Sydney Barnes vs Bill O’Reilly

[Coronis]

The amount of movement he seemed to regularly get at that pace is cray tbh, from the stories at least.

 

[shortpitched713]

Is it? From what I've read about Barnes, he seems to me to be quite similar to a Mustafizur type of bowler, although others can correct me if I'm completely wrong.

Nah, Barnes was bowling at a slower pace. And it makes sense as his go to delivery was the leg break. Mustifizur bowls the baseball equivalent of a slider at close to max speed with a fast bowlers approach, which bites and off cuts (away from righty).

Barnes is much more in the mold of a very fast leg spinner. And he was bowling his spin variations all out the front of his hand, in a way a modern bat is sure to be able to pick with any level of planning with prior video footage to look at. No doubt all of this was very effective at his time, but there's been such a huge evolution in bowling from the time of such a pioneering figure. We can't really expect that to hold up today.

 

[Johan]

Here, they describe Barnes as a medium pacer who spammed cutters and could bowl spin at times when needed, the only real understanding I can come to is that he was a Alec Bedser type bowler who could then switch to leg breaks later in the inning.

 

[shortpitched713]

The amount of movement he seemed to regularly get at that pace is cray tbh, from the stories at least.

Pace, spin rates, and the combination of the two (i.e.) velocity, grows throughout the history of the game. Same as in baseball. This stuff is measured out so they have a pretty reliable estimate for different pitches in that game, because the seam in baseball allows you to count rotation in old footage a bit more reliably. They pitch equivalent spin rate deliveries a good 10+ mph slower in the old black and white days. I just don't see Barnes breaking that sort of trend in cricket. I'm sure he was pioneering for his time, though.

In the modern day, I think Mustifizur will start a trend among fast bowlers, and left armers in particular. I think he's one of the first genuine velocity bowlers in cricket, he's not bowling your dad's cutter which you roll your fingers over the ball. He's genuinely ripping that ****. And what's funny is he's something of a mediocre fast bowling talent otherwise, who has picked up and mastered that magic delivery. Imagine a 90+ mph genuine left arm quick who can bowl that in addition to a conventional swing ball and wobble/scramble seam ball. Batsman is ****ed 10 ways sideways.

 

[Bert]

In a league match, Barnes was having difficulty getting tail enders out.
When asked why, he replied " They're not batting well enough to get out "

 

[kyear2]

Here, they describe Barnes as a medium pacer who spammed cutters and could bowl spin at times when needed, the only real understanding I can come to is that he was a Alec Bedser type bowler who could then switch to leg breaks later in the inning.

Or, we just don't know and have absolutely no way of actually finding out.

 

[Johan]

Or, we just don't know and have absolutely no way of actually finding out.

We do know though, he could do leg breaks but it's almost universally agreed he was a medium pacer who cut down the pace, and was genuinely fast as the beginning (for the time), he seems a pretty clear cut Bedser style bowler.

 

[kyear2]

Barnes played exclusively pre WWI, we have no footage nor real understanding of the level of competition. His record being greatly influenced and skewed by one team which he demolished.

Tiger bowled in the flattest era of test cricket vs legitimate ATG's, top 10 batsmen of all time.

 

[Johan]

I mean...

60 year old Barnes outperformed a bowler with similar numbers as O Reilly vs England...

 

[kyear2]

We do know though, he could do leg breaks but it's almost universally agreed he was a medium pacer who cut down the pace, and was genuinely fast as the beginning (for the time), he seems a pretty clear cut Bedser style bowler.

"Almost universally agreed"

We don't know what genuinely fast was at the time.

I don't rate players we haven't and can never see, especially from that far back.

It literally excludes only him and Grace.

 

[Coronis]

"Almost universally agreed"

We don't know what genuinely fast was at the time.

I don't rate players we haven't and van never see, ***ually from that far back.

It literally excludes only him and Grace.

Wow.. did not expect this from you.

 

[Johan]

"Almost universally agreed"

We don't know what genuinely fast was at the time.

I don't rate players we haven't and van never see, ***ually from that far back.

It literally excludes only him and Grace.

well duh

there's not gonna be much classifications for him as he was a very unconventional bowler from the time.

why do you think we know what his peers bowled like Aubrey, Vogler, Wilfred, Spofforth (older than him) and so forth but Barnes causes confusion?

 

[kyear2]

Wow.. did not expect this from you.

I deserved that one, lol.

In pain and arguing with strangers on the internet isn't an ideal Saturday morning, lol

 

[Johan]

Funnily, Bradman was interested in this very question, he thought that maybe O Reilly was just a modern Barnes but superior due to equipping himself with the googly, a delivery only the South Africans of the Pre War age abused...so, Barnes was asked about his thoughts on the Don's remarks, He said "It's quite true," he said, "I never bowled the 'googly.'"

Then with a glint in his eye, he added, "I never needed it."

 

[peterhrt]

why do you think we know what his peers bowled like Aubrey, Vogler, Wilfred, Spofforth (older than him) and so forth but Barnes causes confusion?

There was no confusion about Barnes' bowling at the time. That came later with the rubbish he fed journalists.

Contemporary reports confirm that he was considered a normal medium-pacer who generally tried to get batsmen caught behind the wicket or in the slips. He only had two men on the leg side: a mid-on and a short-leg. Not the field for a spinner. Photos confirm that the slips were deep. He also insisted on opening the bowling.

Barnes didn't switch from one type of bowling to another during an innings. That was Vogler. Nor was he a pioneer. Noble taught him swerve. And there was no mystery about his bowling, like with the googly bowlers. Barnes himself said the bowler who most closely resembled him was Bedser, which is one thing that probably can be believed.

Where he was better than his contemporaries was in reading and "using" a pitch. The same was true of Spofforth. Both adjusted their pace and delivery according to conditions. Barnes also had a high action generating extra bounce and making him difficult to hit. The nonsense about "spin" originated when folk started comparing him with Tate who was a seamer. Barnes didn't like it and claimed his so-called swerve and spin were superior weapons to Tate's swing and cut. They were probably similar if not the same. Had Barnes played regular county cricket, fewer people would have been taken in.

 

[Johan]

There was no confusion about Barnes' bowling at the time. That came later with the rubbish he fed journalists.

Contemporary reports confirm that he was considered a normal medium-pacer who generally tried to get batsmen caught behind the wicket or in the slips. He only had two men on the leg side: a mid-on and a short-leg. Not the field for a spinner. Photos confirm that the slips were deep. He didn't switch from one type of bowling to another during an innings. That was Vogler. Nor was he a pioneer. Noble taught him swerve. And there was no mystery about his bowling, like with the googly bowlers. Barnes himself said the bowler who most closely resembled him was Bedser, which is something that probably can be believed.

Where he was better than his contemporaries was in reading and "using" a pitch. The same was true of Spofforth. Both adjusted their pace and delivery according to conditions. Barnes also had a high action generating extra bounce and making him difficult to hit. The nonsense about "spin" originated when folk started comparing him with Tate who was a seamer. Barnes didn't like it and claimed his so-called swerve and spin were superior weapons to Tate's swing and cut. They were probably similar if not the same. Had Barnes played regular county cricket, fewer people would have been taken in.

@kyear2 what did I say?

 

[kyear2]

There was no confusion about Barnes' bowling at the time. That came later with the rubbish he fed journalists.

Contemporary reports confirm that he was considered a normal medium-pacer who generally tried to get batsmen caught behind the wicket or in the slips. He only had two men on the leg side: a mid-on and a short-leg. Not the field for a spinner. Photos confirm that the slips were deep. He also insisted on opening the bowling.

Barnes didn't switch from one type of bowling to another during an innings. That was Vogler. Nor was he a pioneer. Noble taught him swerve. And there was no mystery about his bowling, like with the googly bowlers. Barnes himself said the bowler who most closely resembled him was Bedser, which is one thing that probably can be believed.

Where he was better than his contemporaries was in reading and "using" a pitch. The same was true of Spofforth. Both adjusted their pace and delivery according to conditions. Barnes also had a high action generating extra bounce and making him difficult to hit. The nonsense about "spin" originated when folk started comparing him with Tate who was a seamer. Barnes didn't like it and claimed his so-called swerve and spin were superior weapons to Tate's swing and cut. They were probably similar if not the same. Had Barnes played regular county cricket, fewer people would have been taken in.

Brilliant as always.

 

[kyear2]

@kyear2 what did I say?

He was medium fast to fast, I've always pictured him as a McGrath type, but again, how can we really rate someone we haven't and can't see for ourselves.

As I've said, I don't rate the guys pre WWI, there are just too many variables with level of competition etc.

I do know that O'Reilly bowled in the flattest era of cricket and his ashes record is still pretty damn special as is his first class record, in again the sport's flattest era.

None of that changes.

It would be magnificent, though unlikely though if someone somehow unearthed something of his bowling quick.

As a consolation, if @peterhrt can share the pics, if he can find them, of the depth of the keeper and slip cordon to Barnes, that would be great.

I'll try to search as well.

 

[Johan]

He was medium fast to fast, I've always pictured him as a McGrath type, but again, how can we really rate someone we haven't and can't see for ourselves.

As I've said, I don't rate the guys pre WWI, there are just too many variables with level of competition etc.

I do know that O'Reilly bowled in the flattest era of cricket and his ashes record is still pretty damn special as is his first class record, in again the sport's flattest era.

None of that changes.

How do you justify a 60 YO Barnes performing on par with one of the three best interwar period pacers (in my opinion ofcourse) if you don't rate Barnes at all?

 

[kyear2]

How do you justify a 60 YO Barnes performing on par with one of the three best interwar period pacers (in my opinion ofcourse) if you don't rate Barnes at all?

Martindale?

In league cricket? Wasn't he by then only bowling spin?

I don't rate players pre WWI. Many here don't, I don't get why that's a big deal.

Just took much variables and unknowns.