradman would fall prey to a deadly quicker ball, perfectly aimed, just short of a length, without any hint of change in his action, which would rise a lot sooner on Bradman than he'd previously expected.

Bradman c Oldfield b Spofforth 23
What evidence is there that Bradman was susceptible to extreme pace? Harold Larwood is widely considered to have been one of the quickest bowlers ever, but Bradman handled him relatively easily in the 1928-29 Ashes and completely decimated him in the 1930 series. Yes, Larwood had some success against Bradman in the 1932-33 Bodyline series, but this was with a now illegal field and Bradman still finished the series as the most successful batsman on either side, finishing with a record that would have been considered respectable for every other batsman that has ever played. Yes, Eddie Gilbert once famously bowled him out for a duck, but Bradman also scored a convincing double century against him and averaged 88 when playing against teams including Gilbert.

In any case, Spofforth wasn't really a bowler of extreme pace. Let me quote from Richard Cashman's book, The Demon Spofforth (1990):

Spofforth was certainly not, by modern standards, fast. His first wicket in Test cricket was a stumping, and five of his 92 Test wickets were likewise. This would suggest that he may have bowled at the pace of Alec Bedser, for whom keepers sometimes stood at the wickets. Blackham and Murdoch stood at the stumps for the majority of Spofforth deliveries, though they retreated a few paces when Spofforth signalled that he intended to bowl a faster delivery.

Spofforth boasted that he was "the fastest bowler that ever was", which Lord Hawke dismissed as "harmless delusion" because "he never achieved anything like the pace of JJ Kotze or Charles Kortright or even, for that matter, a number of other bowlers such as Thomas Richardson."

At best Spofforth can probably claim to be the fastest bowler around in the 1870s and possibly the early 1880s. In modern terms Spofforth would rank as a fast-medium bowler at his very best; that is, his fastest ball might just about fall into that category.
 
Last edited:

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
Agree with the first part but disagree with the second.

Swing and spin together is impossible, but it is possible for a quickish delivery to spin quite a bit. That's what cutters are, basically. The "swing" that people said Barnes got was in all probability the drift he got in the air due to the revs he put on the ball. I imagine Barnes' bowling to be Afridi on steroids. (ie) spin bowler who bowled relatively quick and got the ball to drift and spin at pace.
But cutters don't "spin quite a bit". They deviate just enough to get an edge or slip between bat and pad.

A ball bowled at pace can't grip the pitch to spin significantly. It slides on too much.
 

watson

Banned
But cutters don't "spin quite a bit". They deviate just enough to get an edge or slip between bat and pad.

A ball bowled at pace can't grip the pitch to spin significantly. It slides on too much.
During an interview with David Frith the rather angry Barnes was adamant that he spun the ball rather than cut it.

Did he cut the ball like Underwood? "Cut it!" He glared, and again I wondered if he might hurl something at me. "I spun the ball!" Those long, gnarled fingers gyrated around imaginary leather. He bowled a brisk medium, but applied spin, with excruciating accuracy.

Was Barnes the greatest bowler of all time? | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo
I don't think that there's much doubt that Barnes spun the ball enough to beat the bat at 'medium pace' - even on the flatest of wickets. That is, around the 110 - 120 kph mark - which incidently is about the same speed that Afridi bowls his leg-breaks.
 
Last edited:

jimmy101

Cricketer Of The Year
What evidence is there that Bradman was susceptible to extreme pace? Harold Larwood is widely considered to have been one of the quickest bowlers ever, but Bradman handled him relatively easily in the 1928-29 Ashes and completely decimated him in the 1930 series. Yes, Larwood had some success against Bradman in the 1932-33 Bodyline series, but this was with a now illegal field and Bradman still finished the series as the most successful batsman on either side, finishing with a record that would have been considered respectable for every other batsman that has ever played. Yes, Eddie Gilbert once famously bowled him out for a duck, but Bradman also scored a convincing double century against him and averaged 88 when playing against teams including Gilbert.

In any case, Spofforth wasn't really a bowler of extreme pace. Let me quote from Richard Cashman's book, The Demon Spofforth (1990):
That's true, but arguably Larwood & Gilbert were one-dimensional bowlers who bowled fast, faster & that's it. Once Braddles got the upper hand (ie Gilbert) he could thrash them round the ground with ease. The key to Spofforth's wickets however was within his variations, not to mention his accuracy which probably would still be widely regarded if he played today. To me, Spofforth seems to be akin to Glenn McGrath, but with one extra weapon - the quicker ball.
 

the big bambino

Cricketer Of The Year
Gilbert was one dimensional but Larwood won 2 series in Australia, with different tactics each time and against the impediment of Bradman. He was a dexterous and adaptable bowler. Whereas Gilbert could hardly take a wicket outside Brisbane.
 

jimmy101

Cricketer Of The Year
Orright.

My teams

Test

Matt Hayden
Len Hutton
Don Bradman
Viv Richards
Garry Sobers
Adam Gilchrist
Keith Miller
Wasim Akram
Richard Hadlee
Shane Warne
Curtly Ambrose


ODI

Sachin Tendulkar
Adam Gilchrist
Viv Richards
Garry Sobers
Don Bradman
AB DeVilliers
Keith Miller
Wasim Akram
Richard Hadlee
Murali
Curtly Ambrose

T20

Adam Gilchrist
Garry Sobers
Viv Richards
AB DeVilliers
Don Bradman
Sachin Tendulkar
Keith Miller
Wasim Akram
Richard Hadlee
Shane Warne
Curtly Ambrose


Rest of squad-
Imran Khan
Glenn McGrath
Surprised to read that earlier in this thread Red Hill you picked Hayden to open for your ATG Test team against *****'s space invaders! Happened ages ago I know, but this is a huge thread.
 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
I've got a challenge for you all - select a squad of 16 that you would back to play in a 5 test, 7 ODI and 3 T20 series to save Earth from a touring party of Aliens who want to destroy us.

If we win or draw on aggregate, Earth remains safe. If we lose, we all die.

The players you pick will be plucked from whatever time you choose using a time machine, transported to the current day, and will attend a 1 year training camp to prepare them for this series.

16 players for all 15 games across all three formats. You can not name any more for reserve; if someone is injured over the course of this series, you have to make do with whoever is left. You can select whoever you want to be a part of the backroom staff - there is no limitation on that.
Ah, yeh, I reckon my thinking was Hayden would be handy as a reserve opener in both ODI and T20, cos there was a 16 player limit.
 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
I picked Hayden because he can easily slot into the shorter form teams if needed. Would rely on AB to open in a test if one of the openers were out.

AB gives me a reserve keeper.

AB and Kohli can play tests if needed.

In hindsight, would drop Kapil from the squad and include Murali. Still gives me a squad of six quicks including Miller. Also means Murali and Warne can play together on the right wickets.
This was my thinking.
 

Gob

International Coach
Best since 90

M Hayden
V Sehwag
R Ponting
S Tendulkar
B Lara
J Kallis
A Gilchrist
S Warne
M Muralidaran
C Ambrose
G McGrath
 

The Battlers Prince

International Vice-Captain
That's a bit rough on Curtly's batting to stick him at 10 and Murali 9?

Some tough choices, no Sanga, Pollock, Wasim, Donald.
I'm assuming you're not picking guys with unfinished careers?
 

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
Since 90.

Graeme Smith
Kumar Sangakkara
Ricky Ponting
Sachin Tendulkar
Brian Lara
Steve Waugh
Adam Gilchrist
Wasim Akram
Shane Warne
Curtly Ambrose
Glenn McGrath


Sanga batting out of position but wgaf
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Since 90.

Graeme Smith
Kumar Sangakkara
Ricky Ponting
Sachin Tendulkar
Brian Lara
Steve Waugh
Adam Gilchrist
Wasim Akram
Shane Warne
Curtly Ambrose
Glenn McGrath


Sanga batting out of position but wgaf
If you hate Hayden and Sehwag then pick Dravid as opener imo. Better fit for the opening slot than Sanga. I reckon he would've been an ATG opener if he'd done it for most of his career.
 

Top