Lets end it: Sydney Barnes

[Richard]

Bollocks, I say. Not from what I've read, anyway.

Interesting that a Chappelli-ite like yourself would think that way, given how much Chappelli has always said he admired the ahead-of-his-time stance Barnes took in the 1900s.

 

[PhoenixFire]

My top 5 bowlers ever, would be (in no particular order)

Marshall
McGrath
Muralitharan
Barnes
Ambrose

 

[Top_Cat]

Interesting that a Chappelli-ite like yourself would think that way, given how much Chappelli has always said he admired the ahead-of-his-time stance Barnes took in the 1900s.

I have agreed with Chappelli on a few things, doesn't make me onside with him.

Second, I'm not referring to the incident you're referring to. I'm talking about the numerous documented instances where he put himself above the interests of the team. A bowler of great ability? Sure. Above any team? Not in my eyes. Don't care how good he was.

 

[Richard]

I have agreed with Chappelli on a few things, doesn't make me onside with him.

No? Thought you considered him excellent TBH.

Second, I'm not referring to the incident you're referring to. I'm talking about the numerous documented instances where he put himself above the interests of the team.

Such instances, for example?

 

[weldone]

Again you come back to his contemporaries, and how much better was he?

All bowlers of Barnes' time, combinedly, against the oppositions that Barnes bowled against, averaged 25.37.

The same figure in Warne's time was 31.61, in O'Reilly's time was 30.12 and for most of the bowlers in last 90 years or so, this figure was around 30.

So, Barnes enjoyed slightly better conditions and/or slightly poorer opposition...But still, I would say his average of 16.43 in those days in those conditions is almost equivalent to an average of around 20 nowadays. And he maintained that average for a period of more than 13 years (Number of wickets is not of much significance because those days test cricket was played less, so I picked number of years to show his longevity)...

Almost certainly one of the best 5 bowlers of all time in terms of performance, if not the best...

 

[NZTailender]

Predicting this 'end it' thread to go around in circles for a bit, peter out, and a new thread debating Barnes to crop up in a years time or more.

 

[archie mac]

All bowlers of Barnes' time, combinedly, against the oppositions that Barnes bowled against, averaged 25.37.

The same figure in Warne's time was 31.61, in O'Reilly's time was 30.12 and for most of the bowlers in last 90 years or so, this figure was around 30.

So, Barnes enjoyed slightly better conditions and/or slightly poorer opposition...But still, I would say his average of 16.43 in those days in those conditions is almost equivalent to an average of around 20 nowadays. And he maintained that average for a period of more than 13 years (Number of wickets is not of much significance because those days test cricket was played less, so I picked number of years to show his longevity)...

Almost certainly one of the best 5 bowlers of all time in terms of performance, if not the best...

Well written, I think him the best, and find it hard to fathom anyone would leave him out of their top five

 

[SJS]

Lets end it ?? ......

End it ? Us ?

We do have a greatly inflated opinion about ourselves dont we ?

 

[Richard]

Predicting this 'end it' thread to go around in circles for a bit, peter out, and a new thread debating Barnes to crop up in a years time or more.

I'll be saying "merge it" if so.

 

[bagapath]

archie.. i understand your sentiments and find weldone's stats interesting, even if barnes played today and averaged around the 20 run mark his lack of pace might still be pushing most of us to rank him below specialists - fast bowlers or spinners. bedser always gets ranked below lindwall and miller for the same reason. even before pollock slided downwards he was not considered on par with an ambrose or an akram if you recall.

i do believe barnes would have rocked in any era. champions have that quality. we know it from bradman winning the battles in 20s, 30s and then after a huge gap for WW2, in late 40s as well. sobers was good in his long career. so was gavaskar. and rhodes. sachin is proving to be a classy old wine too. so it is possible to assume barnes would have done very well even now. but he would not have been too far ahead of the bowlers i have listed above as he was in his era.

 

[Richard]

archie.. i understand your sentiments and find weldone's stats interesting, even if barnes played today and averaged around the 20 run mark his lack of pace might still be pushing most of us to rank him below specialists - fast bowlers or spinners.

Barnes was lightning for a spinner - I think the most realistic estimate would put him at about Derek Underwood \ early-career Anil Kumble speed. AND he bowled wristspin, not fingerspin like Underwood or fingerspin-strength wristspin like Kumble.

bedser always gets ranked below lindwall and miller for the same reason. even before pollock slided downwards he was not considered on par with an ambrose or an akram if you recall.

Pollock was only as quick as a Wasim or an early-career Ambrose for a year or so - two at best - though. After his ankle injury in 1997 he was never quick again, only ever fast-medium. So that's not an entirely fair comparison. We'll never know what might have been.

Obviously, doing what Ambrose and Pollock did at Ambrose's speed was better than doing it at the speed that Pollock did for most of his career, though.

 

[archie mac]

archie.. i understand your sentiments and find weldone's stats interesting, even if barnes played today and averaged around the 20 run mark his lack of pace might still be pushing most of us to rank him below specialists - fast bowlers or spinners. bedser always gets ranked below lindwall and miller for the same reason. even before pollock slided downwards he was not considered on par with an ambrose or an akram if you recall.

i do believe barnes would have rocked in any era. champions have that quality. we know it from bradman winning the battles in 20s, 30s and then after a huge gap for WW2, in late 40s as well. sobers was good in his long career. so was gavaskar. and rhodes. sachin is proving to be a classy old wine too. so it is possible to assume barnes would have done very well even now. but he would not have been too far ahead of the bowlers i have listed above as he was in his era.

We will never know, and tbh I prefer it that way, although I imagine his pace was the same as maybe Kumble, or even a touch faster, but the players of his time thought him well ahead of all the greats except maybe Lohmann

 

[Richard]

We will never know, and tbh I prefer it that way

 

[Manee]

We will never know, and tbh I prefer it that way, although I imagine his pace was the same as maybe Kumble,

I'd guess he was about 65-70mph, because that is the sort of pace that, at club levels, is first regarded as quickish.

 

[archie mac]

I'd guess he was about 65-70mph, because that is the sort of pace that, at club levels, is first regarded as quickish.

You will have to talk to me in KMHs mate

 

[weldone]

You will have to talk to me in KMHs mate

65-70 mph is roughly 105-115 kmph...

 

[archie mac]

65-70 mph is roughly 105-115 kmph...

OK, I was thinking about 120-125

 

[a massive zebra]

No doubt in my mind. I said it elsewhere, but I find it a real shame that Barnes did not come accross early in his career an understanding captain who realised he was special and was willing to bend over backwards to ensure he achieved what he was capable of.

Had he done that, and debuted in First-Class cricket at the normal sort of age (21-22) then played Test cricket and for a major county for the next 20 years, playing 40 or 50 Tests, I'm totally confident he'd have as unequivocal a case for being the greatest bowler as Bradman has with the bat.

It's not like Barnes was a 19th-century bowler. Since the turn of the 20th-century, no bowler has even really come close to achieving figures like his, and nor is it surprising given how we know from testimonies that he bowled.

Ignores the fact that Barnes was not actually a particularly good bowler until his late 20s. Infact, he did make his first class debut in his early 20s, but struggled to hold down a regular place in the Warwickshire side at this time, and really did not have the mentality to play 20 years of county cricket.

 

[Richard]

Were his struggles down to the fact he had not developed the skills he was later to display, or the fact that he was "out-of-place" as a character though?

I don't know - not sure if anyone does or not.

 

[bagapath]

either way it is irrelevant in judging his greatness. grimmett started late, waugh bloomed late. tendulkar clicked early. imran struggled towards greatness. hadlee worked towards it. ambrose played first in "sporting middle age". botham and warne frittered away valuable years due to bad choices. but all are legends.