How Good Was Sydney F Barnes?

[social]

Not trying to downplay his ability as medium pace cutters would have been hellishly difficult to play on uncovered wickets

However, it was a different time

 

[Third_Man]

Greatest bowler Staffordshire ever had.

Probably and ATG. Andrew Searle's book "SF Barnes his life and times" well worth a read and puts his bowling and life choices into context.

 

[weeman27bob]

Greatest bowler Staffordshire ever had.

He's just a poor man's Joe Leach.

 

[Flem274*]

He was ahead of his time and pioneered something new with world class results and probably hasn't been emulated, though pacers do use the leg cutter which while it might be different(?) is probably a direct legacy of his.

I'm not sure it would be worth the steep difficulty curve to try and emulate him in the modern game (Mustifizur is the closest I suspect) but he damn well cracked the code for his era and provided an ATG and unique attacking weapon to his team.

He's top 10 for me, not hugely concerned where. I think my model thing put him 7th without checking, which I'm content with.

 

[peterhrt]

In Barnes' day, the bowling pioneers were the googly bowlers. He was not regarded as much different in method from his peers. Later there was confusion about his style.

Pelham Warner saw plenty of Barnes and described him as a fast-medium bowler who aimed on or just outside off-stump, usually from wide of the crease, with only two men on the leg-side: short-leg and mid-on. From a high action he moved the ball either way off the pitch, mainly away. Two slips and a gully were always in the game.

Warner thought the deception came from Barnes' height and wide-of-crease delivery, rather than swerve, which after the ball lost its shine may have been more occasional.

As other posters have pointed out, the terms “spin” and “break” were sometimes used for any movement off the pitch, even from fast bowlers. The idea that Barnes was a spinner came partly from the man himself, when later trying to position himself as superior to modern seamers. He also said that the bowler who most resembled him in style was Bedser. Strudwick thought Bedser was quicker.

The Australians of the time seem to have held a higher opinion of Barnes than his own folk. They didn't have to manage him. Fry and Grace thought Lohmann was the best English medium-pacer. There were similarities in that both had a deceptive high delivery and moved the ball either way off the pitch. In the 1920s Harry Altham described Lohmann as having been “on the slow side of what we would now call medium”. He was not as fast as Barnes and more likely to have used spin.

 

[peterhrt]

Another observation from Warner was that with the new ball Barnes took wickets with an outswinger, delivered wide of the crease, that pitched on the stumps and kept going. It didn't cut or break, but people sometimes thought it had.

The so-called Golden Age, 1894-1914, was a time when pitches had improved sufficiently to give a reasonable balance between bat and ball. Leading wicket-takers in England v Australia Tests during this period:

Trumble 133 wickets @ 20
Barnes 106 @ 21
Rhodes 97 @ 23
Noble 115 @ 24
Richardson 78 @ 26

England's chairman of selectors Lord Hawke once said that Test cricket was the dullest form of the game and less important than domestic competition. By opting out of county cricket Barnes denied himself the high profile of some of his contemporaries. Within MCC and parts of the press, his standing as a cricketer was diminished. Wickets against South Africa did not compensate.

Barnes made his first-class debut in 1894. By WW1 he had taken 659 first-class wickets at 17 apiece. During this time, Blythe took 2503 wickets @16, Rhodes 2735 @ 17, Hirst 2562 @ 18, Hearne 2504 @ 18 and Richardson 1901 @ 18.

Barnes' 6,000-odd wickets in all cricket is impressive but not unique. WG Grace took over 7,000 and he was mainly a batsman. Grace's elder brother EM claimed over 12,000 wickets. A handful of other bowlers have passed the 5,000 mark in English club cricket.

On the other side of the equation, the proportion of leading witnesses within the game believing Barnes was the best they ever saw is probably unequalled by any bowler in history.

 

[HookShot]

The author Ralph Barker has a different opinion peterhrt.

The ‘swing‘ was technically ‘drift’ as the side-ways movement of the ball in the air was caused by the intense revolutions that Barnes put on every ball that he bowled. See below.

For both balls he gripped the ball in three fingers, the second finger over the top, the first and third spread on either side, so that the manner of delivery was the same; both leg-break and off-break were whipped down from the full extent of his reach, whether he was imparting off spin, mainly with the first finger, or leg spin, mainly with the third. Thus batsmen were in doubt what to expect until the ball actually left the hand, and were not always certain even then….

In addition to movement off the wicket, Barnes moved the ball a great deal in the air. But whereas the swing bowler moves off the wicket in the same direction as through the air, Barnes, as a swerve bowler — a man who always spun the ball — was apt to make the ball swing one way and break the other. He could not do this at will, but the possibility that it might happen was always present, and it happened far too frequently to be dismissed as a fluke. He seems to have been physically incapable of delivering the ball without imparting spin, and as long as the ball was spinning there was always the chance that it might move one way in the air, bite as it pitched, and come back the other.

‘Ten Great Bowlers. From Spofforth to O’Reilly’ by Ralph Barker

 

[peterhrt]

The author Ralph Barker has a different opinion peterhrt.

Ralph Barker was writing in 1967. He was a decent writer who did his research. Some of that research may well have involved the testimony of Barnes himself, who claimed he spun every ball. We will never know whether that was true but for a fast-medium bowler it seems unlikely.

Spin-swerve was part of Barnes' armoury and the descriptions of deliveries swerving one way and breaking the other were confirmed by contemporaries. On the other hand he always wanted the new ball and sulked when he didn't get it. One imagines the new ball might have been more useful for what was later known as swing, rather than spin-swerve.

When facing Barnes, Warner said he often felt the ball was going to pitch outside leg but invariably it pitched on the stumps. The movement in the air could have been caused by spin-swerve or swing. Barnes probably used both.

He went on to say that Barnes attacked off stump and outside, aiming to get batsmen caught in the slips, and that only two fielders were on the leg side. Outswerving off-cutters/breaks that came back off the pitch would have gone for runs.

Perhaps the question is how far Barnes' so-called mystery/uniqueness was down to absence from first-class cricket and retrospective hype. Was he simply fresher and better than others at the basics of bowling?

 

[the big bambino]

On the other hand he always wanted the new ball and sulked when he didn't get it.

Whether he spun or cut the ball might be conjectured but his tongue was certainly cutting. As L&L mentions Bernard Hollowood was scared of him. Once he gestured Hollowood to move in close on the leg side (I think). Hollowood made several attempts to locate the spot Barnes wanted him and finally satisfied, the bowler returned to his mark. At the top of it he stopped and glared at the fielder, trudged over to him, took his hand and placed him where he wanted him. Next ball the batsman ****ed up a dolly and the fielder caught it mid height without having to move an inch.

In the 1911/12 Ashes Warner fell ill and missed the series. Johnny Douglas took over as captain and took the new ball in the 1st test with Foster. Barnes' responded "that's right; you bowl em in and then expect me to bowl em out." England lost the match. Warner pulled Douglas aside for a word and Barnes got the new ball thereafter. England won the remaining four games.

 

[HookShot]

Ralph Barker was writing in 1967. He was a decent writer who did his research. Some of that research may well have involved the testimony of Barnes himself, who claimed he spun every ball. We will never know whether that was true but for a fast-medium bowler it seems unlikely.

Spin-swerve was part of Barnes' armoury and the descriptions of deliveries swerving one way and breaking the other were confirmed by contemporaries. On the other hand he always wanted the new ball and sulked when he didn't get it. One imagines the new ball might have been more useful for what was later known as swing, rather than spin-swerve.

When facing Barnes, Warner said he often felt the ball was going to pitch outside leg but invariably it pitched on the stumps. The movement in the air could have been caused by spin-swerve or swing. Barnes probably used both.

He went on to say that Barnes attacked off stump and outside, aiming to get batsmen caught in the slips, and that only two fielders were on the leg side. Outswerving off-cutters/breaks that came back off the pitch would have gone for runs.

Perhaps the question is how far Barnes' so-called mystery/uniqueness was down to absence from first-class cricket and retrospective hype. Was he simply fresher and better than others at the basics of bowling?

Not sure why people keep using the term ‘fast-medium’ when Bradman compared Barnes to O’Reilly and O’Reilly was classified as ‘medium paced’ despite hurling the ball at the batsman when he bowled his leg-breaks. John Arlott compared Barnes to Bedser, but Bedser wasn’t that quick either.

If the ‘Barnes Ball’ ball is drifting and turning as much as the literature says then he is more likely to have bowled at these speeds…

Shadab Khan to Joe Root (111 kph)

Krunal Pandya to Marcus Stoinis (112.5 kph)

Piyush Chawla to Shane Watson (117 kph)

Anil Kumble to Marcus Trescothick (118 kph)

….while perhaps occasionally getting up to Shahid Afridi‘s record of 134 kph.

5 fastest bowls delivered by spinners in cricket [VIDEO]

blog.siasat.pk

 

[the big bambino]

I don't think any of those deliveries were bowled to achieve spin or drift. Just surprise batsmen with unexpected pace.

 

[Starfighter]

Not sure why people keep using the term ‘fast-medium’ when Bradman compared Barnes to O’Reilly and O’Reilly was classified as ‘medium paced’ despite hurling the ball at the batsman when he bowled his leg-breaks. John Arlott compared Barnes to Bedser, but Bedser wasn’t that quick either.

Bradman never saw Barnes, his opinion is not well informed. Besder was a lot quicker than O'Reilly as footage would reveal.

Fast medium was the normal term for people of Bedser's pace at the time.

If your table was correct then few bowlers would be considered 'fast'. From my observation people overestimate average speed.

 

[HookShot]

Bradman never saw Barnes, his opinion is not well informed. Besder was a lot quicker than O'Reilly as footage would reveal.

Fast medium was the normal term for people of Bedser's pace at the time.

If your table was correct then few bowlers would be considered 'fast'. From my observation people overestimate average speed.

Barnes was a legend among the Australian players of his time, and so it seems unlikely that Bradman wouldn’t have discussed the great bowler with the likes of Clem Hill or Warren Bardsley.

Bill O’Reilly and Barnes actually did discuss their methods while having dinner in a London restaurant in 1934. The conversation was recorded by O’Reilly himself….

O'Reilly wrote books on the 1948 and 1950-51 Ashes series, Cricket Conquest and Cricket Task Force, and was the subject of R.S. Whitington's Time of the Tiger (1970), in which he recounts O'Reilly's meeting with SF Barnes, when the Englishman reacted to the remark that he didn't bowl the wrong'un, the googly, by saying, “I didn't have to.”

https://www.espncricinfo.com/wcm/content/story/230398.html

So why would O’Reilly ask Barnes why ‘he didn’t bowl the wrong’un, the googly’ if he didn’t think that Barnes and himself were similar bowlers in style and method?

After all, O’Reilly wouldn’t have asked the same question to a bowler like Damien Fleming because the question would have been ridiculous.

 

[the big bambino]

Maybe Barnes thought the question ridiculous too because he never bowled it either.

 

[Coronis]

Barnes was a legend among the Australian players of his time, and so it seems unlikely that Bradman wouldn’t have discussed the great bowler with the likes of Clem Hill or Warren Bardsley.

Bill O’Reilly and Barnes actually did discuss their methods while having dinner in a London restaurant in 1934. The conversation was recorded by O’Reilly himself….



https://www.espncricinfo.com/wcm/content/story/230398.html

So why would O’Reilly ask Barnes why ‘he didn’t bowl the wrong’un, the googly’ if he didn’t think that Barnes and himself were similar bowlers in style and method?

After all, O’Reilly wouldn’t have asked the same question to a bowler like Damien Fleming because the question would have been ridiculous.

After all we know how friendly and amiable Bradman was, always down for a discussion. Did you just pick Hill and Bardlsley’s names out of thin air or is there evidence Bradman actually spoke to either?

 

[HookShot]

Bradman never saw Barnes, his opinion is not well informed. Besder was a lot quicker than O'Reilly as footage would reveal.

Fast medium was the normal term for people of Bedser's pace at the time.

If your table was correct then few bowlers would be considered 'fast'. From my observation people overestimate average speed.

This is my point Starfighter. Modern day cricket followers use the term ‘fast-medium’ to to describe Barnes’ bowling because they sometimes read ‘fast-medium’ in early cricket literature. Folk then assume that Barnes must have bowled 130+ kph like Glenn McGrath because that’s what ‘fast medium’ now implies.

I am simply trying to apply a more suitable modern term like ‘medium”, or perhaps ‘medium-fast’ because that is what the evidence suggests.

But of course, every now and then you get a description in the literature that is suitable for every era, even ours….

Wilfred Rhodes, who celebrated his 90th birthday in October, 1967, one of the greatest of cricket's all-rounders, and one of the few remaining contemporaries of Barnes in the England side: Barnes was a very fine medium-paced bowler, the best I ever played with. He had a lovely run-up to the wicket, carrying the ball in his left hand until he was only two paces from the crease and then transferring it to his right. He kept a perfect length and direction and, if you wanted to field close to the wicket say, at short leg, you could stand up to the batsman without any fear. He was quite a decent bat, far better than he was made out to be and too good for a number eleven. He was also a very good fielder.

The following delivery could have been delivered by a pace bowler operating at 130+ kph, but it‘s more likely to have bowled by a spinner operating at sub 120 kph….

Hill was clean bowled by him. "The ball pitched outside my leg-stump, safe to the push off my pads, I thought. Before I could 'pick up' my bat, my off-stump was knocked silly."

Sydney F Barnes

BARNES, SYDNEY FRANCIS, died at Chadsmoor, Staffordshire on December 26, 1967

www.espncricinfo.com

 

[Starfighter]

Barnes was a legend among the Australian players of his time, and so it seems unlikely that Bradman wouldn’t have discussed the great bowler with the likes of Clem Hill or Warren Bardsley.

Bill O’Reilly and Barnes actually did discuss their methods while having dinner in a London restaurant in 1934. The conversation was recorded by O’Reilly himself….



https://www.espncricinfo.com/wcm/content/story/230398.html

So why would O’Reilly ask Barnes why ‘he didn’t bowl the wrong’un, the googly’ if he didn’t think that Barnes and himself were similar bowlers in style and method?

After all, O’Reilly wouldn’t have asked the same question to a bowler like Damien Fleming because the question would have been ridiculous.

You don't get it do you, no matter how times I explain.

O'Reilly and Barnes were not alike as bowlers. Barnes bowled with a leg break grip but different wrist position at what was considered a fast-medium pace as the time (like Alec Bedser). He was not like O'Reilly who bowled leg cutters (not conventional leg breaks) and googlies at what was considered a slow-medium to medium pace (like Derek Underwood).

Barnes presents himself as a spinner to differentiate himself from the 'normal' method of cutting the ball (which is actually just spin by a different method), but contemporary descriptions are unambiguous he was a fast-medium bowler. O'Reilly would never have seen him bowl so would only have a basic understanding of Barnes' style.

 

[Starfighter]

This is my point Starfighter. Modern day cricket followers use the term ‘fast-medium’ to to describe Barnes’ bowling because they sometimes read ‘fast-medium’ in early cricket literature. Folk then assume that Barnes must have bowled 130+ kph like Glenn McGrath because that’s what ‘fast medium’ now implies.

I am simply trying to apply a more suitable modern term like ‘medium”, or perhaps ‘medium-fast’ because that is what the evidence suggests.

But of course, every now and then you get a description in the literature that is suitable for every era, even ours….



The following delivery could have been delivered by a pace bowler operating at 130+ kph, but it‘s more likely to have bowled by a spinner operating at sub 120 kph….

Sydney F Barnes

BARNES, SYDNEY FRANCIS, died at Chadsmoor, Staffordshire on December 26, 1967

www.espncricinfo.com

If you have read my posts on here you will know that I strongly aware that what is considered fast-medium has dramatically increased in pace over the years (specifically between about 1930 and 1965 from my observations). I have had arguments with other posters on this point just as tedious as the one I'm having with you.

What part of 'similar in pace to Alec Bedser and Maurice Tate' (and Cliff Gladwin, George Pope, Dick Pollard etc etc) eludes you?

 

[HookShot]

You don't get it do you, no matter how times I explain.

O'Reilly and Barnes were not alike as bowlers. Barnes bowled with a leg break grip but different wrist position at what was considered a fast-medium pace as the time (like Alec Bedser). He was not like O'Reilly who bowled leg cutters (not conventional leg breaks) and googlies at what was considered a slow-medium to medium pace (like Derek Underwood).

Barnes presents himself as a spinner to differentiate himself from the 'normal' method of cutting the ball (which is actually just spin by a different method), but contemporary descriptions are unambiguous he was a fast-medium bowler. O'Reilly would never have seen him bowl so would only have a basic understanding of Barnes' style.

Wilfred Rhodes was fairly ‘contemporary’ of Barnes.

(see above quote)

 

[Starfighter]

Wilfred Rhodes was fairly ‘contemporary’ of Barnes.

(see above quote)

And he does not contradict what I said.

(Do note that people will not always use more specific qualifiers. Even, say, Time Southee is specifically considered 'fast-medium', many in such a context would simply call him a 'fast bowler', it's his role).