Top 10 Greatest Fast Bowlers of All Time in Tests?

[Migara]

I thought the purpose of the Barnes stats was to compare them to his peers at the time rather than guessing how bad the opposition were. Someone who can be bothered with such things would need to compare stats of other bowlers of the era against the same opposition.

I don't think there were many oppositions those days.

 

[ataraxia]

Not that I'm saying they were good, but Saffa pre-WWI were a very interesting side.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I don't think there were many oppositions those days.

Doesn't matter. Other bowlers must have bowled against the bunch of one-legged South African waiters who'd never played cricket before that enhances the Barnes stats so much.

 

[Burgey]

I believe you. What insane fizz off the deck here. Top-order batsmen caught halfway through their strokes.

Lamb a bit stiff there tbh.

 

[Victor Ian]

Nice to get a bit better resolution than I normally see for older cricket.

I was watching something about computer completion of images. I can see a day when a computer will fix all old grainy footage so that it is HD. Hopefully it comes soon.

 

[Line and Length]

@Migara Have you bothered to read Pap Finn Keighl's post on page 10? I'll highlight a section from that post describing Barnes's performances in his mid-fifties.

• In September 1927, Barnes, now 54, played against the touring New Zealanders in a first class game. In 35 overs he took 4 for 47 including the legendary Charlie Dempster.
• Then, next year, against the visiting West Indians, our man Barnes, bowled 27 overs (almost non-stop it seems since the innings lasted exactly 60 overs) and took 7 West Indian wickets for 51 runs. He was past 55 years.
  He took another five wickets in the second innings and Wales actually won the match. Barnes got Challenor in both innings.
• In 1929, it was the turn of the South Africans. In under 14 overs, 5 of which were maidens, Barnes took 6 South African wickets for a mere 28 runs. These included South African greats Bruce Mitchell and Herbie Taylor. Mitchell was Bradman's contemporary and played his last Test in 1949. So much for the argument based on the bad wickets of the early 20th century. He took another 4 in the second knock as Wales came close to defeating the visitors losing by just 10 runs!!

Do you consider players such as Dempster, Mitchell and Taylor to be minnows?

I prefer to bow to the opinion of Don Bradman and others who rate Barnes so highly, rather than your monotonous anti-Barnes rubbish.

 

[Days of Grace]

We pointed that out this is due to him manhandling / arse raping or what ever adjective you want - the south africans who were woeful minnows.

I’m not sure South Africa were “woeful minnows.”

They beat England at home in 1905/06 and 1909/10 and won a test vs Australia away in 1910/11.

Rather than being absolute minnows they were probably on par with a modern day West Indies or Afghanistan.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

M A T T I N G W I C K E T S

im not gonna pretend they weren't cricket but it's certainly something else than what it's played on now

 

[Migara]

@Migara Have you bothered to read Pap Finn Keighl's post on page 10? I'll highlight a section from that post describing Barnes's performances in his mid-fifties.

• In September 1927, Barnes, now 54, played against the touring New Zealanders in a first class game. In 35 overs he took 4 for 47 including the legendary Charlie Dempster.
• Then, next year, against the visiting West Indians, our man Barnes, bowled 27 overs (almost non-stop it seems since the innings lasted exactly 60 overs) and took 7 West Indian wickets for 51 runs. He was past 55 years.
  He took another five wickets in the second innings and Wales actually won the match. Barnes got Challenor in both innings.
• In 1929, it was the turn of the South Africans. In under 14 overs, 5 of which were maidens, Barnes took 6 South African wickets for a mere 28 runs. These included South African greats Bruce Mitchell and Herbie Taylor. Mitchell was Bradman's contemporary and played his last Test in 1949. So much for the argument based on the bad wickets of the early 20th century. He took another 4 in the second knock as Wales came close to defeating the visitors losing by just 10 runs!!

Do you consider players such as Dempster, Mitchell and Taylor to be minnows?

I prefer to bow to the opinion of Don Bradman and others who rate Barnes so highly, rather than your monotonous anti-Barnes rubbish.

For a start, Barns didn't play test cricket in his fifties. For me opinions don't matter much, because they change with time. Numbers don't.

Non one denies Barnes was great. Discussion was whether he was greater than Marshall. It looks like the numbers presented pinched a raw nerve, but I cannot help, because they were not even presented by me in first hand. You should try to divert your misplaced irritation somewhere else.

 

[Victor Ian]

If numbers DONT change with time, then 7 wickets per match at 16.4!

 

[Engle]

When you pick an ATG XI, the objective is to win matches

When you pick a ATG Top 10, the objective goes beyond that to also include color, character, contribution to the game…i.e what did they bring to the cricketing table

In this regard, the difference between Marshall and Barnes is stark

Marshall was fortunate to find himself in the midst of the greatest fast bowling attack the game has known. He came after Roberts, Holding, Garner, and before Ambrose, Walsh. He was surrounded by a supporting cast of superstars who passed along tips and techniques, tricks and tactics to torment and torture batsmen out.

Barnes stands alone, with but his wits and wiliness to winkle out batsmen one way or another.

Put another way, if Marshall did not exist, there were a plethora of pacers from within the W.Indies who would fill the void with barely a ripple.

If Barnes did not exist, the game would not be as rich as it is with his powerful performances and profound story.

And that’s why he has withstood the test of time, for over 100 years.

 

[Flem274*]

We pointed that out this is due to him manhandling / arse raping or what ever adjective you want - the south africans who were woeful minnows.

sorry bro missed the part where cricketers dropped their daks onfield for some non-consensual gay ***

 

[anil1405]

Put another way, if Marshall did not exist, there were a plethora of pacers from within the W.Indies who would fill the void with barely a ripple.

What rubbish. The fact that he came after those big three names you mentioned and went on to earn the reputation of being the best of the pack says a lot in itself.

 

[_00_deathscar]

When you pick an ATG XI, the objective is to win matches

When you pick a ATG Top 10, the objective goes beyond that to also include color, character, contribution to the game…i.e what did they bring to the cricketing table

In this regard, the difference between Marshall and Barnes is stark

Marshall was fortunate to find himself in the midst of the greatest fast bowling attack the game has known. He came after Roberts, Holding, Garner, and before Ambrose, Walsh. He was surrounded by a supporting cast of superstars who passed along tips and techniques, tricks and tactics to torment and torture batsmen out.

Barnes stands alone, with but his wits and wiliness to winkle out batsmen one way or another.

Put another way, if Marshall did not exist, there were a plethora of pacers from within the W.Indies who would fill the void with barely a ripple.

If Barnes did not exist, the game would not be as rich as it is with his powerful performances and profound story.

And that’s why he has withstood the test of time, for over 100 years.

So it's settled then -the top ATG bowler ever was the very first bowler, ever.

 

[TheJediBrah]

For a start, Barns didn't play test cricket in his fifties. For me opinions don't matter much, because they change with time. Numbers don't.

Non one denies Barnes was great. Discussion was whether he was greater than Marshall. It looks like the numbers presented pinched a raw nerve, but I cannot help, because they were not even presented by me in first hand. You should try to divert your misplaced irritation somewhere else.

Numbers "change" more than opinions depending on a whole lot of factors. If we take all numbers at face value then Voges is the 2nd best batsman ever

 

[Slifer]

Overall he took 7 wickets per game and averaged 16.43 in 27 tests. When you bear in mind only 4 players in test history with over 50 wickets average less with the ball and only 5 bowlers in total have averaged over 6 wickets per game then it puts it more into context especially when 27 tests is a good number of games. Barnes did have amazing stats vs SA, but he averaged 21.58 against Australia with over 5 wickets per game. Only 20 bowlers in test history average with 50+ wickets average over 5 wickets per game - he was bashing Australia too mate.

On an off topic note I did notice Murali on 6.02 per game compared to Warne with 4.88 - never checked that before all things considered kinda turns the screw somewhat on Warne when Murali averaged 22.73 compared to 25.42 for Warne, who played in a much stronger team.

Not to start a Murali vs Warne debate but

When you pick an ATG XI, the objective is to win matches

When you pick a ATG Top 10, the objective goes beyond that to also include color, character, contribution to the game…i.e what did they bring to the cricketing table

In this regard, the difference between Marshall and Barnes is stark

Marshall was fortunate to find himself in the midst of the greatest fast bowling attack the game has known. He came after Roberts, Holding, Garner, and before Ambrose, Walsh. He was surrounded by a supporting cast of superstars who passed along tips and techniques, tricks and tactics to torment and torture batsmen out.

Barnes stands alone, with but his wits and wiliness to winkle out batsmen one way or another.

Put another way, if Marshall did not exist, there were a plethora of pacers from within the W.Indies who would fill the void with barely a ripple.

If Barnes did not exist, the game would not be as rich as it is with his powerful performances and profound story.

And that’s why he has withstood the test of time, for over 100 years.

Wrong. What sets Marshall apart was his universal destruction. He was as destructive on the dust bowls of the sub continent as he was on the hard wickets in Australia and the swinging conditions in England. One thing to also bear in mind is that Marshall never played a match vs any minnow team, yet even among the likes of Garner etc he matched lone wolves like Hadlee in wpm up until the latter stages of his career. There's some ridiculous stat of him taking either 20 wickets or 5 fors in successive matches (I don't remember the stat), which is mind blowing considering his competition.

Watch the masterclass of fast bowling by Ambrose to get a glimpse of the unprecedented genius that MM was.

None of his fellow West Indian bowlers remotely approach him in skill and universal effectiveness.

Barnes stats etc are exceptional but I shutter to think what Marshall would do on under prepared wickets playing tests against any team (he was great vs all) and a handful of matches vs a way below par batting lineup.

 

[Line and Length]

The current debate regarding Barnes was never intended as a comparison between him and Marshall. It arose after Barnes appeared in a couple of members' Top Ten lists and someone posed the question "How is Marshall better than Barnes?"

Since then, Migara has posted half a dozen or so pieces designed to lessen Barnes's achievements. He harps on about South Africa being the "worst minnows of cricket history", even writing a disgusting comment about "manhandling/arse raping". On more than one occasion he refers to "adjusted IIRC figures" ... referring to them as "corrected" yet, in his latest post he states " .... opinions change with time. Numbers don't." He also questions Barnes's discipline without providing any evidence.

On a further point, neither PFK nor I claimed that Barnes obtained those remarkable figures while in his 50's in Test matches. We were simply pointing out the quality of batsmen he conquered while at an age when most bowlers would have been long retired.

My "misplaced irritation" isn't about numbers having "pinched a raw nerve". It's about contradictory statements (corrected numbers vs numbers never changing), exaggeration (where is the proof S.A. were the worst minnows in history?), presumption (questioning someone's discipline) and a sickeningly obscene post.

 

[NZTailender]

At this point I'm surprised anyone is even bothering to reply to Migara. The giveaway of the how much of a trollpost they are doing is when they insist Lillee isn't top 10 but Jimmy Anderson is.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The current debate regarding Barnes was never intended as a comparison between him and Marshall. It arose after Barnes appeared in a couple of members' Top Ten lists and someone posed the question "How is Marshall better than Barnes?"

Since then, Migara has posted half a dozen or so pieces designed to lessen Barnes's achievements. He harps on about South Africa being the "worst minnows of cricket history", even writing a disgusting comment about "manhandling/arse raping". On more than one occasion he refers to "adjusted IIRC figures" ... referring to them as "corrected" yet, in his latest post he states " .... opinions change with time. Numbers don't." He also questions Barnes's discipline without providing any evidence.

On a further point, neither PFK nor I claimed that Barnes obtained those remarkable figures while in his 50's in Test matches. We were simply pointing out the quality of batsmen he conquered while at an age when most bowlers would have been long retired.

My "misplaced irritation" isn't about numbers having "pinched a raw nerve". It's about contradictory statements (corrected numbers vs numbers never changing), exaggeration (where is the proof S.A. were the worst minnows in history?), presumption (questioning someone's discipline) and a sickeningly obscene post.

One of the more brutal smackdowns I've seen here

 

[Gob]

I'm with Migara on this one. Minnow bashing definitely skew overall records hence they should be withdrawn from bowlers record's to get the proper picture