Ranking the great fast bowlers

[Debris]

Which is/are?

Tbh, I prefer it when people just admit that they prefer Warne for aesthetic reasons. It's perfectly acceptable justification.

Better batsman, better fieldsman. better tactician, less friendly conditions to bowl in, etc, etc. It's an argument never to be resolved, who is the second best spinner after Grimmett.

 

[watson]

Better batsman, better fieldsman. better tactician, less friendly conditions to bowl in, etc, etc. It's an argument never to be resolved, who is the second best spinner after Grimmett.

I know that this is supposed to be a thread about fast bowlers but......

Grimmett is overated in the pantheon of Aussie spinners IMO as the respective impacts that Warne, O'Reilly and Mailey had on Test cricket were significantly greater. Also, if Jack Hobbs in his 1935 Autobiography rates Mailey as 'the best of the googly bowlers' then I have to take him seriously;

1. Warne
2. O'Reilly
3. Mailey
4. Grimmett
5. Benaud

 

[Debris]

I know that this is supposed to be a thread about fast bowlers but......

Grimmett is overated in the pantheon of Aussie spinners IMO as the respective impacts that Warne, O'Reilly and Mailey had on Test cricket were significantly greater. Also, if Jack Hobbs in his 1935 Autobiography rates Mailey as 'the best of the googly bowlers' then I have to take him seriously;

1. Warne
2. O'Reilly
3. Mailey
4. Grimmett
5. Benaud

Grimmett was a throw-away line not to be taken seriously, sorry. I would say you have missed MacGill from that list as well.

And if we are talking about impact on the game of cricket, Warne>>>Murali.

Edit: And thread successfully derailed.

 

[ankitj]

Tendulkar is a great. No doubt. However, Hammond was just as good a batsman, imo he was probably slightly better. Hammond could also bowl, and was the greatest fielder of his day.

Fair reasoning. But I still didn't get why it "irritates" you if someone picks Tendulkar.

 

[kingkallis]

Hammond, Tendulkar, Warne, Murali - that too in the thread of great fast bowlers? WTH!

 

[Red]

Fair reasoning. But I still didn't get why it "irritates" you if someone picks Tendulkar.

I just think there is an overemphasis in the cricketing world on Tendulkar, at the expense of quite a few great batsmen.

He played in the modern media era, made a trillion runs in front of a billion adoring fans. Doesn't mean he's automatically the second best ever.

 

[kyear2]

I agree and I dont think he is.

 

[kingkallis]

I doubt I'd put Sachin even in my TOP 5 batsmen ever!

 

[kingkallis]

So back to the topic :

Barnes ahead of McGrath? Really?

 

[Agent Nationaux]

According to people Barnes was a seam specialist like Asif but could seam as much as Warne could spin the ball. On top of the fact that he could swing the new cherry both ways. Sounds pretty good to me.

 

[kyear2]

According to legend Barnes could do anything with the ball, swing, seam and spin, some times two of the above in the same delivery. Sounds to good to be true and probably was. Mcgrath (like Tendulkar) makes my A.T Team based more on sheer weight of numbers and consistent excellence rather than any exceptional skill. Mcgrath used relentless accuratcy, subtle seam movement and often scoreboard pressure to extract his victims, and quite frankly was the best ever at what he did.
So until further evidence I will stick with Mcgrath to partner with the skills and pace of Marshall and The willes of Imran.
Marshall, Lillee and Barnes though still is a tempting combination to add to the wizardry of Warne.

 

[watson]

According to people Barnes was a seam specialist like Asif but could seam as much as Warne could spin the ball. On top of the fact that he could swing the new cherry both ways. Sounds pretty good to me.

SF Barnes was NOT a seam specialist. He was predominantly a fast leg-break bowler. On in other words, he spun the ball rather than 'cut' it;

More on how SF Barnes spun his leg break

I have long been mystified by the legendary success of SF Barnes, and have (so far) failed to find any definitive description of his bowling methods.

But from the scattered clues I now believe that Barnes stock delivery, the medium paced leg-break, was spun from the front of the hand (palm facing the batter) by using the ring finger of his right hand to flick the ball off his index finger.

In a description I read in 100 greatest bowlers by Phil Edmonds and Scyld Berry it was said that Barnes held the ball with his index, middle and ring fingers along and touching the seam, and that he could bowl off breaks and leg breaks without much change of action - but that the leg-break was his usual and most devastating delivery.

It seems clear from pictures and written accounts that Barnes bowled from the front of his hand (palm facing the batter) so that a conventional leg-spinner's bac-of-hand leg-break is not a possibility. And a front of hand delivery would usually imply that Barnes bowled leg-cutters - a delivery in which spin is imparted by cutting the fingers across the left hand side of the ball as it is released. However this is not probable, because leg -cutters have never been very much use except as surprise variations, and anyway Barnes denied in interviews that he bowled leg-cutters - he said that he spun the ball.

To spin the ball implies that the ball is gripped with the fingers when spin is imparted - not that (as with a leg cutter) the fingers are scraped down the edge of the ball at the moment of release.

But if Barnes actually spun a leg-break from the front of his hand, then this would generate very little spin, due to the normal anatomical restrictions on movement in that direction. Technically, the wrist rotation depends on forearn rotation - and the action of supination from the starting position of having the middle finger pointing upwards, the forearm rotation which generates off spin has a much larger range of movement (about 180 degrees) than the action of pronation which generates leg spin (probably less than 90 degrees).

So Barnes must have flicked the ball with his fingers. Specifically, from this (and other) photographs it looks as if Barnes has his ring finger curled along the seam so as to flick a leg break off his index finger:

Sydney Barnes | England Cricket | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo

This is a different kind of finger flick from that used by Jack Iverson or Ajantha Mendis - since Iverson and Mendis use the middle finger to flick the ball off the thumb.

Because the middle finger is longer and stronger than the ring finger, I assume that Iverson and Mendis were able to impart more rapid rotations on the ball than Barnes. However, in order to flick a leg break off the thumb, the bowler must rotate the wrist so that the thumb faces towards first slip (roughly). This means that the ball is delivered almost from the side of the hand, which reduces its pace.

Barnes method enabled him to deliver the ball with the palm almost facing the batter, so enabling him to bowl at a brisk medium pace (and open the bowling). Together with Barnes supreme accuracy and the bounce due to his height and upright action, the moderate leg spin was devastating.

I presume that Barnes off break was delivered in an almost conventional fashion, except that the ball was gripped between index and ring fingers, instead of the usual grip between index and middle fingers.

Alternatively, it is possible Barnes could have rotated his wrist and flicked an off break/ googly from the back of his hand using his ring finger - but I would guess that this would have been easy for the batter to pick since the googly would have been visibly delivered from the back of the hand, and also much slower.

If it is correct that Barnes flicked his leg breaks off his index finger using the ring finger then this might explain why apparently nobody has been able to copy his action (except, according to his own account, Ian Peebles, early in his career - although Peebles did not explain the nature of his action, merely that he used the same method as Barnes).

It is remarkable that Barnes ring finger, a finger which is usually weaker and harder to control than other fingers, could generate sufficient power and exert sufficient control to yield the kind of results Barnes achieved; and that the finger joints could stand up to the strain of so much bowling for so many years.

The Doosra: More on how SF Barnes spun his leg break

 

[Red]

Most people rate McGrath very highly, as they obviously should. I'm curious as to why most people rate him a little higher than Ambrose and Garner, who were very similar to McGrath statistically and in style. All were tall, economical quicks who struck very regularly.


McGrath: 563 wickets at 21.64. SR- 51.9

Ambrose: 405 wickets at 20.99. SR- 54.5

Garner: 259 wickets at 20.97. SR- 50.8


Hardly worth arguing over numbers that are so similar, but Garner in particular has some brilliant stats for a guy who isn't mentioned as much as others.

 

[ankitj]

I just think there is an overemphasis in the cricketing world on Tendulkar, at the expense of quite a few great batsmen.

He played in the modern media era, made a trillion runs in front of a billion adoring fans. Doesn't mean he's automatically the second best ever.

Probably you mean just like the over emphasis on Warne.

But anyway, rating Tendulkar above Hammond doesn't seem ridiculous to me on its own. Bradman did it in his XI, so did Richie Benaud and you can't possibly say that their judgements were clouded by the emphasis on
Tendulkar. On Hammond himself, some observers believe with good reason that he wasn't that flash against quality fat bowlers.

 

[Jager]

Probably you mean just like the over emphasis on Warne.

But anyway, rating Tendulka above Hammond doesn't seem ridiculous to me on its own. Bradman did it in his XI, so did Ritchie Benaud and you can't possibly day that their judgements were clouded by the emphasis on t
Tendulkar. On Hammond himself, some observers believe with good reason that he wasn't that flash against quality fat bowlers.

Agreed here - Tendulkar in the 90's especially was a sight to behold, and it's credit to him that he slightly slowed himself down and amassed the extraordinary amount of runs that he has done. I've no objections to seeing him in an ATG side, although personally he doesn't make mine.

 

[ankitj]

Doesn't make mine either. Neither does Hammond. I take Greame Pollock at #4.

 

[Red]

Yeh, fair enough. I dont have any objections to Tendulkar, at all. Just the fact that he appears in so many people's ATG teams, I just think there are others who are as good, and a bit better.

For example, if not Hammond, why not Greg Chappell over Tendulkar?

 

[hang on]

Yeh, fair enough. I dont have any objections to Tendulkar, at all. Just the fact that he appears in so many people's ATG teams, I just think there are others who are as good, and a bit better.

For example, if not Hammond, why not Greg Chappell over Tendulkar?

noone would argue that chappell was not a great batsman, but by criterion is he a bit better than tendulkar? or even as good? ditto hammond, the batsman?

 

[Burgey]

By what criteria is Tendulkar better than Chappell? That he played on and on?

 

[Burgey]

Most people rate McGrath very highly, as they obviously should. I'm curious as to why most people rate him a little higher than Ambrose and Garner, who were very similar to McGrath statistically and in style. All were tall, economical quicks who struck very regularly.


McGrath: 563 wickets at 21.64. SR- 51.9

Ambrose: 405 wickets at 20.99. SR- 54.5

Garner: 259 wickets at 20.97. SR- 50.8


Hardly worth arguing over numbers that are so similar, but Garner in particular has some brilliant stats for a guy who isn't mentioned as much as others.

I think one reason is McGrath had that average extending into what is often regarded as a flat track era in the 2000s.

Everyone likes to say Tendulkar and Lara are so special because they excelled in the 90s whereas blokes like Ponting get down graded slightly as their efforts were mostly in the 2000s (which may well be a valid point). The problem is people sometimes (often) don't give credit to McGrath who had similar stats to other blokes but did it in the more batsman-friendly era for the most part.