• 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
DrWolverine

DrWolverine

State Vice-Captain
The greatest pre war bowler

Still not comfortable rating him as the best ever

Not fair to compare him with modern day bowlers
 
M

ma1978

International Debutant
Patience and Accuracy+Gut said:
He would be in handful of bowlers top 7-8 without a doubt. You could then make a case for Bumrah over anyone. I could understand the voting for him then, though 350+ is where I think he would have a strong enough case for being The Best Ever.
Imho Barnes does and so do only 4 ish bowlers to have ever walked this planet.
Click to expand...
A fair take

sayon basak said:
Was thinking about how many bowlers in total have the argument of being the greatest ever.

Marshall
Muralitharan
Barnes
Warne
McGrath
Hadlee

Is this it? Did I miss someone?
Click to expand...
Steyn, for being such a statistical anomaly
 
D

Darkshadows

Cricket Spectator
sayon basak said:
The way you're comparing eras is stupid (like, pakpassion level stupid)
That'd be like saying Einstein would've surpassed Newton if he were to time travel to that time.
Click to expand...
Yeah I agree comparing eras is stupid but I do believe quality of sport has generally increased as time progressed. I can confidently say bumrah would average less with the ball if he was in 1900s than Barnes would in todays era. That being said Barnes is obviously greater than Bumrah but I don't think he was necessarily better at bowling.
 
Johan

Johan

International Regular
It's useless assuming, I personally think Barnes today would be unplayable in test but be playable/fodder in ODI
 
sayon basak

sayon basak

International Vice-Captain
Darkshadows said:
Yeah I agree comparing eras is stupid but I do believe quality of sport has generally increased as time progressed. I can confidently say bumrah would average less with the ball if he was in 1900s than Barnes would in todays era. That being said Barnes is obviously greater than Bumrah but I don't think he was necessarily better at bowling.
Click to expand...
I mean, if Bumrah were to born in that time, would he even play cricket? Players have much better Technology, Training and Equipment now, where Barnes was a self taught bowler and had to figure things out for himself.
 
DrWolverine

DrWolverine

State Vice-Captain
If Bumrah takes next three wickets for less than 148 runs, he’ll be the first bowler in Test history to reach 200 wickets milestones with an average below 20.00
 
sayon basak

sayon basak

International Vice-Captain
DrWolverine said:
If he does that you can rate him ahead of them and no one would have an issue as well.
Click to expand...
Still, I feel like the former bowlers faced batters from a tougher era (Thanks to T20, things are gonna get worse only).

But yeah 350+ wickets @20 or less would be too good to underrate him.
 
DrWolverine

DrWolverine

State Vice-Captain
I know it is tough to compare across eras

Bumrah stands out as the undisputed best pacer since his debut so he it would be fine I guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top