Malcolm Marshall vs Sydney Barnes

[subshakerz]

Truth be told, I can see Barnes being #1

Sure. I just consider him too hard to judge so I don't want him in the top 10.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Sure. I just consider him too hard to judge so I don't want him in the top 10.

That's a cope out.

 

[honestbharani]

That's a cope out.

That's new.

 

[kyear2]

Truth be told, I can see Barnes being #1

Again I ask you.

If Sachin played a quarter of his games vs Bang or Zim, what would his average be.

Same with Hadlee and SL.

Anyways, I'm leaving it alone.

 

[Johan]

Or that the overall skill level in 1900 to 1914 wasn't as good as that when Steyn played, and with some pretty good bowlers to boot.

That's why I personally and most just don't go that far back, especially and again. For guys we can't see.

Coronis had a really good post a week or so back with regards to same. It was just a different game, level of competition etc.. Too many variables to rank them among even the post war greats.

Him and Grace I rate with guys from that pre WWI era. Think that's fair.

Coronis also voted Barnes above Marshall, so his opinion is clear.

regardless of that, if one doesn't rate 1900-1914, then there's no logic to rating the interwar period either, which was universally agreed to be an inferior sport to the pre war game, at that point just stop rating everyone before the second world war.

 

[kyear2]

But on a more serious note - I find it hard particularly to rate 19th century players because of how differently balanced the game was then, and how few tests were being played. Even with cricketers in the 20th century pre WWI there is a vast discrepancy. Its hard to figure out where to rank them for me at least. Barnes is often excluded from lists for this reason, alongside the often ambiguous nature of his bowling.

Hobbs did transcend the war period, being just as great afterwards, despite his age, which is why he’s included in such exercises, along with his pre-war eminence.

 

[Johan]

regardless of that, if one doesn't rate 1900-1914, then there's no logic to rating the interwar period either, which was universally agreed to be an inferior sport to the pre war game, at that point just stop rating everyone before the second world war.

 

[Johan]

Again I ask you.

If Sachin played a quarter of his games vs Bang or Zim, what would his average be.

Same with Hadlee and SL.

Anyways, I'm leaving it alone.

Barnes never played any minnows

 

[kyear2]

Coronis also voted Barnes above Marshall, so his opinion is clear.

regardless of that, if one doesn't rate 1900-1914, then there's no logic to rating the interwar period either, which was universally agreed to be an inferior sport to the pre war game, at that point just stop rating everyone before the second world war.

It was rated inferior only on the basis on the pitches being flat, which led to an unbalanced and one-sided relationship between bat and ball.

But it was also when guys like Bradman, Hammond, O'Reilly, Hutton came to the fore, legitimate ATG's where we can see and make comparisons to modern players.
Half of what was written about Barnes includes nonsense about spin and swerve.

The level of completion was different, the rules and surfaces were different, and none of which are visually privy to.

 

[Johan]

It was rated inferior only on the basis on the pitches being flat, which led to an unbalanced and one-sided relationship between bat and ball.

But it was also when guys like Bradman, Hammond, O'Reilly, Hutton came to the fore, legitimate ATG's where we can see and make comparisons to modern players.
Half of what was written about Barnes includes nonsense about spin and swerve.

The level of completion was different, the rules and surfaces were different, and none of which are visually privy to.

Would a medium pacer operating in the high 70's today have a chance of being the GOAT?

a better question would be, why would the game become superior after the war? there was no fitness revolution, no big breakthrough in popularity, instead just millions of English died and it only caused civil unrest. Hobbs himself believed the bowling of post war era was lighter and weaker, Pre-War Cricketers like Herbert Taylor had more success post war as well.

if the standard of Cricket was really higher when people like Hutton, Hammond and Sutcliffe played, then why was Hobbs rated so much higher than all of them? how was Hobbs in late 40s constantly outbatting Hammond? why was the question of him playing an inferior sport not raised? infact, why was the era referred to as the golden age over the interwar period?

How was Frank Woolley, a peer of Sydney Barnes, easily taming the fastest bowler of the interwar period (Harold Larwood) in his later years? how was Warren Bardsley from 1906 easily smashing apart Larwood and Tate combined in his final series?

the whole case of Interwar period being superior to the golden age just doesn't stand up to any scrutiny at all, and is just so greatly contradicted and downright refuted by Cricket historians and writers of the time, as I said, if you don't rate golden age, you might as well not rate the Interwar period either.

and Yes, if a medium pacer can do half the stuff Barnes was reported to bowl, they'd be ATG in any era, like, Vernon Philander and Alec Bedser can't do a quarter of the tricks Barnes is reported to have done and they're near ATG, whenever the conditions were spicy then Bedser even outbowled Lindwall, they'd be absolute monsters had they figured out flatter wickets, which is easier for Barnes to do because of his ability to exact extra garner-esque extra bounce, accuracy and natural swing movement.

 

[Coronis]

Or that the overall skill level in 1900 to 1914 wasn't as good as that when Steyn played, and with some pretty good bowlers to boot.

That's why I personally and most just don't go that far back, especially and again. For guys we can't see.

Coronis had a really good post a week or so back with regards to same. It was just a different game, level of competition etc.. Too many variables to rank them among even the post war greats.

Him and Grace I rate with guys from that pre WWI era. Think that's fair.

Coronis also voted Barnes above Marshall, so his opinion is clear.

regardless of that, if one doesn't rate 1900-1914, then there's no logic to rating the interwar period either, which was universally agreed to be an inferior sport to the pre war game, at that point just stop rating everyone before the second world war.

One of the few polls where I voted the incorrect option on purpose. idr why in this case, there doesn’t seem to be much humour in it.

I believe that rather than the overall skill level being considered worse, it was more of the balance changes between bowling and batting at the time - i.e batting becoming more dominant, as it has been ever since, and batsmen being able to bat slower and still succeed due to this.

 

[Johan]

One of the few polls where I voted the incorrect option on purpose. idr why in this case, there doesn’t seem to be much humour in it.

I believe that rather than the overall skill level being considered worse, it was more of the balance changes between bowling and batting at the time - i.e batting becoming more dominant, as it has been ever since, and batsmen being able to bat slower and still succeed due to this.

my point was always that there's no real evidence of interwar period being a superior game to post war one and it was certainly not the consensus of the time that standards had been "upped" by the interwar period, rather than just being golden age proves that golden age had higher standards. People who saw both, did not come to the conclusion that the golden age sport was any less refined or developed, and I'm inclined to believe they were roughly the same as far as developement and standard of Cricket went, career lengths and amount of matches not withstanding.

 

[Coronis]

my point was always that there's no real evidence of interwar period being a superior game to post war one and it was certainly not the consensus of the time that standards had been "upped" by the interwar period, rather than just being golden age proves that golden age had higher standards. People who saw both, did not come to the conclusion that the golden age sport was any less refined or developed, and I'm inclined to believe they were roughly the same as far as developement and standard of Cricket went, career lengths and amount of matches not withstanding.

Again, I don’t think its superior. I also don’t think pre-war golden age was superior. The balance between bat and ball notably shifted after the war, which the game has continued with since then.

Like I said, rather than any skill difference its about what type of game those people preferred to watch. Its much easier to extrapolate how players who played post-WWI would have done since the balance has relatively remained unchanged. Pre-WWI more guesswork has to be done which makes rating cricketers who played their entire careers then against later players harder.

In fact only recently - in the last 15 years or so - have we approached the result rate of that period.

 

[Johan]

Again, I don’t think its superior. I also don’t think pre-war golden age was superior. The balance between bat and ball notably shifted after the war, which the game has continued with since then.

Like I said, rather than any skill difference its about what type of game those people preferred to watch. Its much easier to extrapolate how players who played post-WWI would have done since the balance has relatively remained unchanged. Pre-WWI more guesswork has to be done which makes rating cricketers who played their entire careers then against later players harder.

In fact only recently - in the last 15 years or so - have we approached the result rate of that period.

TBH the discussion was with Kyear who wholeheartedly believed that discarding Barnes's record while taking Tiger's into account, therefore discarding Golden age and taking Interwar age into account, my arguments were in contrary to that, I don't know when you got in tbh

 

[Coronis]

TBH the discussion was with Kyear who wholeheartedly believed that discarding Barnes's record while taking Tiger's into account, therefore discarding Golden age and taking Interwar age into account, my arguments were in contrary to that, I don't know when you got in tbh

You said if one doesn’t rate pre-WWI there’s no logic to rating pre-WWII. I provided some logic, without disparaging anyone’s skill level.

 

[Johan]

You said if one doesn’t rate pre-WWI there’s no logic to rating pre-WWII. I provided some logic, without disparaging anyone’s skill level.

Yeah but your argument seem more based on output, though, I do think even though the game became more batter friendly, it has had dips approaching pre war levels of bowler friendliness, the 50s Australia/South Africa/England ate the biggest examples of truly approaching that level of bowler friendliness.

I don't think I ever denied there's more guesswork to pre World War I bowlers on how they'd do in modern day, but Kyear's argument functionally was that the skill level and competition level of the pre war period (Barnes era) is inherently inferior to that of the Tiger era (Interwar), which I found baseless and thus refuted.

 

[Coronis]

Yeah but your argument seem more based on output, though, I do think even though the game became more batter friendly, it has had dips approaching pre war levels of bowler friendliness, the 50s Australia/South Africa/England ate the biggest examples of truly approaching that level of bowler friendliness.

I don't think I ever denied there's more guesswork to pre World War I bowlers on how they'd do in modern day, but Kyear's argument functionally was that the skill level and competition level of the pre war period (Barnes era) is inherently inferior to that of the Tiger era (Interwar), which I found baseless and thus refuted.

I’m not making any output argument. And no, the 50’s still never approached Golden Age levels of balance. Not to mention also that run rates were at their lowest in the 50’s and one of the highest in the Golden Age.

 

[Johan]

I’m not making any output argument. And no, the 50’s still never approached Golden Age levels of balance. Not to mention also that run rates were at their lowest in the 50’s and one of the highest in the Golden Age.

It sure does seem like it's dependent on the Interwar period balance between bat and ball being more skin to modern Cricket than the pre war balance between the bat and the ball.

 

[subshakerz]

That's a cope out.

Not really. What number do you have him?

 

[Johan]

Not really. What number do you have him?

I think he has Barnes at 4