subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Ok. Again, not sure on what basis he gets behind Hadlee and ahead of Steyn or Ambrose.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Malcolm Marshall vs Sydney Barnes
- Thread starter DrWolverine
- Start date
Johan
International Captain
not sure either about Hadlee.
kyear2
International Coach
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
International Captain
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.
Last edited:
kyear2
International Coach
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
International Coach
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
International Captain
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
Hall of Fame Member
Ambrose averaged 21 against Australia and 38 against India. Gulf in talent imo.
kyear2
International Coach
The thing is though, when you get to play vs more than two opponents, in the land before time, we get a more accurate view overall.
But as I said, we can agree to disagree.
Coronis
Hall of Fame Member
Just pointing out its not a great stat to use.
kyear2
International Coach
What's your take on the SA team?
Coronis
Hall of Fame Member
I wouldn’t call them minnows. I wouldn’t call them a good team either.
kyear2
International Coach
Understood, and fair play to you as we can see things differently.
That batting lineup was abysmal, like WI level bad, and you can choose either end of the spectrum of our existence.
capt_Luffy
International Coach
Like Herbie Taylor is better than any WI batsman to debut post Lara
Johan
International Captain
Here, from 12:10 to 12:45
Jack Hobbs says he was the best ever, he seems to show zero doubt, he's modest as expected of someone of his stature but definitely rates Barnes above the Interwar period bowlers.
at 12:32, we hear Lord Learie's Constantine's voice and he claims that not only was Barnes in his mid 50s the best bowler that he ever played with or against, but he doesn't seem to believe anyone can even come close to the Barnes he saw, a mid 50s year Grandpa age, in a world of Grimmets, Larwoods, Bowes and Constantine himself.
all that needs to be said really.
Jack Hobbs says he was the best ever, he seems to show zero doubt, he's modest as expected of someone of his stature but definitely rates Barnes above the Interwar period bowlers.
at 12:32, we hear Lord Learie's Constantine's voice and he claims that not only was Barnes in his mid 50s the best bowler that he ever played with or against, but he doesn't seem to believe anyone can even come close to the Barnes he saw, a mid 50s year Grandpa age, in a world of Grimmets, Larwoods, Bowes and Constantine himself.
all that needs to be said really.
kyear2
International Coach
Headley was in the WI team, they were still minnow level.
And what batsmen have we had post Lara of note?
capt_Luffy
International Coach
Shiv. And like, pre War WI weren't minnows at all.
Coronis
Hall of Fame Member
Not really.
Looking at some stats… pre-war 20th century batting averages for the teams
Australia 26.37
England 25.23
South Africa 21.49
then lets look at a similar time period i.e the last 15 years
Australia 33.93
India 32.86
New Zealand 32.04
England 31.41
South Africa 30.94
Pakistan 30.76
Sri Lanka 30.26
Bangladesh 26.89
West Indies 25.17
I’d say they’d equate more to SL and Pakistan than the West Indies, imo.
kyear2
International Coach
I'm not sure what argument you want to, or are trying to make.
There's quite a bit of footage in that video, of I assume Barnes in said 50's. Everyone is free to make their own determinations.
The only truly (AT)great bowler of the mid war period was O'Reilly and he has his supporters as well in this argument, including said Bradman.
With regards to comparing him to contemporary bowlers, what I saw in those clips doesn't seem comparable to the Hadlee's, Steyn's and McGrath's.of the world. And Hobbs died in the 70's unless I'm mistaken and don't know when that interview was done.
If you wish to make the argument that the gentleman who averaged 21 against Australia in pre WWI days, in an era not really comparable to any since, in terms of balance between bat and ball, quality of pitches and level of scope and variety of opposition, then fine.
I don't see it, but far be it from me to say that your opinion is wrong.
I've never said he was bad, or not the best of his era. What I have said is that it's probably best to rank these players that basically and practically played a different game, with those who they played with and against.
That player shown, presumably as a medium pacer in his 50's would struggle to qualify as the best player I've seen.