Barnes 1912 Sa series Vs Hadlee 1985 Aus Series

[DrWolverine]

I do not care even if you are Don Freaking Bradman, you can’t be top notch cricketer at age of 55 but let’s just agree to disagree buddy

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

If you are saying peak Barnes doing well in any era, it is certainly possible.

But if you are saying 50 year old man Barnes doing well, that is not possible at all.

I meant Peak Barnes in 1950s,1970s,80s or any era basically. Ofc Barnes did slow down when he was 50 years of age and later. But he could still bowl.

 

[Johan]

well alright

 

[Johan]

Wales v West Indies at Llandudno Cricket Club Ground, 25-27 Jul 1928

found the game where Constantine must've seen Barnes

Barnes – 12/118
Constantine – 3/59
Francis – 3/99

 

[DrWolverine]

It makes me question how serious the match was

 

[capt_Luffy]

It makes me question how serious the match was

Oh I assure Barnes won't show up if it wasn't serious/had some major money on table.

 

[Coronis]

I do not care even if you are Don Freaking Bradman, you can’t be top notch cricketer at age of 55 but let’s just agree to disagree buddy

I think Don Bradman would have been fine in 1963. He may not have been as good as Sobers at that time, but he’d still be up there imo.

 

[peterhrt]

I think Don Bradman would have been fine in 1963. He may not have been as good as Sobers at that time, but he’d still be up there imo.

Bradman played his last match in February 1963, for the Australian Prime Minister's XI (actually XII with 11 batting and fielding) v MCC. It was a one-day game. Batting number five, Bradman was bowled by Statham for 4.

 

[kyear2]

Who are these no one? Everyone who saw Barnes well on to 1980s were swearing Barnes was the greatest bowler there had ever been and the greatest there will ever be. Hutton faced Barnes when Barnes was 62 and was in disbelief . And so were everyone from Constantine, Sutcliffe etc. who faced Barnes when Barnes was 50-60 years of age. Everyone can’t be lying how good this guy was. Plus the stats of Barnes with era adjustment and whatever adjustment is second to none. Even his stats against Australia are as good as any bowler against top side.

Peak Bedser was putting ridiculous stats in 1950s. Barnes would have run havoc.

I'll hopefully make this my last response on this matter, because there's a combination of inconsistencies, a huge dose of suspension of disbelief and ignoring of stats that's required to come to these conclusions.

1. Barry Richards was hailed as the consensus best batsman of the first half of the 70's. Of that there's no argument. Of all of the great and ATG bowlers of the era, he's unanimously rated as the best opener they faced, if not best batsman overall. All of that is ignored for him, and we have numbers and visual evidence to back up those claims.

2. That we are supposed to believe that a 50 to 60 year old was somehow the best bowler ever is bridge too far. We've seen footage from that stage of his career if not earlier and there's nothing there that's comparable to Larwood far less Lindwall and O'Reilly. That's like McGrath coming out of retirement and everyone saying that this current version of him is the greatest anyone's ever seen.

3. His stats vs Australia are very good and very likely sufficient for him to be ranked an ATG, but it's his stats vs SA that elevates him for some into the pantheon of top 6 pacers and top 8 bowlers overall. But we don't, well most of us don't rate Sachin based on what he did vs Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, nor for what he racked up in the 2000's, not as a primary conservation at least. So why is it that SA is the primary factor in considering Barnes a contender for GOAT? And yes, it is the primary factor, because without it, he wouldn't be.

And taking a player where his stats and performances vs a singular country can impact ones overall numbers and rating to such a significant degree, also speaks to said era.

I'm the peer rating guy, but if we're listening to people who faced him in his 60's and paying homage to a legend, then we're going too far. There's a reason why players start to decline as they get older, and the level of competition verifies or even illustrates that.

I'm not buying 60 year old Barnes was better than peak Lindwall, O'Reilly or even Larwood.

And again, this is why many restrict their ratings to players they can actually witness themselves, even if in smaller quantities.

I respect your opinions and perspectives, I just disagree with this one.

 

[kyear2]

Fair enough




Barnes running havoc in 1950s? Really?




No one can be a good cricketer at that age.

exactly.

 

[Johan]

I doubt a 50-60 year old Barnes was better than O Reilly or Lindwall, but he was unanimously seen as superior to peak Larwood even at that age.

 

[kyear2]

Peak Barnes would run havoc in any generation, anywhere

And I just don't see any viable evidence to be able to support that.

I can't look at a single delivery and say, that was impressive.

 

[Johan]

And I just don't see any viable evidence to be able to support that.

I can't look at a single delivery and say, that was impressive.

same with me and Bill O Reilly and Ray Lindwall, I don't judge them on black and white footage tho

 

[kyear2]

It makes me question how serious the match was

The WI batting, even after Atlas came around was notoriously poor. They were at best club level, even worse than today's.

 

[kyear2]

I doubt a 50-60 year old Barnes was better than O Reilly or Lindwall, but he was unanimously seen as superior to peak Larwood even at that age.

And I find that to be dubious at best.

 

[Johan]

And I find that to be dubious at best.

ok? you admit to have not seen Barnes, well, those who played both Barnes and Larwood deemed a 50+ Barnes better