Glen McGrath vs Sydney Barnes

[Migara]

You mean the South African teams that beat England in two serieses and were competitive in Australia? the same side that would've won the last two tests of Barnes's South Africa tour had Barnes not been there? lol

And you mean the English 2nd XI?

 

[Johan]

And you mean the English 2nd XI?

Yeah Hobbs, Rhodes, Blythe, and Woolley were certainly playing in a 2nd XI in 1910, lmfao

 

[subshakerz]

Barnes' averages adjusted to the global batting average is more or less similar to McGrath's. And McGrath didn't feast on minnows, and even if he did, there was no one as meh as South African teams that Barnes bowled to.

Once you minus minnows from Barnes record his sample size is hard to take seriously.

 

[Johan]

Once you minus minnows from Barnes record his sample size is hard to take seriously.

What are you subtracting? Barnes never played any minnows.

 

[subshakerz]

What are you subtracting? Barnes never played any minnows.

True SA may not have been that bad.

 

[Migara]

Yeah Hobbs, Rhodes, Blythe, and Woolley were certainly playing in a 2nd XI in 1910, lmfao

And most of the rest never playing after that tour. Yeah, I see it.

 

[Johan]

True SA may not have been that bad.

They weren't, won two serieses against England, were competitive against Australia in Australia and won a game, would've won the 4th test of Barnes's 49 wicket series if the game had continued and Barnes took 14-144 in that test, would've won the game prior had Barnes not taken 8 for 130 I think.

 

[Johan]

And most of the rest never playing after that tour. Yeah, I see it.

so England's problems make them a Second XI even though they played all their best players besides Barnes (who willingly didn't play a lot of the times)? lmao, you bitch about Warne broken toe nail excuse and make excuses five times more idiotic like these.

how about you stop yapping and you show me actual evidence that Saffers were considered minnows at the time?

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Barnes' averages adjusted to the global batting average is more or less similar to McGrath's. And McGrath didn't feast on minnows, and even if he did, there was no one as meh as South African teams that Barnes bowled to.

I think they would finish with similar stats. Barnes for sure would have lot more WPM, average wise I think both Barnes and McGrath would finish about the same with Barnes ahead if I had to bet.
Just can’t see McGrath having better stats than Barnes by any chance.

 

[kyear2]

What are you subtracting? Barnes never played any minnows.

you're really going all in on this argument that the SA that Barnes faced were a good test team I see.

 

[kyear2]

I think they would finish with similar stats. Barnes for sure would have lot more WPM, average wise I think both Barnes and McGrath would finish about the same with Barnes ahead if I had to bet.
Just can’t see McGrath having better stats than Barnes by any chance.

Barnes averaged 21 vs Australia in a bowling era.

He averaged 9 vs SA.

We're just ignoring the disparity there?

 

[shortpitched713]

What the ****

Honestly could be the case, if he was doing supernatural **** no other bowlers could do.

Not like we had video replay to review and verify his action at the University of Western Australia or something. Calling chucking or not was all vibes based back in those days.

 

[Johan]

Honestly could be the case, if he was doing supernatural **** no other bowlers could do.

Not like we had video replay to review and verify his action at the University of Western Australia or something. Calling chucking or not was all vibes based back in those days.

Every piece of photographic evidence we have contradicts the idea that he was a chucker, and we saw him bowl in his 50s and 60s and he still wasn't chucking, and of course, no one who saw him actually believe he chucked.

 

[Johan]

you're really going all in on this argument that the SA that Barnes faced were a good test team I see.

Barnes averaged 21 vs Australia in a bowling era.

He averaged 9 vs SA.

We're just ignoring the disparity there?

Miandad averaged 29 vs West Indies

Miandad averaged 47 vs Australia

Australia = Minnow or no?

 

[shortpitched713]

Every piece of photographic evidence we have contradicts the idea that he was a chucker, and we saw him bowl in his 50s and 60s and he still wasn't chucking, and of course, no one who saw him actually believe he chucked.

It's hardly a tremendous sample size of evidence to judge on.

In particular with reference to still photos, you do realize how those were made in Barnes' days, right? They were hardly the action shots we are used to in the modern day, and hence are worth literally 0 as evidence.

Regardless, whether or not this fossil used to chuck or not doesn't determine whether I think McGrath was a better bowler, so I'll gladly cede it.

Barnes most probably didn't chuck (he most probably also didn't bowl proper off breaks and leg breaks at 75 mph either so hey).

 

[subshakerz]

Every piece of photographic evidence we have contradicts the idea that he was a chucker, and we saw him bowl in his 50s and 60s and he still wasn't chucking, and of course, no one who saw him actually believe he chucked.

The issue is if he was chucking in the 50s and 60s you would have chalked it up to age like you did for the image of Rhodes.

 

[Johan]

It's hardly a tremendous sample size of evidence to judge on.

In particular with reference to still photos, you do realize how those were made in Barnes' days, right? They were hardly the action shots we are used to in the modern day, and hence are worth literally 0 as evidence.

Regardless, whether or not this fossil used to chuck or not doesn't determine whether I think McGrath was a better bowler, so I'll gladly cede it.

Barnes most probably didn't chuck (he most probably also didn't bowl proper off breaks and leg breaks at 75 mph either so hey).

Okay, Why do you think even a hundred years back they wouldn't analyse a bowler's action with enough scrutiny to make sure that international sports is not endorsing a cheat? none of the footage of him looks like chucking, nor did anyone from the time think they're chucking.

Regardless, if people have a problem with Barnes being rated, we can start a club and call it the losers club and people can have their discussions and outlandish theories there, no need to tag me with 9/11 was an inside job levels of conspiracy theories.

Respond when you've concrete evidence of him chucking, Thank You.

 

[subshakerz]

Okay, Why do you think even a hundred years back they wouldn't analyse a bowler's action with enough scrutiny to make sure that international sports is not endorsing a cheat? none of the footage of him looks like chucking, nor did anyone from the time think they're chucking.

Regardless, if people have a problem with Barnes being rated, we can start a club and call it the losers club and people can have their discussions and outlandish theories there, no need to tag me with 9/11 was an inside job levels of conspiracy theories.

Respond when you've concrete evidence of him chucking, Thank You.

You're overreacting again. It's fine to assume his action was clean. We don't need to scrutinize photos and pretend it can be evidence either way.

 

[kyear2]

Every piece of photographic evidence we have contradicts the idea that he was a chucker, and we saw him bowl in his 50s and 60s and he still wasn't chucking, and of course, no one who saw him actually believe he chucked.

Again, judging from the quality of the film, highly questionable as to when that footage was from.

 

[kyear2]

Miandad averaged 29 vs West Indies

Miandad averaged 47 vs Australia

Australia = Minnow or no?

Lots of good batsmen averaged much lower vs the WI. 47 also is in no way comparable to averaging 9 vs a poor team.