Do you consider Malcolm Marshall...

[Rant0r]

hard to compare blokes you haven't seen, not even television footage

 

[Top_Cat]

hard to compare blokes you haven't seen, not even television footage

Bingo.

 

[Rant0r]

well at least a lot of us would have seen hilights of the 70's and 80's pace era

don't think anyone has seen barnes

 

[archie mac]

hard to compare blokes you haven't seen, not even television footage

Bingo.

Read a book

 

[Rant0r]

Read a book

yes i will read someone elses opinion in order to make my own BRILLIANT!

 

[archie mac]

yes i will read someone elses opinion in order to make my own BRILLIANT!

You read lots of books, and get a feel of how someone bowled, try Fry and Beldam 'Great bowlers and fielders their methods at a glance'.

Read contemporary match reports, read what their contemporaries thought of them, and then form an informed opinion

It is not Rocket Surgery

 

[Rant0r]

You read lots of books, and get a feel of how someone bowled, try Fry and Beldam 'Great bowlers and fielders their methods at a glance'.

Read contemporary match reports, read what their contemporaries thought of them, and then form an informed opinion

It is not Rocket Surgery

rocket surgery hey

i'm not going to compare sf barnes to anyone based on a match report, i accept that report may say that he was a champion bowler unplayable etc etc, but i can't look at how he bowled and compare it to me watching curtley ambrose on tv.

 

[archie mac]

rocket surgery hey

i'm not going to compare sf barnes to anyone based on a match report, i accept that report may say that he was a champion bowler unplayable etc etc, but i can't look at how he bowled and compare it to me watching curtley ambrose on tv.

The first line was a joke Joyce

Well that is up to you, but don't tell the rest of us that you can't compare bowlers that you have never watched, it is a silly statement imo

PS don't use all capitals it is considered poor form

 

[Rant0r]

The first line was a joke Joyce

Well that is up to you, but don't tell the rest of us that you can't compare bowlers that you have never watched, it is a silly statement imo

PS don't use all capitals it is considered poor form

i said it was hard to compare, and i don't think you really can accurately, you can only speculate. when you cross eras you also encounter the game being played differently, and rule changes etc.

and who used capitals ?

 

[archie mac]

i said it was hard to compare, and i don't think you really can accurately, you can only speculate. when you cross eras you also encounter the game being played differently, and rule changes etc.

and who used capitals ?

Yes you did say hard so I may have been over the top somewhat, sorry about that

yes i will read someone elses opinion in order to make my own BRILLIANT!

This post

 

[Rant0r]

that's one word...

 

[archie mac]

that's one word...

So that is OK?

 

[Rant0r]

So that is OK?

YES

 

[archie mac]

YES

 

[Migara]

Marshall, easily the best test fast bowler. Hadlee, Trueman, Lillie, Imran, Holding, Ambrose and McGrath also comes in that categoy.

SF Barnes was a terrific bowler, but in his days batting averages were lower than now. So that average of 18 should be taken with pich of salt.

 

[archie mac]

Marshall, easily the best test fast bowler. Hadlee, Trueman, Lillie, Imran, Holding, Ambrose and McGrath also comes in that categoy.

SF Barnes was a terrific bowler, but in his days batting averages were lower than now. So that average of 18 should be taken with pich of salt.

The smaller stumps, bigger ball and much tougher LBW law don't count?

 

[Uppercut]

hard to compare blokes you haven't seen, not even television footage

Have to agree with this. Reading can give you an idea of how good someone was with respect to how good everyone else was at the time, but you can't possibly compare players from 100 years ago of which no footage exists to players you watch regularly today.

 

[fredfertang]

If that were right there'd be no point in studying the history of anything

 

[Rant0r]

lots of uncovered pitches around in sf barnes time as well, should be taken into account

 

[Uppercut]

If that were right there'd be no point in studying the history of anything

That's not true. It's only true in this case because a cricketer, unlike a president or playwright =/ the sum of his achievements and what people have written about him. For non-enduring arts it doesn't work. You couldn't for instance, argue the merits of a guitarist of whom no footage exists in comparison with Hendrix. Whatever had been written about him.