3rd Best English Pacer/Medium pacer

[capt_Luffy]

Really think Barnes is quite over rated, still no one can swear to what he bowled, and then there's the case that he was good against England and just jacked up that average vs minnows.

He might be overrated, he might not be overrated. For all instances and purposes what we know about him can boiled down to some simple points: He was unanimously agreed to be the best bowler of his time, no batsman really knew what to do against him, his balls were medium paced, swinged both ways (especially lethal were his late swings) and they turned big after hitting the pitch; also he could bowl all day. What excites me the most about him is the thought that maybe, just maybe, he bowled a totally unique blend of medium pace and leg spin, not recreated since.....

 

[kyear2]

He might be overrated, he might not be overrated. For all instances and purposes what we know about him can boiled down to some simple points: He was unanimously agreed to be the best bowler of his time, no batsman really knew what to do against him, his balls were medium paced, swinged both ways (especially lethal were his late swings) and they turned big after hitting the pitch; also he could bowl all day. What excites me the most about him is the thought that maybe, just maybe, he bowled a totally unique blend of medium pace and leg spin, not recreated since.....

Or he could have been similar to O'Reilly. With no real video evidence we have no idea.

 

[peterhrt]

Barnes was possibly the most self-centred cricketer to have played the game.

Contemporary reports never mention any mystery about his bowling. The only mystery at the time was being provided by the new googly bowlers. Barnes was portrayed as a normal medium-pacer who used the new ball expertly from wide of the crease to draw catches behind the wicket and in the slips. He posted two slips standing deep and only two men on the leg side, one of whom was at short-leg. It was not the field for a spinner. Barnes was always insistent about taking the new ball - again not something one would expect from a spinner.

The confusion about spin came much later, from the mouth of Barnes himself, and was lapped up by the media. It occurred only after the 1924-25 tour to Australia when Tate took 38 Test wickets, beating Barnes' own record. Barnes was miffed and got even more annoyed when writers suggested the two were comparable.

Tate was one of the first seam bowlers. So Barnes boasted superiority by claiming to have "spun" every ball. This was almost certainly nonsense. Decades later Barnes said that Bedser was the bowler most similar in method to himself, which seems a much more plausible description. Bedser was never regarded as a spinner. He bowled mainly inswing and leg-cutters.

As other posters have pointed out, "spin" was also a term sometimes used before 1914 to describe anything deviating off the pitch at whatever speed, even from fast bowlers like Richardson.

Barnes, Tate and Bedser all had over-sized hands, which no doubt enabled them to get extra work on the ball somehow. Certainly they all obtained late movement both through the air and off the pitch. The best way to view Barnes is as an earlier version of Bedser, with more variety and self-regard.

 

[Coronis]

Pace bowlers are just people who could never master spin bowling anyway.

 

[kyear2]

Barnes was possibly the most self-centred cricketer to have played the game.

Contemporary reports never mention any mystery about his bowling. The only mystery at the time was being provided by the new googly bowlers. Barnes was portrayed as a normal medium-pacer who used the new ball expertly from wide of the crease to draw catches behind the wicket and in the slips. He posted two slips standing deep and only two men on the leg side, one of whom was at short-leg. It was not the field for a spinner. Barnes was always insistent about taking the new ball - again not something one would expect from a spinner.

The confusion about spin came much later, from the mouth of Barnes himself, and was lapped up by the media. It occurred only after the 1924-25 tour to Australia when Tate took 38 Test wickets, beating Barnes' own record. Barnes was miffed and got even more annoyed when writers suggested the two were comparable.

Tate was one of the first seam bowlers. So Barnes boasted superiority by claiming to have "spun" every ball. This was almost certainly nonsense. Decades later Barnes said that Bedser was the bowler most similar in method to himself, which seems a much more plausible description. Bedser was never regarded as a spinner. He bowled mainly inswing and leg-cutters.

As other posters have pointed out, "spin" was also a term sometimes used before 1914 to describe anything deviating off the pitch at whatever speed, even from fast bowlers like Richardson.

Barnes, Tate and Bedser all had over-sized hands, which no doubt enabled them to get extra work on the ball somehow. Certainly they all obtained late movement both through the air and off the pitch. The best way to view Barnes is as an earlier version of Bedser, with more variety and self-regard.

Brilliant as usual, thanks for the clarification.

I still believe he's somewhat over rated, but at least there's some clarity as to clearly where to categorize him.

 

[peterhrt]

The reasons why Lohman, alongside W G Grace, Ranjitsinhji, Tom Richardson, etc don't make many ATG lists is because most people (myself included) don't know how the hell to rank them

There is quite a lot of information about Lohmann and Richardson, but they have faded into history and been largely forgotten. Lohmann's Test record should not be taken too seriously. During his time the batting of opponents Australia and South Africa was still developing and below county standard. Several matches were played on dreadful pitches.

The results of Lohmann's Tests against Australia were England winning 12 (five by an innings) and losing 3. This despite Australia having better fielding and wicket-keeping, and comparable bowling. Spofforth and Turner were just as good as Lohmann and there was plenty of backup.

During Lohmann's three Tests on South Africa's mats in 1896, where he was sent to recover from tuberculosis, the hosts introduced 15 debutants, including seven for the first Test when they were dismissed for 93 and 30. England themselves had eight debutants for this game plus Sammy Woods who had previously represented Australia. The series should never have counted in Test records.

Lohmann needs to be judged in first-class cricket where he was one of the three great bowlers of his generation along with Spofforth (who overlapped having started a decade earlier) and Turner. Reports of these bowlers' speeds vary but Lohmann's average delivery appears to have been the slowest of the three (despite WG disagreeing), barely medium by today's standards. He did have a sharp quicker ball though.

Richardson came on the scene as pitches were improving. There was still only one new ball per innings. Run-ups as well as pitches were uncovered, and when it rained heavily most fast men couldn't stand up so didn't bowl. In six consecutive English seasons 1893-98 Richardson took 1340 wickets at 14.91 apiece. That's an average of 223 wickets per season (including 290 in 1895), astonishing for a bowler of genuine pace who ran in all day and never consciously slowed down. In addition he made two trips to Australia, bagging a further 127 first-class wickets. In 14 Tests against Australia Richardson claimed 88 wickets.

These numbers, backing up reports of high pace, consistency and stamina, led a lot of critics to rate Richardson as England's greatest fast bowler well into the twentieth century. Cardus and Strudwick still held this opinion in the 1960s. Rarely pitching short, he attacked the stumps, breaking back sharply from the off, and resisted captains' suggestions of having run-savers on the boundary.

 

[Line and Length]

Pace bowlers are just people who could never master spin bowling anyway.

As a long retired pace bowler I always regarded spin bowlers as lacking the strength and stamina to bowl pace.
(Joking of course. Some of my most enjoyable spells were in partnership with a spinner.)

 

[howitzer]

Off topic a bit, but Lohmann is also often regarded as the first great slip fielder

 

[Line and Length]

Off topic a bit, but Lohmann is also often regarded as the first great slip fielder

He also has 3 FC centuries to his name.

 

[peterhrt]

Off topic a bit, but Lohmann is also often regarded as the first great slip fielder

Correct.

 

[kyear2]

Off topic a bit, but Lohmann is also often regarded as the first great slip fielder

Thanks for that, I didn't know that.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Barnes was possibly the most self-centred cricketer to have played the game.

Contemporary reports never mention any mystery about his bowling. The only mystery at the time was being provided by the new googly bowlers. Barnes was portrayed as a normal medium-pacer who used the new ball expertly from wide of the crease to draw catches behind the wicket and in the slips. He posted two slips standing deep and only two men on the leg side, one of whom was at short-leg. It was not the field for a spinner. Barnes was always insistent about taking the new ball - again not something one would expect from a spinner.

The confusion about spin came much later, from the mouth of Barnes himself, and was lapped up by the media. It occurred only after the 1924-25 tour to Australia when Tate took 38 Test wickets, beating Barnes' own record. Barnes was miffed and got even more annoyed when writers suggested the two were comparable.

Tate was one of the first seam bowlers. So Barnes boasted superiority by claiming to have "spun" every ball. This was almost certainly nonsense. Decades later Barnes said that Bedser was the bowler most similar in method to himself, which seems a much more plausible description. Bedser was never regarded as a spinner. He bowled mainly inswing and leg-cutters.

As other posters have pointed out, "spin" was also a term sometimes used before 1914 to describe anything deviating off the pitch at whatever speed, even from fast bowlers like Richardson.

Barnes, Tate and Bedser all had over-sized hands, which no doubt enabled them to get extra work on the ball somehow. Certainly they all obtained late movement both through the air and off the pitch. The best way to view Barnes is as an earlier version of Bedser, with more variety and self-regard.

Would be interested to know where you tend to place Barnes among ATG bowlers?

 

[howitzer]

Thanks for that, I didn't know that.

Yeah, a great innovator in that regard as well as a great bowler, even in the time he bowled. Reckon that makes an ATG cricketer overall

 

[peterhrt]

Would be interested to know where you tend to place Barnes among ATG bowlers?

As with all cricketers there are arguments for and against.

Since Barnes played his last Test in 1914, he was been in the “greatest-of-all time” debate, in England at least, for more than a hundred years. His reputation among English bowlers has comfortably outlasted contemporaries, those who went before, and most who came after. He still has most English Test wickets in Australia, on good pitches against decent batsmen.

The Australians appreciated Barnes earlier than his own countrymen, insisting he was the best English bowler to visit Australia. This view lasted until 1933 when opinion shifted in favour of Larwood.

Once Barnes' reputation became fully established, in 1912, there were few dissenting voices that he was the greatest. Fry had found Lohmann's changes of pace more difficult to handle. Herbie Taylor, the only South African to master Barnes on matting, thought googly bowler Vogler superior. Teammate Faulkner saw plenty of both and disagreed.

Barnes took more wickets in league cricket than anybody, more than 6,000. In all cricket, only the Grace brothers, EM and WG, and the 19th century lob bowler Charles Absolon claimed more.

The arguments against Barnes start with the fact that he was not an automatic pick for England until the age of 36, from when he played four series. After impressing on debut in Australia in 1901, he was chosen for only one of the following fifteen home Tests over a seven year period. He went on one tour, but only after other bowlers had been asked and said no.

Part of the reason was because he opted out of first-class cricket in favour of the better-paid leagues. This didn't impress Lord's who in any case hardly saw him. County cricket was often considered more important than Tests at the time, not least oddly by chairman of selectors Lord Hawke. Wisden in 1908 considered Vogler to be the world's best bowler despite Barnes having just returned from a successful tour of Australia.

Then there was his character. Sulky and bad-tempered, selfish, constantly arguing about money. There were suspicions he didn't always try his hardest, sufficient to lead Cardus to rate him below Richardson and O'Reilly.

Among English bowlers he still probably ranks first. If the acid test is away form, a dozen Englishmen have managed a hundred Test wickets away from home. Barnes averages 17, his nearest rivals 27.

Comparison with men from other countries is harder, but one would expect him to make the Top Ten.

 

[capt_Luffy]

As with all cricketers there are arguments for and against.

Since Barnes played his last Test in 1914, he was been in the “greatest-of-all time” debate, in England at least, for more than a hundred years. His reputation among English bowlers has comfortably outlasted contemporaries, those who went before, and most who came after. He still has most English Test wickets in Australia, on good pitches against decent batsmen.

The Australians appreciated Barnes earlier than his own countrymen, insisting he was the best English bowler to visit Australia. This view lasted until 1933 when opinion shifted in favour of Larwood.

Once Barnes' reputation became fully established, in 1912, there were few dissenting voices that he was the greatest. Fry had found Lohmann's changes of pace more difficult to handle. Herbie Taylor, the only South African to master Barnes on matting, thought googly bowler Vogler superior. Teammate Faulkner saw plenty of both and disagreed.

Barnes took more wickets in league cricket than anybody, more than 6,000. In all English club cricket, only the Grace brothers, EM and WG, and the 19th century lob bowler Charles Absolon claimed more.

The arguments against Barnes start with the fact that he was not an automatic pick for England until the age of 36, from when he played four series. After impressing on debut in Australia in 1901, he was chosen for only one of the following fifteen home Tests over a seven year period. He went on one tour, but only after other bowlers had been asked and said no.

Part of the reason was because he opted out of first-class cricket in favour of the better-paid leagues. This didn't impress Lord's who in any case hardly saw him. County cricket was often considered more important than Tests at the time, not least oddly by chairman of selectors Lord Hawke. Wisden in 1908 considered Vogler to be the world's best bowler despite Barnes having just returned from a successful tour of Australia.

Then there was his character. Sulky and bad-tempered, selfish, constantly arguing about money. There were suspicions he didn't always try his hardest, sufficient to lead Cardus to rate him below Richardson and O'Reilly.

Among English bowlers he still probably ranks first. If the acid test is away form, a dozen Englishmen have managed a hundred Test wickets away from home. Barnes averages 17, his nearest rivals 27.

Comparison with men from other countries is harder, but one would expect him to make the Top Ten.

Wow. Your posts are really really well thought out and very informative. Who do you consider among your top 5 AT bowlers then?

 

[Coronis]

ATG Touring Bowling Attack in Australia

Ambrose 78 wickets @ 19.79
Barnes 77 wickets @ 22.42
Hadlee 77 wickets @ 17.83
Miller 36 wickets @ 22.47 (stats may be inflated by Packer?)/Laker 15 wickets @ 21.70

 

[howitzer]

ATG Touring Bowling Attack in Australia

Ambrose 78 wickets @ 19.79
Barnes 77 wickets @ 22.42
Hadlee 77 wickets @ 17.83
Miller 36 wickets @ 22.47 (stats may be inflated by Packer?)/Laker 15 wickets @ 21.70

Miller definitely Packer inflated and Laker is a bit samplesizelol. I'd be tempted to pick another quick and have Barnes as the 'spinner'

 

[trundler]

The spinner ought to be Tayfield.

 

[howitzer]

The spinner ought to be Tayfield.

Good shout

 

[capt_Luffy]

ATG Touring Bowling Attack in Australia

Ambrose 78 wickets @ 19.79
Barnes 77 wickets @ 22.42
Hadlee 77 wickets @ 17.83
Miller 36 wickets @ 22.47 (stats may be inflated by Packer?)/Laker 15 wickets @ 21.70

Oh well, we can hardly find a bowler like Geoff Miller; a bowler who dominated Australia but was useless pretty much against everyone else....
Might go with either Laker or Tayfield as the spinner.