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.

 

[kyear2]

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.

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.

A couple things.

Didn't say they were minnows the entire pre war period. They kinda were just before the war though. The batting line up had changed and not for the better, and the losses were worse.

And looking at the pre war stats really does somewhat tell its own story.

Finally, there's about a 20% drop off between Australia and SA, a similar 20% dropoff today does put SA into the Bangladesh company more than SL and Pak. Just my opinion of course.

But yeah, take a look at some of those lineups.

 

[kyear2]

*Not a minnow level team

But they were minnows level batting.

 

[kyear2]

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.

O'Reilly played in the flattest era of the game, likely an overcorrection, but that's the reality of it. I've seen footage of O'Reilly bowling.

I don't see what's the difficulty in seeing the distinction.

One faced off against better batsmen in easier batting conditions.

 

[Johan]

O'Reilly played in the flattest era of the game, likely an overcorrection, but that's the reality of it. I've seen footage of O'Reilly bowling.

I don't see what's the difficulty in seeing the distinction.

One faced off against better batsmen in easier batting conditions.

credit to Coronis for finding this

O’Reilly
144 @ 22.59
Other Aussies
302 @ 32.95

Barnes
189 @ 16.43
Other English
305 @ 29.59

I don't think O Reilly has some huge advantage due to pitches

Barnes had easier pitches Yes, but he was proven on batting pitches too, and more importantly, he averages 6 less than O Reilly, there's a 6.16 bowling average gap, that's the same gap as between Glenn McGrath and Stuart Broad.

so the era stuff is just gonna equalize them

 

[kyear2]

credit to Coronis for finding this

O’Reilly
144 @ 22.59
Other Aussies
302 @ 32.95

Barnes
189 @ 16.43
Other English
305 @ 29.59

I don't think O Reilly has some huge advantage due to pitches

Barnes had easier pitches Yes, but he was proven on batting pitches too, and more importantly, he averages 6 less than O Reilly, there's a 6.16 bowling average gap, that's the same gap as between Glenn McGrath and Stuart Broad.

so the era stuff is just gonna equalize them

I want to phrase this correctly.

First off, even for O'Reilly I only count his ashes tests when looking at his record.

If I don't count his, certainly not counting SA for Barnes, not with those line ups.

One was a "medium pacer", the other a spinner.

And finally, if you have to try to equivocate between the pre and post war period when it came to pitches, it makes no sense continuing the discussion.

And then there were the batsmen faced. Hammond, Hutton etc.

As I said , I'll just move on.

 

[Johan]

I want to phrase this correctly.

First off, even for O'Reilly I only count his ashes tests when looking at his record.

If I don't count his, certainly not counting SA for Barnes, not with those line ups.

One was a "medium pacer", the other a spinner.

And finally, if you have to try to equivocate between the pre and post war period when it came to pitches, it makes no sense continuing the discussion.

And then there were the batsmen faced. Hammond, Hutton etc.

As I said , I'll just move on.

sure

 

[DrWolverine]

I know @Johan will not like this but Barnes is so hard to judge and comparing him with a Maco or Bumrah is almost impossible

 

[kyear2]

I know @Johan will not like this but Barnes is so hard to judge and comparing him with a Maco or Bumrah is almost impossible

It really is.

 

[Johan]

oh please, Y'all compare Shane Warne to Curtly Ambrose, Barnes is definitely closer to Ambrose in bowling style than he is to Warne.

 

[subshakerz]

oh please, Y'all compare Shane Warne to Curtly Ambrose, Barnes is definitely closer to Ambrose in bowling style than he is to Warne.

Now you're confusing us more.

 

[DrWolverine]

 

[Johan]

Now you're confusing us more.

?

Barnes vs Ambrose is still pacer vs pacer, a medium Fazal Mahmood/Alec Bedser style bowler but still under the categorisation of fast bowler.

people here compare pacers and spinners daily, a pacer vs pacer comparision being impossible while people do pacers vs spinners is ridiculous.

 

[subshakerz]

?

Barnes vs Ambrose is still pacer vs pacer, a medium Fazal Mahmood/Alec Bedser style bowler but still under the categorisation of fast bowler.

people here compare pacers and spinners daily, a pacer vs pacer comparision being impossible while people do pacers vs spinners is ridiculous.

The videos I saw of Barnes made him seem like a spinner.

 

[Johan]

The videos I saw of Barnes made him seem like a spinner.

probably because most of the available footage of him is of him as a 80 year old

 

[subshakerz]

probably because most of the available footage of him is of him as a 80 year old

No there was footage of him bowling in a county game I think. Have to dig up the clip...

 

[Johan]

No there was footage of him bowling in a county game I think. Have to dig up the clip...

he played years of domestic as a 60 year old afaik, outperformed the then 31 year old Constantine but eh

 

[The Sean]

View attachment 45964

Imran's average, Waqar's strike rate and Murali's wicket tally are all absolutely crazy.

Also notable is how McGrath's best ever streaks aren't that much better than his overall career numbers. Extraordinary consistency.