• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Jasprit Bumrah vs Sydney Barnes

Who is the better test bowler?

  • Total voters
    24
sayon basak

sayon basak

International Vice-Captain
Coronis said:
Now now, age is not a number to be ashamed of.



Age doesn’t necessarily have much to do with favourites. A lot of my favourites (the majority probably) retired before I was born, and a not insignificant number of them would’ve been dead.
Click to expand...
Wilfred Rhodes is actually my first favorite cricketer.
 
sayon basak

sayon basak

International Vice-Captain
DrWolverine said:
Yes the gap is clearly greater

I would love to see the difference between Barnes and his teammates against Australia
Click to expand...
Barnes and his Teammates vs AUS:-
IMG_20241225_121556.jpg
Lohmann and his Teammates vs AUS:-
IMG_20241225_121639.jpg

Bobby Peel was arguably better than Lohmann vs AUS.
 
T

Thala_0710

State Regular
sayon basak said:
Mustafizur only bowled off cutter (I had only seen him bowl leg cutter once in test, and you know, more than half of his back of the hand deliveries ended up as a beamer). That was not the case with Barnes, who could swing and seam the ball, before it became a thing.
And even if they were similar in attribute, that wouldn't mean they would be similar in outcome. I could argue Bumrah and Naveen Ul Haq have similar actions, doesn't mean if Naveen fails in tests, so should Bumrah.

And as I've said this earlier, if cricket exists after 100 more years, the game is gonna evolve even more. Would you then agree if someone says, "Sachin's stats can't be taken at face value, as he performed against limited opponent and in a very different time"?

as Red_ink_squid said, we should compare players by "player vs contemporaries" vs "player vs contemporaries" and Barnes was the most dominant bowler in his time by a long shot.
Click to expand...
The issue with doing player contemporaries strictly is that not all eras of cricket had similar level of cricket being played. Also if you're doing just that, than Barnes should be far and away clear of guys like Marshall, Mcgrath just like Bradman is but not by the same gap. Also, like I said before, the graph of improvement in any sport like cricket is not a linear increase, rather something like logx, which means that the increase in the first few years in the standard of the sport would be of a much much higher order, rather than later where it basically flattens out for all purposes (one could argue even goes down due to factors like T20 cricket).
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
Thala_0710 said:
The issue with doing player contemporaries strictly is that not all eras of cricket had similar level of cricket being played. Also if you're doing just that, than Barnes should be far and away clear of guys like Marshall, Mcgrath just like Bradman is but not by the same gap. Also, like I said before, the graph of improvement in any sport like cricket is not a linear increase, rather something like logx, which means that the increase in the first few years in the standard of the sport would be of a much much higher order, rather than later where it basically flattens out for all purposes (one could argue even goes down due to factors like T20 cricket).
Click to expand...
Imo the problem here is the idea Barnes played in the Early days of cricket. He didn't. Cricket has been around for about 300 years by then already, and professionals for around 200. It had been like 60 years since overarm became legal.
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
sayon basak said:
Was there any updated one? Because the one I see is this:-
Lohmann= 774
Turner= 708

DoG's Top 100 Test Bowlers Countdown Thread 100-1

No.59 Morne Morkel (South Africa) 721 Quality Points: 638 Career Points: 83 Career: 2006-2018 Wickets: 309 Gold Performances: 3 5/20 vs. India at Centurion 2010 (17.84) 6/23 vs. New Zealand at Wellington 2012 (18.63) 5/23 vs. Australia at Cape Town 2018 (15.26) Silver Performances: 2 Bronze...
www.cricketweb.net
Click to expand...
No this one probably. I actually didn't remember how Lohmann did tbh
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
sayon basak said:
I mean, if you're gonna only take numbers and make a list, you might not get the exact order that you expect. Still an ATG effort and a great list imo.


Better than ICC Rankings @capt_Luffy?
Click to expand...
Everything is better than ICC Rankings, probably that Deepak Singh list too. And this list was genuinely Great for the past.

Moreover, I don't really think there is nothing inherently wrong with the way these particular 10 bowlers are ranked.
 
DrWolverine

DrWolverine

State Vice-Captain
sayon basak said:
I mean, if you're gonna only take numbers and make a list, you might not get the exact order that you expect. Still an ATG effort and a great list imo.


Better than ICC Rankings @capt_Luffy?
Click to expand...
Hadlee was a one man army in a weak team
Steyn excelled in an era when no one else did
So I can understand why they topped the list
 
sayon basak

sayon basak

International Vice-Captain
capt_Luffy said:
Everything is better than ICC Rankings, probably that Deepak Singh list too. And this list was genuinely Great for the past.
Click to expand...
So you'd say my mindless arbitrary function AR list was better too?

That's the greatest compliment I've ever had.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top