Shane Warne vs Imran Khan

[kyear2]

Weaker than the top 2? Sure.

Minnow? Objectively not.

Barnes had the Greatest series ever in 1913 South Africa, the single greatest series any bowler had anywhere against any lineup, trying to write it off is just wrong considering Saffers were a respectable, test standard side.

So have you ever taken a look at those sides in comparison to the debase previous?

They were not good, date say not a respectable batting line up either.

 

[kyear2]

Nobody here places him as number one.

I literally quoted a poster, quoting another poster saying that he's not rated or have to no. 1.

I'm saying bearing up on SA isn't reason enough to be no. 1.

 

[kyear2]

equipment changed more in 1970-2025, bats got way bigger.

Bowling styles has been more or less the same since 1800s, but things like Reverse Swing came in early 80s and normalized way later.

Pitches also changed more recently, a English pitch from 1915 is more similar to a English pitch from 1965 than the 1965 pitch to today, same with Australia and the Saffers.

LBW rule change in 35, introduction of shorter formats in 71.

so yeah, objectively speaking, most developement actually happened in 1970-2025 than 1915-1970, the 1915-1970 developement is largely just vibes and a single rule.

How can you say blowing styles have changed when we haven't seen any bowlers from those early eras. And what we've seen of Barnes is at best pedestrian.

The pitches pre war aren't comparable to any since, not even those post WWI.

The LBW rule in 35 was massive, hence why that's a decent starting point for me and others.

Again, you've never seen the techniques from before WWI, only after. You can't say that. Similarly the bowling styles and techniques, I can watch Lindwall and say, yes, that's the say as we do it today. Then again, also the pitches.

Before WWI was a different game, hence why I don't include it. And there's absolutely no visual evidence for us to accurately assess these players.

Hobbs transcended in the toughest batting era, so yes, an exception for him. Though he played post war, so really not even needed. The Master goes clear.


So no, wayyyy more than vibes.

 

[kyear2]

Barnes has as good as claim as any. Guys who played well onto 1930s including The Great Herbert Sutcliffe had him no.1. I mean Barnes arguably has never been topped, ever. Records+ Peer rating+ The disbelief that everyone came through one can easily make an argument for Barnes being The Goat. Peak Bedser was putting insane numbers, Barnes was better.

And everything you've said numbers wise, is purely based on playing one single sub par SA team.

His Australia numbers alone doesn't get him there.

 

[subshakerz]

So instead of an essay he just decides to post six times in a row.

 

[Johan]

How can you say blowing styles have changed when we haven't seen any bowlers from those early eras. And what we've seen of Barnes is at best pedestrian.

The pitches pre war aren't comparable to any since, not even those post WWI.

The LBW rule in 35 was massive, hence why that's a decent starting point for me and others.

Again, you've never seen the techniques from before WWI, only after. You can't say that. Similarly the bowling styles and techniques, I can watch Lindwall and say, yes, that's the say as we do it today. Then again, also the pitches.

Before WWI was a different game, hence why I don't include it. And there's absolutely no visual evidence for us to accurately assess these players.

Hobbs transcended in the toughest batting era, so yes, an exception for him. Though he played post war, so really not even needed. The Master goes clear.


So no, wayyyy more than vibes.

We have seen bowlers from that era of the game, and there actions and styles are completely respectable and don't look much different to me at all. Spinner I doubt even you would contest, but Wilfred Rhodes looks completely respectable to me as far as a spinner goes.

Now on fast bowlers, We've seen Ted McDonald, this is a fast bowler from the Golden Era (and Yes, he started in the Golden Era).

Jack Gregory was also more or less a fast bowler developed between wars, a bit like Lindwall, and he has the same action and style of bowling as Wes Hall.

And They looks just like any fast bowler from 60s, more importantly, there wasn't a big leap in technology or diet like there's been from 1970 to 2025, thus he's physically closer to a Fred Trueman than a Dennis Lillee is gonna be to Kagiso Rabada.

What we've seen from Barnes is him in his 50s and 60s being touted by great bowlers to be the best bowler of his time, that's an unprecedented achievement.

Pitches change generation by generation, pre war the wickets were wet, like 1950s English pitches for the most part, and the wickets in South Africa were matting pitches which albeit are extinct but we've seen how they play in 50s Pakistan, and obviously, good hard wickets like the Australian ones are consistent throughout history. Like, why are we pretending a pitch from Underwood England is more similar to modern England than to Golden era England? Objectively speaking, the current English and Australian wickets are a far cry from their predecessors over the century, Australia wickets pre-sandpaper gate were similar to the wickets they laid out a hundred years back, English wickets currently are unrecognisable and don't have a hint of wetness and so forth.

The LBW law change was massive on paper but it didn't Really change the amount of LBW's bowlers got by a big margin.

can we stop pretending millions of English and Australians dying actually would change Cricket? Cricket shut down in 1914, it didn't come back until 1920, and there's absolutely zero conception or idea that anything changed from 1920 to 1930 to 1940, it's just making stuff up.

Visual evidence would be subjectively interpreted all the time, it's very possible that Subs would see Sutcliffe bat and think he's a gully player while I'll find him better on eye test than Sunil Gavaskar, there's no point to there being any.

and Yes, it's all just vibes, I can make a list of changes that happened in the sport since 1970 and the list would be endless, objectively, test Cricket is 2025 is more different than test Cricket of 1970 than test Cricket of 1969 is different than test cricket of 1915.

 

[Johan]

So have you ever taken a look at those sides in comparison to the debase previous?

They were not good, date say not a respectable batting line up either.

Yet they would've won both the final two tests of the England series in 1914 had Barnes not taken 8 wickets in the first and had play not stopped in the second, where Barnes took 14 wickets, the fact they were about to beat England even after Barnes took 14 wickets for just 140 runs in the final game says everything.

But Yeah, let's pretend their first class structure and teams were totally Bangaldesh level, because some idiot in Asia made up the idea a 100 years after the war.

 

[sayon basak]

Yet they would've won both the final two tests of the England series in 1914 had Barnes not taken 8 wickets in the first and had play not stopped in the second, where Barnes took 14 wickets, the fact they were about to beat England even after Barnes took 14 wickets for just 140 runs in the final game says everything.

But Yeah, let's pretend their first class structure and teams were totally Bangaldesh level, because some idiot in Asia made up the idea a 100 years after the war.

No need for personal attacks sir.

 

[Coronis]

No need for personal attacks sir.

Only if he said Bengal

 

[subshakerz]

We have seen bowlers from that era of the game, and there actions and styles are completely respectable and don't look much different to me at all. Spinner I doubt even you would contest, but Wilfred Rhodes looks completely respectable to me as far as a spinner goes.

Sorry Rhodes looks slightly dodgy.

 

[Johan]

Sorry Rhodes looks slightly dodgy.

refer to my line about interpretation of footage.

 

[subshakerz]

refer to my line about interpretation of footage.

Yeah but how can you see that footage and feel confident his action is clean. Look at 0:22.

Sure you can say footage can be misleading but that doesn't change the doubts.

 

[Johan]

Yeah but how can you see that footage and feel confident his action is clean. Look at 0:22.

Sure you can say footage can be misleading but that doesn't change the doubts.

0:22 is a still photo though of him in old age, I was refferring to the actual match deliveries footage, which looks completely normal to me.

 

[subshakerz]

0:22 is a still photo though of him in old age, I was refferring to the actual match deliveries footage, which looks completely normal to me.

If you say so. A bit hard to tell.

 

[sayon basak]

Yeah but how can you see that footage and feel confident his action is clean. Look at 0:22.

Sure you can say footage can be misleading but that doesn't change the doubts.

If this is not clean, then what about Bumrah?

 

[subshakerz]

If this is not clean, then what about Bumrah?

Bumrah is hyper extension, so once you know that it is very hard for him to actually chuck.

 

[sayon basak]

Bumrah is hyper extension, so once you know that it is very hard for him to actually chuck.

Bumrah's arm is actually bent inward while releasing, so that's a negative extension, same with Rhodes here.

Bending the arm is not an issue, straightening it is. Rhodes' action is absolutely clear imo.

 

[akilana]

So instead of an essay he just decides to post six times in a row.

Not everyone has free time like you to be posting throughout the day. Some have a short window of free time and that’s when they read this forum and make all their posts.

 

[subshakerz]

Not everyone has free time like you to be posting throughout the day. Some have a short window of free time and that’s when they read this forum and make all their posts.

For someone with very little free time as you claim he certainly likes to keep his posts short.

 

[Coronis]

Um, pretty sure Rhodes was never called for throwing. Un like say, Bumrah.