You Heard It Here First

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Re: Re: RE

Well i made my way to the county ground when the West Indies A side were in town... He didnt stand out, but I seemed to remember him making runs...

He averaged around 40-42 from memory on that tour. I may be wrong.

His bowling has improved heaps over the last two seasons because he's done a fair deal of weight work and strengthened his upper body.

 

[chris.hinton]

COACH

Who do you support

 

[Langeveldt]

COACH

Who do you support

Check out the avatar...

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Check out the avatar...

Just to make it painfully obvious:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/td.html

 

[Craig]

Where does he field? Covers, slip, gully?

 

[Richard]

SMs who wouldn't get anywhere near that average in modern day cricket.

Lohmann maybe you could argue that but Barnes was far more than a slow-medium seamer!
He occasionally bowled that ball as a variant, but his stock-ball was a quickish leg-break-to-the-right-hander.
Barnes is considered by many, me amongst them, to be the greatest bowler to have played the game.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Where does he field? Covers, slip, gully?

He generally fields on the infield, but not in the slips. He's brilliant in most place though... very energetic.

 

[iamdavid]

Lohmann maybe you could argue that but Barnes was far more than a slow-medium seamer!
He occasionally bowled that ball as a variant, but his stock-ball was a quickish leg-break-to-the-right-hander.
Barnes is considered by many, me amongst them, to be the greatest bowler to have played the game.

Forgive me but it strikes me as slightly naive to heap such praise on the guy when you have never seen him bowl , you depend basically on the opinions of others , and all those who saw him bowl would be ill-equiped to judge as who of them would've seen Hadlee , Marshall , Lillee , Wasim , Trueman , Ambrose or Murali bowl?

Its all third , fourth in some cases fifth hand information.
There is no footage available & we all know what the quality of the wickets was like back then.

 

[Richard]

And we also know that wristspin is and always has been effective on any wicket.
OK, we don't know anything for certain about relative standards of accuracy and speed (for all we know a "fast" leg-break in those days might have been 40 mph now... and "accurate" might have been like Blessing Mahwire or Eric Upashantha) but still...
Nothing will ever change my opinion that Malcolm Marshall was the best seamer of the modern era (1930-2004). Unless I see someone else, of course.
I've always said that pre-1930 is a tricky time to judge, and I don't attempt to change that now.
But all descriptions of Barnes simply blow my mind whenever I read them. Certainly he was considered the best of the "cricketing renaissance" (1900-1930), and most of those who watched the early part of the 1930-1970 period thought there weren't any better then.
But no, no-one can ever be certain. Just part-guesswork on my part.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

And we also know that wristspin is and always has been effective on any wicket.

I disagree. It may generally be more effective than fingerspin, but it's not effective in all conditions.

 

[Richard]

So you have seen wickets on which Mushtaq Ahmed cannot turn it on?
Or, for that matter, MacGill, Warne or Muralitharan.
Yet again, however, maybe I should rephrase that; of course, wristspin isn't effective simply by turning the ball - as MacGill proves you need to hit the right areas, too. Hence, it is the case merely that wristspin has the potential to be effective on any surface. But of course, if the bowler doesn't bowl well and accurately, it won't be.