Do you consider Malcolm Marshall...

[Rant0r]

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.

well put

 

[fredfertang]

We will have to agree to differ - Cricket's present is inextricably linked to it's past - that's why there is no other sport that comes close

 

[a massive zebra]

I don't really disagree with you Richard - I'm just a little surprised that Barnes reputation has endured down the years in a way that some others, particularly George Lohmann, whose tests were all against Australia, haven't

I'm fairly sure this isn't correct. IIRC George Lohmann took something like 35 wickets @ 5 in a very early five match series against the Saffies at their very worst, so as with Barnes, his record against Australia is significantly inferior to his overall Test record.

Furthermore, as Richard rightly points out, South Africa improved significantly in the period between facing Lohmann and Barnes.

 

[fredfertang]

Indeed you are correct - my apologies - but he still averaged less than 13 against Australia

 

[BoyBrumby]

I think comparions across the generations are always difficult because the players are almost literally playing different sports*. For any sportsperson I think the most one can reasonably expect of them is to be the best of their contemporaries, which SF Barnes seems to have clearly been.

If one looks at the test bowling figures for the 1910s, which seems to be the decade where the great man was at his peak, his peers are almost embarrassed by the comparison. Meanwhile Marshall was also the standout of the 1980s but Hadlee, Imran & Garner are snapping at his heels.

Is it enough to say Barnes is definitively the better bowler? No. But it at least makes a decent case that he might have been.

*The exception to this is, of course, Bradman, whose figures are so very much better than anything before, since or likely to happen at any time in the future that one can resaonably say he is the best.

 

[Uppercut]

We will have to agree to differ

Indeedy

- Cricket's present is inextricably linked to it's past - that's why there is no other sport that comes close

Interesting that you think that. Is the sport's interesting history and abundance of good writing in comparison with other sports what attracted you to it, or even what keeps you interested in it?

 

[Uppercut]

Records includes the following current or recent matches:
South Africa v England at Port Elizabeth, 5th Test, Feb 27-Mar 3, 1914 [Test # 134]
South Africa v England at Durban, 4th Test, Feb 14-18, 1914 [Test # 133]
South Africa v England at Johannesburg, 3rd Test, Jan 1-5, 1914 [Test # 132]

 

[BoyBrumby]

Inextricably linked to its past indeed.

 

[Jamee999]

It's recent for Richie...

 

[fredfertang]

Indeedy



Interesting that you think that. Is the sport's interesting history and abundance of good writing in comparison with other sports what attracted you to it, or even what keeps you interested in it?

If the link I mention weren't there then there wouldn't be a need/market for the numerous books on the games history that are published each year

 

[Goughy]

If one looks at the test bowling figures for the 1910s, which seems to be the decade where the great man was at his peak, his peers are almost embarrassed by the comparison.[/SIZE]

Amazing that he has more 10 wicket games during that period than the rest of the world combined.

 

[Uppercut]

If the link I mention weren't there then there wouldn't be a need/market for the numerous books on the games history that are published each year

I don't deny it existed, I was only wondering if it's really what got you into the game or what holds your interest about it.

 

[a massive zebra]

Indeed you are correct - my apologies - but he still averaged less than 13 against Australia

Certainly a fine achievement, and I am not here to debate George Lohmann's greatness as a bowler, but one should bear in mind that the overall Test batting average between 1886 and 1896 (Lohmann's career span) was less than 20, so his average of 13 against Australia is not quite as staggering as might appear at first glance from a modern perspective.

I am of the view that batting techniques were still developing until the mid 1890s and the onset of the so called golden age. In 1903, Lord Hawke wrote "County fixtures have materially raised the standard of the game: they have made cricket very superior in quality to what it used to be." Notwithstanding the improvements in pitch preparation, the fact that batting averages almost doubled between the 1870s and the first decade of the 20th century suggests strongly that the vast majority of this improvement was on the batting front.

Given this improvement in batting standards and techniques between the respective peaks of Lohmann and Barnes, it is debatable whether Barnes' average off 22 against Australia compares unfavourably with Lohmann's 13. Also, nearly everyone who saw Barnes at his best thought him the best bowler ever, and his career was close enough to Lohmann's for many people to have seen both bowlers.

 

[fredfertang]

I don't deny it existed, I was only wondering if it's really what got you into the game or what holds your interest about it.

Good question - I fell in love with the game as a small child and just enjoyed playing - my Dad bought Wisden every year and eventually I started working backwards and an obsession developed - I'm sure I'd still be here if I didn't collect cricket books but I suppose my outlook might be different

 

[Migara]

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

And sticky wickets, matting wickets too.

 

[Richard]

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

So were there in the days of Ray Illingworth and Derek Underwood.

And Clarrie Grimmett and Bill O'Reilly too.

However, wristspinners don't and never have needed rain-affected pitches to be effective. Fingerspinners have.

 

[archie mac]

And sticky wickets, matting wickets too.

I hardly remember SF having a sticky wicket to bowl on in Aust. in one case he cleaned up the Aussie top order on a road, which is considered one of the best bowling performances ever.
.

matting wickets, have lots of runs scored on them as well, although it seems SF bowled well on them.

 

[archie mac]

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.

You can't compare a guitarist with his contemporaries, with no footage/sound that is true, but has nothing to do with comparing cricketers

We have averages, we have performances to compare against contemporaries, we have photos, lets be honest you don't have to hear a bowler to know how could he was

 

[Uppercut]

You can't compare a guitarist with his contemporaries, with no footage/sound that is true, but has nothing to do with comparing cricketers

We have averages, we have performances to compare against contemporaries, we have photos, lets be honest you don't have to hear a bowler to know how could he was

Miss the analogy? :S

None of that helps when comparing across eras. You could easily say SF Barnes was the best of his time based on contemporary comments or his incredible average. But we certainly don't know enough to judge whether he was better than Malcolm Marshall, Dennis Lillee and Glenn McGrath or not. We don't know the general skill level in those days (i'm almost 100% certain it was lower than it is today), we have no idea how fast or accurate he was compared to a Thomson or McGrath, we don't know how he got his wickets or what his action was like beyond the vague idea we get from photos.

Which is fine when it's a level playing field. Someone else who played on the same pitches against the same players with the same contemporaries to judge him is a fair comparison. But when you have
1. One player you have an abundance of evidence of having lived through their career, the other who you far, far less evidence of and
2. A ridiculous amount of variables in the state of the game, the players and the contemporary critics,
it's time to admit you're guessing who's better.

 

[Burgey]

Marshall was on eof the few bowlers I watched whom the thought of facing scared the living **** out of me. You see all these other bowlers who were all quality and obv. way too good for the likes of me, but Marshall was one who just terrified me.

A couple of his comments:

At the Gabba, Boon made 50 on debut, then got to the non-striker's end:

"Well batted Boonie. Now are you going to do the right thing and get out, or do I have to come around the wicket and kill you?"

In a club game in Sydney when he played for Waverley, a mate of mine was playing vs him - playing and missing, playing and missing. Finally gets a tickle to the keeper - "Not out".
Marshall was such a competitor, even at that level - he blew up an absolute treat, swearing etc, then finished the rant with this comment to my mate "Next ball mon - Hand to Head".
Now my mate, who's a lovely bloke, a very competent 1st grade opnener and as unprepossessing as can be, is standing there over his bat, as Marshall goes back to the full length of his run up. He told me (I wasn't there) that as Marshall got to his dleivery stride he (my mate) was crouching so low that as Marshall let the ball go his head was already below bail height!

Anyway, he didn't bowl a beamer apparently, just the fastest bouncer this mate of mine had ever seen.