The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[the big bambino]

Kumblesih probably...

I like this kind of thinking where you compare previous generations to modern players. It gives a little insight into the style and methods of those we haven’t seen by way of comparison. I also imagine Nissar to be similar in style to Waqar while others saw similarities btwn SRT and DGB (not that I want to start a tired argument again)

 

[OverratedSanity]

Most descriptions of Barnes make him seem like a roided up version of Kumble or even Afridi (who gave it more of a rip at a faster pace at times)

 

[Starfighter]

Who are saying is Kumbleish? Bedser, Barnes or O'Reilly?

 

[Bolo]

I don't think they are. Unless you argue Bedser is like O'Reilly. Who was again different to your classical leg spinner. It doesn't matter if they were similar. For a batsman it would be like facing no peace from both ends. I think Faulkner's bowling record a bit patchy though he is definitely worth a spot in this team, no doubt. Just can't fit him in, especially over two players whose reputation is greater than his.

Bedsters stock ball was medium fast swing, with the variation of cutters. His cutter sounds like it was a lot like Barnes legspinner in effect.

The other three had a legspinner as a stock ball, with various degrees of variation. I think we can lump the three of them together in different class to Bedster on a scale from closer to modern legspin in Faulkner (used flight sometimes) to further in Barnes (started as a quick, added offspin then legspin).

Faulkner was definitely, for his era, a worse bowler than the other 2. His skills might translate somewhat better into the era of covered pitches due to mostly bowling slower, but it's difficult to know and extremely difficult to argue he would have been a better bowler.

Barnes I think would have succeeded in any era- you don't need much movement to be successful when you are bowling in the 120kms. See Vernon Philander bowling seam. And he could always change bowling styles as needed.

Tiger would likely have been significantly less successful. See Jadejas home and away record for faster spin. He may still have been a better bowler than Faulkner though, but the argument for Faulkner adding balance is based on his batting, not his bowling. He was ranked the number one bat in the world at one stage (as with his bowling). This is a team playing 5 bowlers, and a wk who isn't Gilchrist. It would definitely be a better balanced side by including Faulkner, whether or not you think it would be a stronger side.

Barnes's reputation is definitely greater than Faulkners, but O'Reilly's isn't. He may be better known (not sure, I'm south African), but he wouldn't be more highly thought of by those that know them both. O'Reilly is an elite spinner, but there are a number of bowlers in his tier, whereas Faulkner is the only elite spinning allrounder, and arguably the only balanced allrounder to have ever played tests.

 

[harsh.ag]

O'Reilly is very highly rated around these parts, and rightly so IMO. Extremely tough choice to pick one between him and Barnes.

Faulkner definitely should be in the side, but that argument has no need of an O'Reilly-Jadeja comparison (was a fantastic CW moment though )

 

[cnerd123]

O'Reilly is very highly rated around these parts, and rightly so IMO. Extremely tough choice to pick one between him and Barnes.

Faulkner definitely should be in the side, but that argument has no need of an O'Reilly-Jadeja comparison (was a fantastic CW moment though )

When did that happen?

 

[Bolo]

O'Reilly is very highly rated around these parts, and rightly so IMO. Extremely tough choice to pick one between him and Barnes.

Faulkner definitely should be in the side, but that argument has no need of an O'Reilly-Jadeja comparison (was a fantastic CW moment though )

Hey. Credit where credit is due. I also compared Barnes's leggies to Vernons seamers. That's the true gem in the post

 

[the big bambino]

That's exactly the comparison you should use.

 

[watson]

Bedsters stock ball was medium fast swing, with the variation of cutters. His cutter sounds like it was a lot like Barnes legspinner in effect.

The other three had a legspinner as a stock ball, with various degrees of variation. I think we can lump the three of them together in different class to Bedster on a scale from closer to modern legspin in Faulkner (used flight sometimes) to further in Barnes (started as a quick, added offspin then legspin).

Faulkner was definitely, for his era, a worse bowler than the other 2. His skills might translate somewhat better into the era of covered pitches due to mostly bowling slower, but it's difficult to know and extremely difficult to argue he would have been a better bowler.

Barnes I think would have succeeded in any era- you don't need much movement to be successful when you are bowling in the 120kms. See Vernon Philander bowling seam. And he could always change bowling styles as needed.

Tiger would likely have been significantly less successful. See Jadejas home and away record for faster spin. He may still have been a better bowler than Faulkner though, but the argument for Faulkner adding balance is based on his batting, not his bowling. He was ranked the number one bat in the world at one stage (as with his bowling). This is a team playing 5 bowlers, and a wk who isn't Gilchrist. It would definitely be a better balanced side by including Faulkner, whether or not you think it would be a stronger side.

Barnes's reputation is definitely greater than Faulkners, but O'Reilly's isn't. He may be better known (not sure, I'm south African), but he wouldn't be more highly thought of by those that know them both. O'Reilly is an elite spinner, but there are a number of bowlers in his tier, whereas Faulkner is the only elite spinning allrounder, and arguably the only balanced allrounder to have ever played tests.

Both Bradman and Hutton thought that O’Reilly was the best bowler they ever faced. In the case of Bradman this is a huge compliment because they both disliked eachother.

You can’t really compare O’Reilly and Jadeja anymore than you can compare Holding and Devon Malcolm because they both bowled fast.

 

[Starfighter]

O'Reilly and Jadeja are quite different. Jadeja bowls very conventional, most sidepsun finger spin perhaps a bit faster than normal but not, say, Underwood fast. O'Reilly bowled a leg break that was a bit more of a cutter, with relatively little wrist work, and combined this with a topspinner and very good, high bouncing googly from consistency high trajectory, and bowled significantly faster than normal, being described in 1938 as 'practically up to medium pace'. Most similar would be Doug Wright, although I think O'Reilly bowled a bit faster. There's very little similarity between him and Jadeja at all.

 

[Bolo]

I'm not saying that overall Jadeja and O'Reilly are comparable as bowlers in any universe. I'm trying to assess the impact that covered pitches (reduced spin) would have on past players by looking at current players of comparable speed who relied on movement off the deck- Philander for Barnes and Jadeja for O'Reilly.

Philander is quick enough to trouble batsmen without huge deviation. Barnes got big deviation, and while this would be reduced by modern pitches, he would still be moving the ball as much as Philander and still be threatening.

Jadeja is not quick enough to trouble batmen without the pitch offering something. Indian pitches are closer in grip to uncovered ones than pitches elsewhere, where he is less effective. O'Reilly would likely struggle today compared to his own era. This does not preclude the fact that O'Reilly would be 100 times the bowler Jadeja is playing outside India today, or even that O'Reilly would still probably be a great today, it just means he would likely be significantly less effective. He'd still get some turn (unlike Jadeja), but reduced turn would do him no favours.

 

[the big bambino]

There is nothing about modern pitches that would reduce the threat of O'Reilly or Barnes. In fact they may even get greater assistance ... Barnes took around 70-80 wickets in Australia from about 11 tests. (will have to check). Wickets in Australia then were the truest in the world but he regularly achieved swing and break at pace out here. If anything pitches in Australia improved in O'Reilly's era and he proved himself adept at getting wickets on them, as well as in England, SA and NZ. There was not a country or team that O'Reilly didn't meet and better.

While pitches were uncovered then that is not a great benefit for a bowler's average. If he was lucky enough to get one damaged by rain and then a hot sun, the advantage was more than offset by the far greater occasions he had to bowl in true conditions. In fact the modern bowler is more favoured by pitch conditions flattering their averages as wickets in India assist spin, those in SA regularly flatter pace men and even night tests now assisting those that get lateral movement.

 

[watson]

Most descriptions of Barnes make him seem like a roided up version of Kumble or even Afridi (who gave it more of a rip at a faster pace at times)

Except that Kumble and Afridi are conventional over-the-wrist spinners and Barnes was a finger-spinner who bowled out of the front of his hand.

 

[Starfighter]

There is nothing about modern pitches that would reduce the threat of O'Reilly or Barnes. In fact they may even get greater assistance ... Barnes took around 70-80 wickets in Australia from about 11 tests. (will have to check). Wickets in Australia then were the truest in the world but he regularly achieved swing and break at pace out here. If anything pitches in Australia improved in O'Reilly's era and he proved himself adept at getting wickets on them, as well as in England, SA and NZ. There was not a country or team that O'Reilly didn't meet and better.

While pitches were uncovered then that is not a great benefit for a bowler's average. If he was lucky enough to get one damaged by rain and then a hot sun, the advantage was more than offset by the far greater occasions he had to bowl in true conditions. In fact the modern bowler is more favoured by pitch conditions flattering their averages as wickets in India assist spin, those in SA regularly flatter pace men and even night tests now assisting those that get lateral movement.

I think this has a measure of truth and untruth about it. The overall bowling average in the 2000s is 34.1 and this decade is 33.39. The overall average from 1900 to WWI was 25.68, the twenties 33.25 and thirties 32.15, so while O'Reilly's era is surficially similar Barnes' era was definitely more favourable. Yes the modern bowler has a more favourable LBW law and umpires more likely to enforce it (although very conservative umpiring was a feature right up until the nineties, even with the modern rule), but on the other hand there are modern bats that make it much easier to hit your way out of trouble, shorter boundaries and generally faster outfields. The boundary effect is an under the radar one - by taking 5 metres off a 75 metres boundary you are reducing the distance by about 7% but the area by about 13%. So it's not only a bit easier to hit boundaries but the chances of being caught are reduced more significantly.
I think it's debatable as to whether pitches in Australia are worse now or then. The pitch treatments themselves seem to be not too dissimilar, with relatively grassless surfaces subjected to vastly excessive amounts of heavy rolling. Pitches in England were definitely more favourable in Barnes' era to all but express bowling, while interwar it seems to vary more but I would say they were more favourable to spin but much less to seam than they are today. With respect to South African pitches while seam friendly pitches definitely help bowlers there now (Philander's 19/26 home/away split tells the tale) the coir matting pitches used in Barnes' day were similarly helpful to medium-pace finger spin. Jimmy Blanckenberg, one of South Africa's best bowlers of the twenties averaged 26 at home but his tour of England yielded only four wickets in four tests at 106 and he admitted that he could not spin the ball on turf like he could at home.

 

[the big bambino]

There is give and take. I think the implementation of the DRS is underestimated. Reading about DVP Wright in 46/47 almost has me thinking he could have won that series or come close to it with DRS. Would we then have seen a closer correlation btwn his reputation and his figures? The effect of shorter boundaries is muted by counter arguments. I'd still much rather a juicy pitch and better catching/fielding standards if the price was shorter boundaries. Other measures that may effect averages are helmets and bat size. The effect off helmets wouldn't be influential in adjusting the averages of Barnes and O'Reilly. the second more so. Overall though the decade averages have been much the same since the 20s which leads me to think the argument that modern conditions being too hard (or harder) for previous generations isn't all that strong. The 20s and 30s averages are boosted by the fact very few tests were played by smaller scoring nations and of course Bradman, whose effect on the 30s was profound.

I did qualify my remarks on Barnes to show that in similar conditions to those of today he still averaged low twenties against his strongest rivals.

 

[Bolo]

Comparing batting averages across eras masks the difference between pace and spin. O'Reilly had Ironmonger (average 18) and Grimmett (24) playing in his own side in the same era as him. All of the average low 20s or below, but in the last half century there has been 1 spinner in the entire world with a notable career averaging in the low 20s, with the current number 1 AUS spinner averaging something like 50% more than the average of these three, and is fairly highly regarded in spite of this.

South Africa have pace bowlers averaging low 20s who can't even make the current team, but once sent a touring team in which 2 spinners had better career averages than Faulkner, and have in recent years given decent careers to numerous spinners with a career average close to 100% more than any of the top current quicks.

Modern pitches would definitely have had an impact on spinners, particularly the quicker ones. See Redhill's post.

 

[the big bambino]

You've overlooked the obvious reason. O'Reilly and Grimmett were simply better bowlers. Nothing to do with pitches. SA's early success with the googly was largely because of its novelty - much like when reverse swing surprised batsmen coupled with some good returns against a below par English touring team. Its informative that SA's googly bowlers almost failed completely in Australia and subsequently so did England's. This shows that pitches then, atleast in Australia, were just as unkind as modern pitches to leg spin (and largely spin generally) and that O'Reilly and Grimmett were simply exceptional in overcoming that trend.

 

[Bolo]

O'Reilly + Grimmett + Ironmonger. Three bowlers playing in the same team at one time boasting better averages than anyone (bar one) in the world has managed from the 60s to now. Do you maintain that this is coincidence?

Many other spinners averaging low 20s before the 60s. 1 since, despite their being many more teams and games.

RSAs spin failure in AUS (as well as Barnes's relative failure) suggests conditions were much easier in RSA and and England for spin than AUS near the turn of the century. At this time though, we are discussing an RSA player and an England one- they benefited from playing most of their games in easy conditions. No Australian of this era is being discussed. O'Reilly ended his career around 40 years after Faulkner and Barnes started. Pitches change in 40 years- see South Africa moving from mats to regular pitches in this timeframe.

 

[jimmy101]

I think the fact that Australia's greatest spin bowlers have all been leggies gives an indication to how Australia's pitches, past and present, play. Leggies, as we all know, give the ball a much larger rip than offies (conventionally), more revs on the ball are required in Australia, the pitches are less receptive to spin. Thus home-grown leggies have always had the most success for Australia.

 

[bagapath]

Also, leg spin works better on bouncier wickets. Plus good slip fielding adds to the effectiveness. Obviously, Australia...