How does Sydney Barnes rank among bowlers?

[HookShot]

Incidentally, Alec Bedser famously bowled Bradman for a duck in Adelaide with a ‘Barnes Ball’;

"When I bowled Don at Adelaide, the ball swung in after pitching round leg stump, moved from leg to off and hit the off stump. Don must have missed it by six inches.”

And yes it was a true ‘Barnes Ball’ because Bedser actually spun the ball, rather than cut it.

“Today they call this a legcutter and because of the big seam on the ball these days it deviates upon pitching. Balls just after the war had hardly any seam, so I found I had to actually spin the ball. I found my big hands helped the process and that I did not have to change my action at all."

So there you have it. Two great English medium paced bowlers using finger-spin to bowl leg-breaks that also ‘swerved’ through the air - so much so that they were able to clean bowl the best batsman of the day.

Was Bedser better than Barnes himself at bowling the ‘Barnes Ball’. Possibly, but we’ll never know.

(The above quotes come from a letter he penned to Ashley Mallet, and it’s well worth a read)

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/ashley-mallett-when-bedser-bowled-the-don-for-a-duck-775599

 

[HookShot]

Feel free to comment or disagree with above conclusion Starfighter as you obviously know your stuff.

 

[HookShot]

‘...with his long and strong figures he must have been able to impart considerable torque on the ball because opponents now spoke in awe of the in-swinging ball that pitched on or even outside leg stump but which broke across them to hit the top of the off-stump or find the end to the wicketkeeper or slip cordon. This is further evidence that there were enough revs on the ball to get the Magnus Effect to give the ball sideways momentum. (Is the Barnes fast leg-break prophetic of Bedser?)’

’The leg break was also bowled out of the front of the hand.
The intriguing photograph below hints that the third and small finger of the right hand was held under the side of the ball and that the spin was imparted by these flicking upwards.’

https://downatthirdman.wordpress.com/2010/04/14/enigma-variations-s-f-barnes-and-a-mendis/

 

[kyear2]

I'm going by my eyes, and nothing I've seen suggests that he was nothing other than a spin bowlers, a quicker one, but a spin bowlers none the less.

 

[Nikhil99.99]

This video where boycott describes barnes is great as well.Boycott describes about what Barnes bowled clearly in this video.

 

[Line and Length]

Barnes claimed he spun the ball.

Stop playing semantics. Bowling cutter involves a certain amount of ball rotation which Barnes may (or may not) have called spin. Instead of arguing about words used describe the mode of delivery, how about accepting he was a fast-medium bowler (about Bedser's pace) with an ATG record. I haven't voted for him as we will possibly be having a vote for medium pacers.

 

[HookShot]

Stop playing semantics. Bowling cutter involves a certain amount of ball rotation which Barnes may (or may not) have called spin. Instead of arguing about words used describe the mode of delivery, how about accepting he was a fast-medium bowler (about Bedser's pace) with an ATG record. I haven't voted for him as we will possibly be having a vote for medium pacers.

Sure, you can take that cut-down version of Barnes if you like, but where’s the fun in that when there is a wealth of information about one of cricket’s most interesting bowlers.

Can someone please confirm whether any of those three photos show a conventional grip for the leg-cutter?

 

[kyear2]

This video where boycott describes barnes is great as well.Boycott describes about what Barnes bowled clearly in this video.

You do realize though that Boycott is just repeating the same stories that we've already cited. And there's a lot of possibly's and likely's.

The point though that it is a discussion proves a point by itself. I can only go by what I've seen, and from the footage that we have in this forum, he definitely wasn't medium. True, it could have been what he was bowling at that time in his career, but it's all I have to go by.

Also, to point out some other hypocrisies, we just went through a batting rating where it was accepted that Pollock and Headley just didn't play enough tests to make it to the top 10. Barnes also played under 30 tests, but seems to be less of an issue here.
Many use Mirali's record against minnows against him, but then we ignore the impact that it had on Barnes career, and the impact was significantly greater.

Regardless of the conviction of some, we can't be absolutely sure what he bowled, there was clearly a lack of quality opposition around that time in the game, especially when compared to the post war game, and even taking that into consideration he feasted on minnows and regardless of the reason, had a very abbreviated test career.

While it's easy to romanticise the past, I personally find it hard to place him above any of a dozen bowlers in this great game's history.

 

[Line and Length]

Sure, you can take that cut-down version of Barnes if you like, but where’s the fun in that when there is a wealth of information about one of cricket’s most interesting bowlers.

Can someone please confirm whether any of those three photos show a conventional grip for the leg-cutter?

View attachment 30739

You missed my point. Migara has been prattling on about swing v drift and spin v cut/seam. I agree, there is a wealth of information about the man but Migara has been dismissive of much of this (eg "Swing, spin and seam the ball at same time . . .
Utter bollocks. This is why I take descriptions in the past with a ton of salt." and "This is drift. Not swing. Swing occurs due to Bernoulli effect.")

 

[ankitj]

Why didn't anyone else bowl whatever Barnes used to bowl since his day?

 

[cnerd123]

Also, to point out some other hypocrisies, we just went through a batting rating where it was accepted that Pollock and Headley just didn't play enough tests to make it to the top 10. Barnes also played under 30 tests, but seems to be less of an issue here.

I think the variance in a batsman's career are much greater than in a bowler's, hence needing a larger sample size for batters.

Given the same number of Tests a bowler will almost always bowl more balls than any one batter faces, so they inherently have a larger body of work to evaluate from.

On top of that there is a wider range of adaptation required by a batter during their career to account for various pitches/bowlers, so until we see them really tested in a variety of ways it's hard to judge. A bowler's game doesn't need to adapt as much, and it's easier to rate and evaluate them even if they haven't bowled against every batter/in every set of conditions. Like, we can watch a bowler operate in England and know almost right away how they'll perform in India or Australia without having to actually see them bowl there. The same doesn't hold true for batters.

Finally luck and form plays a bigger role in a batters career than it does for a bowler. One bad decision, or slice of bad luck, and that's the end of a batter's innings, but a bowler always has the rest of the over, and often several more overs, to compensate. Plus a bowler can bowl themselves into rhythm, much harder for a batter to do the same during a game.

So yea I think it's generally okay to expect a larger sample size from batters when evaluating their careers.

 

[cnerd123]

Why didn't anyone else bowled whatever Barnes used to bowl since his day?

I always wonder this.

My guess is pitches + balls have something to do with this, but i suppose as a culture modern cricket isn't as open to bowlers who want to hold the line between pace and spin. Coaches probably force kids into one or the other, and we've probably lost the art of highly skillful medium pace bowling in the process.

 

[HookShot]

You do realize though that Boycott is just repeating the same stories that we've already cited. And there's a lot of possibly's and likely's.

The point though that it is a discussion proves a point by itself. I can only go by what I've seen, and from the footage that we have in this forum, he definitely wasn't medium. True, it could have been what he was bowling at that time in his career, but it's all I have to go by.

Also, to point out some other hypocrisies, we just went through a batting rating where it was accepted that Pollock and Headley just didn't play enough tests to make it to the top 10. Barnes also played under 30 tests, but seems to be less of an issue here.
Many use Mirali's record against minnows against him, but then we ignore the impact that it had on Barnes career, and the impact was significantly greater.

Regardless of the conviction of some, we can't be absolutely sure what he bowled, there was clearly a lack of quality opposition around that time in the game, especially when compared to the post war game, and even taking that into consideration he feasted on minnows and regardless of the reason, had a very abbreviated test career.

While it's easy to romanticise the past, I personally find it hard to place him above any of a dozen bowlers in this great game's history.

Boycott’s summary wasn’t very good, and was actually a little misleading.

Also, we can be about 95% sure as to what he bowled and how he bowled it in some detail.

All you have to do is pick up some books, read them, remember the images, and then apply a little imagination. I can picture Clem Hill’s dismissal as if it were on live TV right now; beginning with Barnes at the top of his run-up and ending with his off-stump knocked back.

After reading Bedser’s description of his bowling in 1946 I can also picture him bowling Bradman in similar fashion.

 

[Starfighter]

The point though that it is a discussion proves a point by itself. I can only go by what I've seen, and from the footage that we have in this forum, he definitely wasn't medium. True, it could have been what he was bowling at that time in his career, but it's all I have to go by.

So you're judging from footage of a man of an age by which many will struggle to bowl faster than a ten-year-old? And with a slip standing farther back than for a spinner?

How hard is it to accept he was similar in pace (and method to some extent) to this guy?

I can't help but find the comparison with O'Reilly a bit amusing. O'Reilly actually did cut rather than spin his leg break, something very apparent from any decent footage, there being no wrist action (though they're both ways of applying spin, as some fail to understand). For comparison he was considered to be similar in pace to Wright (maybe a bit faster at times), who appears at 1:16.

 

[Migara]

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

Ok, then he did spun the ball. So why post unimportant drivel on "cutting" the ball?

 

[Migara]

Stop playing semantics. Bowling cutter involves a certain amount of ball rotation which Barnes may (or may not) have called spin. Instead of arguing about words used describe the mode of delivery, how about accepting he was a fast-medium bowler (about Bedser's pace) with an ATG record. I haven't voted for him as we will possibly be having a vote for medium pacers.

Semantics are very important. Correct semantics bring down people from God" mode to "Human" mode. Barnes was a fast medium bowler probably when he was letting it go as fast as he can, bowling as a seamer. All the other times he was a fastish spinner of Kumble / Chandra / Underwood pace. He was bloody good, that is not disputed. But bowling spin, producing turn at fast medium pace (125-135kmph) is hogwash.

 

[Migara]

You missed my point. Migara has been prattling on about swing v drift and spin v cut/seam. I agree, there is a wealth of information about the man but Migara has been dismissive of much of this (eg "Swing, spin and seam the ball at same time . . .
Utter bollocks. This is why I take descriptions in the past with a ton of salt." and "This is drift. Not swing. Swing occurs due to Bernoulli effect.")

I still am. Physics don't support the claim. Physics is ALWAYS correct compared to anecdotes.

 

[Migara]

Why didn't anyone else bowl whatever Barnes used to bowl since his day?

O'Riely, Chandra, Kumble, (back of the hand, but still bloody quick), and then Iverson, Mendis, Gleeson and all those Carom ball bowlers do the same thing. "Front of the hand leg break with a finger snap"

Underwood, Tuffnell, Jasubhai Patel, Warnaweera bowler finger spinning variety with similar pace.

 

[Starfighter]

Ok, then he did spun the ball. So why post unimportant drivel on "cutting" the ball?

I'm explaining a subtletly of terms and methods that's beyond your pea-brained intellect.

 

[HookShot]

I

So you're judging from footage of a man of an age by which many will struggle to bowl faster than a ten-year-old? And with a slip standing farther back than for a spinner?

How hard is it to accept he was similar in pace (and method to some extent) to this guy?

I can't help but find the comparison with O'Reilly a bit amusing. O'Reilly actually did cut rather than spin his leg break, something very apparent from any decent footage, there being no wrist action (though they're both ways of applying spin, as some fail to understand). For comparison he was considered to be similar in pace to Wright (maybe a bit faster at times), who appears at 1:16.

Bradman thought that O’Reilly and Barnes were similar bowlers; Barnes being just a bit a quicker.

And he’d be right if this quote is anything to go by as their method of imparting revolutions on the ball seems to be similar.

That is, in effect they were both ‘unscrewing a light bulb’ as it were...

‘It is also a consensus that O’Reilly did not turn the ball a great deal. It seems to Third Man that from the photographs of the grip yesterday he produced his revolutions by flicking the ring finger upwards with the palm facing the batsman for the leg-break. He thus may have sacrificed the extra revolutions imparted by a flick of the wrist.’

Bill O’Reilly – Down At Third Man

Posts about Bill O’Reilly written by downatthirdman

downatthirdman.wordpress.com