Ravichandran Ashwin vs Sydney Barnes

[PlayerComparisons]

Two ATG slow bowlers

 

[kyear2]

Never seen him bowl and he gorged on minnows to ridiculous extremes.

Can't rate Barnes with post WWI players.

 

[DrWolverine]

Barnes played against two teams. He was good against Australia and then feasted on the minnows. Impossible to compare him to modern day players.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Barnes is probably the best bowler to have ever walked this planet. It was universally excepted opinion that this guy was the best bowler ever of first 100 years (1877-1977) of cricket history and he arguably still is. Ridiculous comparison.

Barnes put numbers against Australia which is as good as any bowler ever agianst a top side, Destroyed SA. And on peer review as everyone uses when it favours their guy, no bowler compares to Barnes.

 

[Johan]

Barnes was agreed to be the best bowler ever, Ashwin isn't even the best bowler in his own side.

 

[DrWolverine]

Barnes was agreed to be the best bowler ever, Ashwin isn't even the best bowler in his own side.

Not that I disagree but you can replace Ashwin with Warne and the statement would be true.

 

[sayon basak]

Barnes was agreed to be the best bowler ever, Ashwin isn't even the best bowler in his own side.

This.

 

[sayon basak]

Not that I disagree but you can replace Ashwin with Warne and the statement would be true.

But then, Warne didn't get dropped for away tours regularly.

 

[Johan]

Not that I disagree but you can replace Ashwin with Warne and the statement would be true.

Warne is a bonafide ATG, Ashwin is a ATVG

 

[DrWolverine]

But then, Warne didn't get dropped for away tours regularly.

Warne is a bonafide ATG, Ashwin is a ATVG

True

 

[DrWolverine]

I do not know if Barnes is better than Ashwin or not

I will never agree that Barnes is the best ever bowler

 

[sayon basak]

There is no way Barnes would ball better than Ashwin in current day against current batsman.

I mean, yeah. It's hard to play cricket once you're dead.

 

[Fanboy375]

During Barnes time SA was a minnow, so against Aus his 22 ave is only thing to compare.Unfortunately, during his era batsman scored less.As during Barnes era Aus scored ave 25 runs per wicket and Eng scored 28 runs per wicket.They are lower than todays records.Besides even in first class matches we see improvement of batting power over the years during early 20th century.There is no way Barnes would ball better than Ashwin in current day against current batsman.

 

[kyear2]

But then, Warne didn't get dropped for away tours regularly.

Exactly.

 

[kyear2]

During Barnes time SA was a minnow, so against Aus his 22 ave is only thing to compare.Unfortunately, during his era batsman scored less.As during Barnes era Aus scored ave 25 runs per wicket and Eng scored 28 runs per wicket.They are lower than todays records.Besides even in first class matches we see improvement of batting power over the years during early 20th century.There is no way Barnes would ball better than Ashwin in current day against current batsman.View attachment 43058

Yeah, one really can't use the SA stats in a serious conversation, hence I only use his Australia numbers.

In any event, think O'Reilly was easily better and the best bowler before Lindwall.

 

[Coronis]

Ah yes SA were minnows. I recall Bangladesh winning multiple tests against the top 2 teams in the 2000s.

Minnows is an extremely overused an incorrect term on this forum. But whatever.

In matches Barnes played against Australia..

Barnes: 106 @ 21.58
Rest of England: 232 @ 29.83

Shockingly he dominated SA who were weaker than Australia. He was also the dominant bowler in his team against Australia.

 

[Fanboy375]

Ah yes SA were minnows. I recall Bangladesh winning multiple tests against the top 2 teams in the 2000s.

Minnows is an extremely overused an incorrect term on this forum. But whatever.

In matches Barnes played against Australia..

Barnes: 106 @ 21.58
Rest of England: 232 @ 29.83

Shockingly he dominated SA who were weaker than Australia. He was also the dominant bowler in his team against Australia.

I mean when Eng played their first match against SA during late 19th century, half of the England side consist of amateurs who were not even part-time cricketers but played in street or fields as a hobby and they won by an innings.Even Argentina national team was better than SA during that time.SA,Ind and NZ were very slow when it came to growth in cricket compare to Ban,Zim and even SL.

 

[Coronis]

I mean when Eng played their first match against SA during late 19th century, half of the England side consist of amateurs who were not even part-time cricketers but played in street or fields as a hobby and they won by an innings.Even Argentina national team was better than SA during that time.SA,Ind and NZ were very slow when it came to growth in cricket compare to Ban,Zim and even SL.

No, they weren’t. And also, we’re talking about SA during Barne’s career. i.e the 1900’s and early 1910s. Not ****ing 1888. That’s like comparing 2000 Bangladesh to 2015 Bangladesh.