CW's Ranking of Pace Bowlers (Tests)

[mr_mister]

I do plan on starting a spinners thread eventually once I end the batsmen one, so y'all can save Barnes for that thread if you want.

he'l get shortchanged in that for sure.

if we're not including him, then Wasim

 

[ataraxia]

I'd rather not include Barnes because of era adjustments (+ Lohmann, Turner, Hirst, Sinclair, Foster, etc.)

 

[mr_mister]

Barnes was 20th century though. He played alongside Hobbs who got number 2 in the batting one.

 

[ataraxia]

Amongst the top 20 pacers his closest contemporary is Trueman, 50 years off. And bowling back then was very different to now; iirc Hirst was the first proper exponent of swing. Hobbs was 10 years later, much more proven in FC, made runs aplenty after WWI, and had contemporaries.

Basically I don't like it. I don't like Barry, Grace in the batting one or Barnes in the bowling one because it leads to stupid arguments, people voting for the same guy forever in the row, etc. Ruins the real fun in comparisons in these exercises IMO.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Amongst the top 20 pacers his closest contemporary is Trueman, 50 years off.

I'd definitely have Larwood in the top 20 and he started for Notts in 1924.

 

[subshakerz]

Imran. Best Pakistani pacer.

Outperformed Lillee in WSC and against the WI.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Anyway, I vote for Lillee

 

[morgieb]

Are we counting Barnes or not?

If so, him. If not, Imran.

 

[HookShot]

Dennis Lillee

 

[subshakerz]

I suggest not to. put Barnes as I would have voted for him earlier if I had known he was up for selection.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

I feel Barnes fits somewhere 4-6 and would've voted for him by now if I could.

 

[mr_mister]

#justiceforBarnes

 

[The Sean]

Needs to be a medium-pacers one for the likes of Barnes, Lohmann, Bedser, Turner, Fazal, Tate etc. Would include Philander in that too I reckon.

 

[The Sean]

Imran

 

[HookShot]

Bradman’s opinion (see quote) on SF Barnes is a reflection of the opinion of his time. That is, SF Barnes and Bill O’Reilly were essentially the same type of bowler - a ‘medium’ spinner.

There is a very good case to say that SF Barnes and Alec Bedser were the same type of bowler as they both bowled deliveries that pitched on leg stump to hit the off. So O’Reilly or Bedser, take your pick. But Maurice Tate no, as his method of delivery was completely different to the other three.

From all accounts, they were similar. Barnes was faster, but he didn’t have the googly (“wrong-un”).

They were both aggressive and could deliver perhaps the hardest of all deliveries to keep out - the very quick leg-break. O’Reilly was relentless and unforgiving if you managed to strike him to the boundary.

Reports suggest Barnes was in some ways similar in character. He may have had variety in his deliveries than O’Reilly. Barnes bowled fast off-breaks, out-swingers and in-swingers.

Like O’Reilly, he would have been more than handful for the best of any era.’

(Donald Bradman - ‘Bradman’s Best Ashes Teams’, page 425)[/ISPOILER]

 

[mr_mister]

having Barnes down as pace and O'Reilly as spin as always made sense to me, but I understand they had a similar style

 

[subshakerz]

I feel Barnes fits somewhere 4-6 and would've voted for him by now if I could.

Its really difficult to place Barnes though. He might as well be no.1 but how exactly do we put Marshall above him and Lillee below him? There is no calculus for that.

I see Barnes as a unique bowler in his own category.

If we do include him, its on the basis on stats and peer opinion which should put him ahead of everyone.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Akram
Greatest of last 100 years.

Since we are not considering Barnes the GOAT.

 

[HookShot]

Needs to be a medium-pacers one for the likes of Barnes, Lohmann, Bedser, Turner, Fazal, Tate etc. Would include Philander in that too I reckon.

Everyone loves speed, speed, speed so bowlers like Bedser and Fazal haven’t a hope of breaking into the top 10, or even 20 despite being more skillful with the ball.

So yeah, there probably needs to be 3 x categories because the skills and methods involved to take wickets are so different.....

Fast
Medium
Slow

 

[steve132]

Dennis Lillee