Malcolm Marshall vs Sydney Barnes

[subshakerz]

I think he has Barnes at 4

Ok. Again, not sure on what basis he gets behind Hadlee and ahead of Steyn or Ambrose.

 

[Johan]

Ok. Again, not sure on what basis he gets behind Hadlee and ahead of Steyn or Ambrose.

not sure either about Hadlee.

 

[kyear2]

Barnes never played any minnows

In 1911 SA played 3 tests, lost two and winning on on day 6 by 38 runs. The two losses were by 7 wickets and then by 530 runs.

In 1912 they played 6 matches, drawing one and loosing 5. Again by margins of 10 wickets, 10 wickets, 174 runs, an innings and 62 runs and an innings and 88 runs.

In 1913 they played 2 matches loosing both. Both by an innings, with the academic totals of 12 and 157 runs.

Finally in 1914 they played 3, loosing two and one draw. The two they lost were by 10 wickets and 91 runs.

They weren't anything other than minnow level, the same way the WI is now.

They were going through a lot of chances and most of the batting line up in those latter years were on debut series with no performances of note.

We could go though some of the names if you like.

They were minnows, or a decent team going through a minnow phase / transition.

 

[Johan]

In 1911 SA played 3 tests, lost two and winning on on day 6 by 38 runs. The two losses were by 7 wickets and then by 530 runs.

In 1912 they played 6 matches, drawing one and loosing 5. Again by margins of 10 wickets, 10 wickets, 174 runs, an innings and 62 runs and an innings and 88 runs.

In 1913 they played 2 matches loosing both. Both by an innings, with the academic totals of 12 and 157 runs.

Finally in 1914 they played 3, loosing two and one draw. The two they lost were by 10 wickets and 91 runs.

They weren't anything other than minnow level, the same way the WI is now.

They were going through a lot of chances and most of the batting line up in those latter years were on debut series with no performances of note.

We could go though some of the names if you like.

They were minnows, or a decent team going through a minnow phase / transition.

in 1911, they were playing a 1910-11 tour of Australia, and they won a game, the series read 4-1 even though South Africa lacked their best bowlers, Vogler's alcoholism getting to him and Aubrey Faulkner focusing too much on bowling.

in 1912, they did indeed underperform against Australia in the triangular series, but it was in England which was at the time foreign conditions to them, they were beaten singlehandedly by Barnes in their games against England, take him out and the games become very competitive.

in 1913-14, they played 4 games and they all were against Barnes, and he was alone beating their side, in one of the games where he underperformed by a little bit and him underperforming was 3/26 and 5/102 and South Africa got particularly close to victory

they drew the final test regardless of Barnes taking a full blown fourteen fer, if he didn't, England would've lost horribly, it's particularly challenging to win when one guy is taking 49 wickets in 4 games at the average of 10.

that's not all, South Africa had

beaten England 3-2 in 1910
beaten England 4-1 in 1906
won a game in Australia

Golden age South Africa just isn't a minnow country, nothing implies their standard of first class and their Cricket itself is inferior like with Bangladeshi or the Indian first class for so long, considering south Africa was one of the more prominent countries under England, they'd share similar first class structures, and they got results that no minnow side would get, what minnow side constantly wind games against England? None.

 

[kyear2]

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

I've never used the word discard.

The differences between the two are

1. I have seen Tiger bowl

2. The era that Tiger played was batter dominant, the most batsman dominated in the sport. So to attain his record is more impressive than succeeding in a much more bowler friendly age.

3. Barnes record is skewed heavily by playing one obviously weaker nation that disproportionately impacts his numbers.

I'm not saying Barnes wasn't great and I'm far from the only poster here who separates pre and post WWI players. And everyone has a line of demarcation where they don't go beyond. This is mine.

I rate those guys we can never see, separately and among themselves.

 

[kyear2]

in 1911, they were playing a 1910-11 tour of Australia, and they won a game, the series read 4-1 even though South Africa lacked their best bowlers, Vogler's alcoholism getting to him and Aubrey Faulkner focusing too much on bowling.

in 1912, they did indeed underperform against Australia in the triangular series, but it was in England which was at the time foreign conditions to them, they were beaten singlehandedly by Barnes in their games against England, take him out and the games become very competitive.

in 1913-14, they played 4 games and they all were against Barnes, and he was alone beating their side, in one of the games where he underperformed by a little bit and him underperforming was 3/26 and 5/102 and South Africa got particularly close to victory

they drew the final test regardless of Barnes taking a full blown fourteen fer, if he didn't, England would've lost horribly, it's particularly challenging to win when one guy is taking 49 wickets in 4 games at the average of 10.

that's not all, South Africa had

beaten England 3-2 in 1910
beaten England 4-1 in 1906
won a game in Australia

Golden age South Africa just isn't a minnow country, nothing implies their standard of first class and their Cricket itself is inferior like with Bangladeshi or the Indian first class for so long, considering south Africa was one of the more prominent countries under England, they'd share similar first class structures, and they got results that no minnow side would get, what minnow side constantly wind games against England? None.

Have you looked at the change in the make up of the team between 1906 and 1911, not to mention to 1914. The average amount of tests played by some of those players.

The batting averages of said players.

When we see Hadlee and Imran averaged in the teens vs SL, or Bumrah in the single digits vs the WI. What is inferred by that?

When you average 21 vs Australia and 9 vs SA there's a gulf in talent between the two teams, even if it was only during that transitional period. They weren't a good team.

In any event, we'll agree to disagree.

 

[Johan]

Have you looked at the change in the make up of the team between 1906 and 1911, not to mention to 1914. The average amount of tests played by some of those players.

The batting averages of said players.

When we see Hadlee and Imran averaged in the teens vs SL, or Bumrah in the single digits vs the WI. What is inferred by that?

When you average 21 vs Australia and 9 vs SA there's a gulf in talent between the two teams, even if it was only during that transitional period. They weren't a good team.

In any event, we'll agree to disagree.

South Africa was certainly a weaker side than England but certainly not by a minnow margin, as I showed you, they had beaten England twice, pretty decisively one time, a feat that minnows don't achieve.

bowling averages aren't the display of anything, that's like saying Pakistan was a trash team because Sangakkara or Sehwag averaged 90 against them.

Barnes against Saffer
83 @ 9.86
other English bowlers against Saffers
54 @ 25

and not to mention, all these games were played on matting wickets or wet wickets, not hard batter friendly wickets like the ones in Australian ashes, so really, this whole "saffers were minnows" narrative only exists because Barnes destroyed them so badly, it's hard to believe that it was a respected side on the world stage, but that is indeed what it was, weaker but not completely invalid, like current South Africa.

anyway, I'll agree to agreeing to disagree.

 

[Coronis]

Have you looked at the change in the make up of the team between 1906 and 1911, not to mention to 1914. The average amount of tests played by some of those players.

The batting averages of said players.

When we see Hadlee and Imran averaged in the teens vs SL, or Bumrah in the single digits vs the WI. What is inferred by that?

When you average 21 vs Australia and 9 vs SA there's a gulf in talent between the two teams, even if it was only during that transitional period. They weren't a good team.

In any event, we'll agree to disagree.

Ambrose averaged 21 against Australia and 38 against India. Gulf in talent imo.