• 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.

Quick World ATG XI draft- No Bradman

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
Was Barnes the greatest bowler of all time?

"What do you want?" A nice greeting, I must say, to a pilgrim who had just driven for three hours all the way up to Cannock, Staffordshire. It was not as if my visit was unscheduled. Sydney Barnes had agreed to it by telephone. He was now 94, and still ferociously sharp mentally. And here I was, looking up into that gaunt face framed in the doorway, and wondering if I was ever going to be invited in.

Maybe he was playing games, teasing, provoking? The history books tell of how difficult he could be to captains, committees and opponents. Now he even refused to sign a book because I had only a ballpoint pen. His copperplate handwriting with a fountain pen - or was it a quill? - was renowned. "I'm not going into the office for you just to get my pen," he croaked. It was a Saturday, so the council office in Stafford where he worked part-time would be locked anyway.

He took some warming up. Then the stories began to flow, though I can't recall a real smile throughout that awesome session in the living room - a faintly evil grimace, yes.

Animatedly he talked me through his first morning spell against Australia at Melbourne in the 1911-12 Ashes series: bowled Bardsley with his first ball, had Kelleway lbw, bowled Hill, then had Armstrong caught by his Warwickshire wicketkeeper Tiger Smith: 4 for 1 in seven legendary overs. Having Minnett later caught by Hobbs gave him 5 for 6, all quality wickets, and England were on their way to sweeping the series after the first Test had been lost. That'd show that vain captain, JWHT Douglas, that Barnes and not he should use the new ball with Frank Foster.

Barnes revealed that the man who brought a bottle of whisky to him in his room the night before, after word had circulated that he was sick, was none other than the Australian veteran, little Syd Gregory, who was not playing. It made all the difference next day. "SF" was fiery as ever, shocking Australia with that 11-over spell, later flopping to the turf when he was barracked for slow field arrangement, resuming only when it stopped.

Did he cut the ball like Underwood? "Cut it!" He glared, and again I wondered if he might hurl something at me. "I spun the ball!" Those long, gnarled fingers gyrated around imaginary leather. He bowled a brisk medium, but applied spin, with excruciating accuracy. No wonder he was regarded as the greatest bowler of all by most thoughtful judges. His bag of 49 wickets in South Africa in 1913-14 is still a series record. And he missed the fifth Test! The official reasons were hazy, but Barnes now explained: they wouldn't pay for his wife's accommodation. That marked the end of his erratic Test career: 189 wickets at 16.43 in 27 Tests. He was 40. Had he played as many Tests as Shane Warne (as yet unborn when we met), Barnes might have finished with around 1000, though covered pitches would have cut him back a little (my view, not his).

Like most old-timers, he had a distant look in his eyes as he recalled long-ago incidents and events: England's one-wicket victory which he pulled off with Arthur Fielder at the MCG in 1908, and his feigned injury when the fee offered for playing in the Lord's centenary match in 1914 was reckoned inadequate. Money drove him beyond most other considerations.

He went from league club to league club because the pay in county cricket fell short. He had as little respect for committees as for opposing batsmen. This theme saturated his reminiscences. Years later the great South African offspinner Hugh Tayfield passed on to me some extreme advice that Barnes had given him: "Don't take any notice of anything anybody ever tells you!"

It was slightly demanding as well as pleasurable to be in Barnes's company. A nonagenarian he might have been, yet his brooding countenance gave a vivid taste of what it must have been like to be an opposing batsman. He wasn't all malevolence: as I was leaving, he relented and signed my book.

David Frith
This article was first published in the August issue of The Wisden Cricketer.
 
Last edited:

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
Barnes was born in 1973 and gave the interview when he was 93, so it must have been 1966? Barnes died in 1967.
 

Jager

International Debutant
Lower order batting strength in ATG sides is way overrated in this forum. If your ATG batsmen couldn't make runs, why do you think the tail could?
 

watson

Banned
Lower order batting strength in ATG sides is way overrated in this forum. If your ATG batsmen couldn't make runs, why do you think the tail could?
Because some specialist batsman like Waugh and Border shepherd the tail extremely well by manipulating the strike. Hence, having a bowler with some batting skill is important as it makes them more likely to survive the last ball or two of the over.

Of course, if Ambrose and McGrath are at the crease then it's "good night Irene" as you suggest. On the other hand, Waugh + Benaud, or Waugh + Akram would be more difficult to breakup by any combination of bowlers. I think it reasonable that both these pairs of batsman could put on 30 run partnerships. And in a tight match 60 runs is invaluable.
 
Last edited:

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
Lower order batting strength in ATG sides is way overrated in this forum. If your ATG batsmen couldn't make runs, why do you think the tail could?
I don't care so much about number 10 and 11, but I like my number 7 and 8 (and 9 preferably) batsmen to have a reasonable amount of skill with the bat.

If the choice is between Richard Hadlee or Chris Martin at number 9, and you still need 30 or 40 to win on day 5....
 

Himannv

Hall of Fame Member
Lower order batting strength in ATG sides is way overrated in this forum. If your ATG batsmen couldn't make runs, why do you think the tail could?
I generally tend to not bother about the batting abilities of my bowlers but I thought I would play this draft in a different manner and pick up bowlers who can actually contribute with the bat till around number 8 or so. I never expected to get Flower so my batting does tend to look a lot stronger down the order than I had initially planned.

That article by David Frith is fascinating. It's an unusually insightful piece of writing that not only gives a fairly clear picture of how Barnes bowled but about his little mannerisms that make him all the more interesting.
 

watson

Banned
I generally tend to not bother about the batting abilities of my bowlers but I thought I would play this draft in a different manner and pick up bowlers who can actually contribute with the bat till around number 8 or so. I never expected to get Flower so my batting does tend to look a lot stronger down the order than I had initially planned.

That article by David Frith is fascinating. It's an unusually insightful piece of writing that not only gives a fairly clear picture of how Barnes bowled but about his little mannerisms that make him all the more interesting.
How do you think that Flower's keeping ability would standup to bowlers like Steyn or SF Barnes? I can't imagine that Zimbabwe had any bowlers of their pace or variety when Flower was standing behind the stumps.

In other words, can a team afford a keeper who has little alternative but to 'learn on the job' when the opposition is another ATG team and therefore every 'half-chance' counts?
 

Himannv

Hall of Fame Member
How do you think that Flower's keeping ability would standup to bowlers like Steyn or SF Barnes? I can't imagine that Zimbabwe had any bowlers of their pace or variety when Flower was standing behind the stumps.

In other words, can a team afford a keeper who has little alternative but to 'learn on the job' when the opposition is another ATG team and therefore every 'half-chance' counts?
It's certainly a risk and I definitely didn't plan on picking him. However, I don't think he'll do terribly. Steyn shouldn't be too much trouble I reckon but Barnes may be a bit of a handful imo.
 

watson

Banned
It's certainly a risk and I definitely didn't plan on picking him. However, I don't think he'll do terribly. Steyn shouldn't be too much trouble I reckon but Barnes may be a bit of a handful imo.
I think that you're probably right re Steyn and Barnes. Hence, it wouldn't be very nice if he missed a leg-side stumping off Barnes's bowling when Graeme Pollock was only 7 runs (for example). Barnes probably wouldn't speak to him for the rest of the match.

The upside is that Flower has the potential to transform an innings from 5/100 to 5/250 relatively quickly and efficiently when batting (for example).
 

Jager

International Debutant
I think that you're probably right re Steyn and Barnes. Hence, it wouldn't be very nice if he missed a leg-side stumping off Barnes's bowling when Graeme Pollock was only 7 runs (for example). Barnes probably wouldn't speak to him for the rest of the match.

The upside is that Flower has the potential to transform an innings from 5/100 to 5/250 relatively quickly and efficiently when batting (for example).
:laugh: Barnes does sound like he was a character

Many would disagree nowadays, but I value the taking of wickets more than the making of runs in almost all cases, so I think it's a good idea to generally go for the wicket-taking keeper instead of the run-maker. That being said, I did take Lindsay (would have loved Ames, who was probably a superior gloveman), but at least he was a proper wicketkeeper.
 

watson

Banned
One of these days we will have to come up with a definitive classification for Barnes.
I hope this helps kyear2;

Bradman concluded in 1950 that Barnes and O'Reilly were the two greatest bowlers of all time, and maintained that view for the rest of his life. Yet, he could could not find a place for Barnes in his best-ever world team. When asked Bradman replied:

'My understanding was that they (Barnes and O'Reilly) were similar in style, aggression, intelligence, and abilities. Barnes was probably quicker but did not have a wrong'un (googly), which gave O'Reilly the most marginal advantage. There was not much point in having two such similar players in the one team. I could only choose one. Another point for O'Reilly (in the world team) was his pairing with Grimmett.'

In 1938, when discussing with cricket writer Neville Cardus the comparison bewteen these two giants of the game, Bradman made another point, which was in O'Reilly's favour:

'I never saw Barnes, so I could not speak of how he bowled the leg-spinner. I only know that O'Reilly bowls it as well as I can imagine anyone bowling it. It couldn't possibly be nastier.'



'Bradman's Best Ashes Teams', pages 230-31 (author Roland Perry)
In summary, Barnes and O'Reilly were essentially the same bowler, with Barnes the quicker bowler but without the googly, and O'Reilly the slower bowler but with the googly.

As an aside, I have Bill O'Reilly's autograph somewhere in my desk. I met the great man at Sutherland Hospital in 1987 or 1988 when he was an inpatient. Unfortunately I didn't feel inclined to ask him too many cricketing questions because he wasn't well (obviously), but he was gracious enough to sign some letter writing paper he had in his bedside table for me.
 
Last edited:

Jager

International Debutant
What was he like? Would have killed to meet him. P.S how old are you, Watson? (If you don't mind me asking)
 

watson

Banned
I'm 46 years old.

At the time O'Reilly would have been about 82 or 83, and as I recall he was very charming and quite cheerful. If anything he was more interested in finding out what I bowled than telling stories about himself. We spoke for no more than 10 minutes before I retreated.
 

Top