Malcolm Marshall vs Sydney Barnes

[kyear2]

Shiv. And like, pre War WI weren't minnows at all.

The early WI teams that had Headley didn't have a minnow level batting line up?

Ok...

 

[capt_Luffy]

The early WI teams that had Headley didn't have a minnow level batting line up?

Ok...

*Not a minnow level team

 

[Johan]

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.

The footage from what I can tell is the footage of Barnes bowling in some exhibition games in his 80s, the fact he's even moving like that as an 80 year old is a display of how physically gifted he must have been, as well as being described as the perfect body for a bowler and living to 94 even after years of sport and war.

The argument is simple, even in his 50s, Barnes was on par with bowlers that were certainly very good, for example.

O Reilly against England: 19 matches, 102 @ 25.36, 77 strike rate
Constantine against England: 13 matches, 50 @ 26.78, 56 strike rate.

so I reckon Constantine has an idea of what he is saying, he is rating Barnes in his 50s above himself, above Larwood, above Bowes, above Grimmett and so forth. What Kind of bowler in the history of this great sport has retained such quality in their 50s? I don't think anyone has, if I'm fully frank.

Bradman never saw Barnes play, and his reasoning for O Reilly perhaps being superior was the assumption that Barnes needed to bowl the Googly or actually spun the ball, Barnes's response was that he didn't need googly... probably because as peterhrt proved, he was a pacer.

I'm making a case for the gentleman who was agreed to be the greatest bowler of all time for the first hundred years of the game, was averaging 16 with the ball and was at the level of some of the best interwar period bowlers while he was in his 50s, and also someone that is described as the most skillful bowler ever both in theory and on practicality.

That is a proper description of Barnes, if you don't rate him, that's fine, I do find it completely ludricous to rate O Reilly but not Barnes considering some of O Reilly's own peers saw a 50 year old Barnes and came off thinking he was an absolute monster, but you don't need to tag me everytime I say something remotely positive about Barnes.