How does Sydney Barnes rank among bowlers?

[Migara]

Who said that Barnes bowled at the same pace all the time?

When opening the bowling he would sacrifice turn for pace; and as the ball and pitch started to wear he would ‘give the ball some air’ as it were.

That is, drop his speed from 70mph (Bedser) to 60mph (Swann).

In theory it is nice, but in practice it is not the case. When the speed of the ball changes drastically, the release points differ so much, it's like an announcement of the pace that you are going to ball. Visit Shane Warne's flipper tutorial, and he asks to keep the same arm speed (or slow down a bit if possible) for a flipper, because the natural tendency to bowl it quicker (and hence noticeable). In addition to the release point the trajectory also change drastically.

That is why spinners are asked to make subtle changes of pace and flight. Massive changes are noticeable. A drop from 70mph (Like Afridi) to 50mph (like Warne) as massively noticeable to a player with international quality. Barnes would have not been this successful changing between 50 and 70.

 

[HookShot]

He wouldn't have learned a thing though. Cricket ball has a seam and swing originates from the seam.

Plus grip, plus revolutions. The Magnus Effect.

 

[srbhkshk]

That is why spinners are asked to make subtle changes of pace and flight. Massive changes are noticeable. A drop from 70mph (Like Afridi) to 50mph (like Warne) as massively noticeable to a player with international quality. Barnes would have not been this successful changing between 50 and 70.

He would be because the batsman of that era were just as terrible.

 

[Migara]

I think that there is enough evidence to suggest that the slow and medium bowlers of the Pre-WW1 era were just as skilful and precise as spin bowlers from the modern era.

I doubt very much that fast bowling was any where near as good as it is now due to the intensive training and physical workouts that a fast bowler like Dale Steyn or Patrick Cummins would have to go through.

But slow/medium spin bowling is more of a craft than an exercise in bio-mechanics.

Could be. But there will always be that Athlete like Larwood, who has enough pace not only to get swing but reverse swing as well.

However going back to swing, contrast swing (Swing occurring with a straight seam), occurs even at 65mph. To say what medium pacers generated back the day was drift instead of swing, they should have had superhuman finger strength to impart that much of revs on the ball.

 

[Migara]

Plus grip, plus revolutions. The Magnus Effect.

Once again, swing occurs due to Bernoulli effect. totally different mechanism.

 

[cnerd123]

Does anyone know what kind of balls they were playing with back in the pre-WW2 era? I'm just wondering if that could be a factor behind all these slow-medium spin/swing/drift guys, and if more modern cricket balls is what caused this style of bowling to die out.

 

[Migara]

Does anyone know what kind of balls they were playing with back in the pre-WW2 era? I'm just wondering if that could be a factor behind all these slow-medium spin/swing/drift guys, and if more modern cricket balls is what caused this style of bowling to die out.

With the experience of playing on matting and turf, four piece ball and two piece ball, these are my observations.

Matting is extremely conducive to bounce and spin. Even cutting the ball by rolling fingers over it produces devilish movement off the matting at pace. Same thing done on a turf it turns out to be different. A faster or a grassy turf, the ball will just skid with minimum deviation, while on a slow dry turf the ball will stop on the pitch and then deviate, some times with bounce. Batsman get defeated by the lack of pace on a slow turf, while likely to get beaten for pace on a matting with the same delivery.

Two piece ball swing all over the place. It drifts all over the place too. But the damn thing gets filthy after 60 overs with leather splitting some times due to lack of perpendicular additional seam. That was the ball used in SL since 1930s for FC tournament. Four piece ball (two seam ball) was only introduced in 70s for high profile FC matches and international matches later.

 

[HookShot]

Once again, swing occurs due to Bernoulli effect. totally different mechanism.

Magnus or Bernoulli or whatever, here is Clem Hill’s account of the ball that dismissed him at the MCG, 1902

“The ball pitched outside my leg-stump, safe to the push off my pads, I thought. Before I could pick up my bat, my off-stump was knocked silly.”

https://www.cricketcountry.com/articles/sydney-barnes-greatest-bowler-in-history-25401

Now bear in mind that Clem Hill was left-handed so the ball that got him out wasn’t even Barnes’ standard ball; instead it must have been an off-break (to a right-hander). That’s how brilliantly versatile SF Barnes was.

 

[cnerd123]

Yea that's what I'm getting at. If they were using 2-piece balls then it's not that remarkable that they can get balls to 'swerve' from off to leg and then break back sharply the other way. I imagine a lot of Test-standard spinners could get equally remarkable movement if they were to bowl with a similar ball.

 

[Migara]

Magnus or Bernoulli or whatever, here is Clem Hill’s account of the ball that dismissed him at the MCG, 1902



https://www.cricketcountry.com/articles/sydney-barnes-greatest-bowler-in-history-25401

Sorry, Bournouli and Magnus are much more clear on what they are talking about than Clem Hill. They were Scientists FFS. Just like somebody saying Swing seam and spin happening on the same delivery, laymen utter bollocks.

 

[Migara]

Yea that's what I'm getting at. If they were using 2-piece balls then it's not that remarkable that they can get balls to 'swerve' from off to leg and then break back sharply the other way. I imagine a lot of Test-standard spinners could get equally remarkable movement if they were to bowl with a similar ball.

Still it is not swing. And with 2 piece ball it is much easier to produce contrast swing than drift. So there is something in these stories that don't add up. Most likely that some parts of them a fantasized is the best explanation.

 

[cnerd123]

Still it is not swing. And with 2 piece ball it is much easier to produce contrast swing than drift. So there is something in these stories that don't add up. Most likely that some parts of them a fantasized is the best explanation.

The stories are fine, the semantics of swing/drift/swerve/curve/spin/cut/seam/etc were not well defined in pre-WW2 writing about cricket. No one's lying about movement in the air and off the pitch, they just don't know what words to use for it. All these terms were used interchangeably, it's only now that we have clear definitions for swing/drift/spin/seam/cut.

It's not remarkable at all for any bowler to get the ball to move in the air one way and off the pitch in another. Most spinners do that, and some seam bowlers can do that too when the conditions are right. Given the standard of pitches back in the day, and possibly the balls used, I'm not surprised at all at some of the tales we read.

 

[Coronis]

Does anyone know what kind of balls they were playing with back in the pre-WW2 era? I'm just wondering if that could be a factor behind all these slow-medium spin/swing/drift guys, and if more modern cricket balls is what caused this style of bowling to die out.

Probably Dukes. Anderson knows his history

 

[Line and Length]

The stories are fine, the semantics of swing/drift/swerve/curve/spin/cut/seam/etc were not well defined in pre-WW2 writing about cricket. No one's lying about movement in the air and off the pitch, they just don't know what words to use for it. All these terms were used interchangeably, it's only now that we have clear definitions for swing/drift/spin/seam/cut.

It's not remarkable at all for any bowler to get the ball to move in the air one way and off the pitch in another. Most spinners do that, and some seam bowlers can do that too when the conditions are right. Given the standard of pitches back in the day, and possibly the balls used, I'm not surprised at all at some of the tales we read.

Excellent points. It's difficult to compare eras, so we have to rely on anecdotes from players (like Hobbs and Hill) as to the bowling skills they faced.

 

[sledger]

I know nothing about cricket and even I know he was good

 

[Shady Slim]

I know nothing about cricket

you're in the right place

 

[Starfighter]

@cnerd123 the ball was slightly larger pre-WWI, Don Bradman at least thought it must have made a difference (though not sure he ever played against it). Other than that it's changed little. I've never thought it was simply coincidence that movement in the air really developed around this time, the other development being the new ball at set intervals (every 200 runs back hen).

I don't see why all this controversy arises about his style when Barnes comes up. Accounts of the era very clearly indicate he was a fast-medium bowler similar in pace to Bedser or Tait. He was not a spinner of the pace of O'Reilly, Wright or even Underwood, let alone Swann. The footage, which I believe was taken around 1930 when he was in his mid-late fifties, supports that, it's clearly an action suited to pace bowling and matches well with descriptions from earlier times.

He had an unusual method, though not unique (Ian Peebles first came to the attention of Aubrey Faulkner because he could bowl the 'Barnes ball', but he never had the confidence to produce it in a match) but it doesn't alter the style of bowler he was. He did call himself a spinner, but 'spin' is a method and was not always synonymous with 'slow spinner'. Spofforth actually distinguishes spin and cut, defining spin as using finger action and cut as forcing the hand down one side of the ball without any real twist of the fingers, but otherwise you'll see talk about medium pacers who 'got plenty of spin' who were probably cutting the ball right up till WWII. The distinction was not always made, but Barnes was one who did.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Whatever he was miles ahead of his contemporaries.

1. Barnes
2. Akram
3. Hadlee
4. Marshall
5. Murali

 

[Migara]

@cnerd123 the ball was slightly larger pre-WWI, Don Bradman at least thought it must have made a difference (though not sure he ever played against it). Other than that it's changed little. I've never thought it was simply coincidence that movement in the air really developed around this time, the other development being the new ball at set intervals (every 200 runs back hen).

I don't see why all this controversy arises about his style when Barnes comes up. Accounts of the era very clearly indicate he was a fast-medium bowler similar in pace to Bedser or Tait. He was not a spinner of the pace of O'Reilly, Wright or even Underwood, let alone Swann. The footage, which I believe was taken around 1930 when he was in his mid-late fifties, supports that, it's clearly an action suited to pace bowling and matches well with descriptions from earlier times.

He had an unusual method, though not unique (Ian Peebles first came to the attention of Aubrey Faulkner because he could bowl the 'Barnes ball', but he never had the confidence to produce it in a match) but it doesn't alter the style of bowler he was. He did call himself a spinner, but 'spin' is a method and was not always synonymous with 'slow spinner'. Spofforth actually distinguishes the two, defining spin as using finger action and cut as forcing the hand down one side of the ball without any real twist of the fingers.

Barnes claimed he spun the ball.

 

[Starfighter]

Barnes claimed he spun the ball.

Where did I say he didn't you idiot? I'm just saying it has little to do with the pace he bowled.