Malcolm Marshall vs Sydney Barnes

[Johan]

Warne and Murali are equals.

true, I put them and Tiger in that order in my all time lists

 

[Johan]

Standing 6ft 1 inches tall, Syd Barnes was also muscular and had long fingers and arms. Self- taught, Barnes bowled right-arm fast medium, much like McGrath, yet he delivered these balls with the accuracy and spin of a leg spinner like Warne. He was reasonably quick yet could bowl both leg-break and off-break deliveries, perfect for today’s Twenty20 cricket. What makes Barnes stand head and shoulders above the rest was his skill to bowl the ‘Barnes Ball’. The ‘Barnes Ball’ was delivered at 125 kph, and would swing toward middle and leg. Once pitched, the ball would spin sharply cutting across the batsman collecting their off stump or a slight nick to the eager fielders in slip. Adding to his repertoire, Barnes’ second stock delivery was the opposite of the ‘Barnes Ball’, this ball would swing late away from the batsman, yet spin in sharply once it hit the pitch, often castling the batsman’s stumps.

Bedser might be his infinitely less talented illegimate son, gaining as much movement as a spinner at 125 kmph is a death sentence.

 

[sayon basak]

You are pretty dumb always.

What did you expect? A meat pic from 150 years ago???

 

[kyear2]

Bedser might be his infinitely less talented illegimate son, gaining as much movement as a spinner at 125 kmph is a death sentence.

Also kinda fantastical?

 

[Johan]

Also kinda fantastical?

Barnes was very much a fantastical bowler, able to bowl on par with international bowlers well into his 50s even

 

[kyear2]

Ftfy.

What's with the Steyn neglect?

If one is to include Barnes, which I'm reluctant to do, my elite top 8 would be

Marshall
McGrath

Hadlee
Steyn / Ambrose
Ambrose /Steyn
Barnes
Warne / Murali
Murali /Warne

 

[Johan]

identical except I've Barnes at 4, then Ambrose, then Steyn, then Warne, then Murali, then Tiger, then Imran

 

[kyear2]

Barnes was very much a fantastical bowler, able to bowl on par with international bowlers well into his 50s even

He's like Ambrose if Ambrose only played against Australia and then played s/l or Bangladesh for a quarter of his games.

And you keep referencing what he was doing at 50, in the 30's and to me that speaks more to the level of competition that what a 50 hear old Warne or Murali could do today.

 

[kyear2]

identical except I've Barnes at 4, then Ambrose, then Steyn, then Warne, then Murali, then Tiger, then Imran

A medium pacer where the keeper always kept to him up to the wicket vs Steyn and Ambrose?

Again, let Ambrose bowl only to (a stronger) Australian lineup and only SL or Bangladesh for a quarter of his games and Ambrose's numbers are probably even better.

And again, in a more competitive era.

 

[Johan]

He's like Ambrose if Ambrose only played against Australia and then played s/l or Bangladesh for a quarter of his games.

And you keep referencing what he was doing at 50, in the 30's and to me that speaks more to the level of competition that what a 50 hear old Warne or Murali could do today.

Eh South Africans weren't bad at the time, it's more like if someone only plays Australia and 80s India, or 2000s England.

Don't know what that is supposed to prove, if Murali and Warne aren't good enough to play at that age, that is a skill issue for them.

 

[capt_Luffy]

He's like Ambrose if Ambrose only played against Australia and then played s/l or Bangladesh for a quarter of his games.

And you keep referencing what he was doing at 50, in the 30's and to me that speaks more to the level of competition that what a 50 hear old Warne or Murali could do today.

Again this ****?? You brought the same against Hobbs, just to be shown someone like Boycott was doing the same vs WI and Australian pacers......

 

[sayon basak]

What's with the Steyn neglect?

If one is to include Barnes, which I'm reluctant to do, my elite top 8 would be

Marshall
McGrath

Hadlee
Steyn / Ambrose
Ambrose /Steyn
Barnes
Warne / Murali
Murali /Warne

I rate Steyn equal to Ambrose, while leaning towards Ambrose just.

My top 5 fast bowlers would be:-
Marshall
McGrath
Hadlee
Ambrose
Steyn

 

[kyear2]

identical except I've Barnes at 4, then Ambrose, then Steyn, then Warne, then Murali, then Tiger, then Imran

Have no issue with Tiger at 9, I concur, though there's a level of hypocrisy there that bothers me. I would also have Imran next at 10.

But I've been reading a lot with regards to that era, even watching vids and interviews and haven't found a single person, who rated him above Lillee for that era. Even Holding was more consistent.and had his advocates.

 

[sayon basak]

Barnes was very much a fantastical bowler, able to bowl on par with international bowlers well into his 50s even

Is that what he meant by "fantastical"? Don't think so.

 

[kyear2]

Again this ****?? You brought the same against Hobbs, just to be shown someone like Boycott was doing the same vs WI and Australian pacers......

Show me a bowler at 50 who was doing this.

And wasn't his in the leagues and not FC?

And you can't tell me how to frame my perspectives.

And the jump in nutrition, health care and physical fitness in England from the 1930's to the 1980's was astronomical. The difference in life expectancy alone was something like from 58 to 73.

Additionally, as someone way more than twice your age, at 50 your body just can't do what it did when you're in your 20's or 30's.

 

[Johan]

A medium pacer where the keeper always kept to him up to the wicket vs Steyn and Ambrose?

Again, let Ambrose bowl only to (a stronger) Australian lineup and only SL or Bangladesh for a quarter of his games and Ambrose's numbers are probably even better.

And again, in a more competitive era.

that doesn't really mean much, for example

Barnes
189 @ 16.43
Other English
305 @ 29.59

Steyn
439 @ 22.95
other Saffers
1,103 @ 31.70

Barnes is pretty clearly better of the two imo

 

[subshakerz]

Additionally, as someone way more than twice your age, at 50 your body just can't do what it did when you're in your 20's or 30's.

Thanks for being so informative.

 

[subshakerz]

that doesn't really mean much, for example

Barnes
189 @ 16.43
Other English
305 @ 29.59

Steyn
439 @ 22.95
other Saffers
1,103 @ 31.70

Barnes is pretty clearly better of the two imo

Either Barnes should be rated no.1 bowler ever for somewhere after the top 10.

It doesn't make sense to put him at no.6 or 4 or whatever since he is an odd case to judge and there are such fine margins between the top tier bowlers anyways.

 

[Johan]

Either Barnes should be rated no.1 bowler ever for somewhere after the top 10.

It doesn't make sense to put him at no.6 or 4 or whatever since he is an odd case to judge and there are such fine margins between the top tier bowlers anyways.

Truth be told, I can see Barnes being #1

 

[kyear2]

that doesn't really mean much, for example

Barnes
189 @ 16.43
Other English
305 @ 29.59

Steyn
439 @ 22.95
other Saffers
1,103 @ 31.70

Barnes is pretty clearly better of the two imo

Or that the overall skill level in 1900 to 1914 wasn't as good as that when Steyn played, and with some pretty good bowlers to boot.

That's why I personally and most just don't go that far back, especially and again. For guys we can't see.

Coronis had a really good post a week or so back with regards to same. It was just a different game, level of competition etc.. Too many variables to rank them among even the post war greats.

Him and Grace I rate with guys from that pre WWI era. Think that's fair.