Lets end it: Sydney Barnes

[Richard]

So is Barnes. And just imagine what he'd be if he'd played Test and major county cricket constantly between his mid-20s and his early-40s. His record in minor county cricket suggests he'd have been phenomenal.

 

[social]

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.

Bingo!

People cant even agree whether he was a friggin' seamer or spinner ffs

The guy is a legend BUT just how anyone can say he is undoubtedly the best ever bowler is totally beyond my comprehension when evidence is so unbelievably flimsy

 

[Richard]

The only flimsy stuff I was referring to there was his career at the ages of, say, 20 to 25.

The main reason so many people struggle to realise whether he was a seamer or spinner is because of misinformation. Many people have heard of him but not read anything. It's documented that his stock-ball was the fast Leg-Break. But because he also bowled a seamer as a change-up ball some people have been misled into thinking him a seamer.

However, I'd say that if no-one actually knew, it suggests a pretty damn dangerous bowler. And indeed, batsmen who never knew what was coming next had something of a struggle.

 

[SJS]

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.

If anyone wants to understand Barnes and his performances, you have to look at various aspects of his career. Some are covered here athers not .

1. Barnes did not play much first class cricket because of financial considerations. The money he made and the security that the Minor Counties offered him made him very reluctant to play for Lancashire, not because he wasn't good enough.

2. One can detect the condescending tone when people talk of the 'club' cricket he played in so far as Minor Counties Cricket is concerned. I dont want to comment on the quality of Minor Counties cricket and today's club cricket but clearly they were not as good as the County Championships and yes Barnes hardly played in first class cricket. Here is how many BALLS (yes balls not overs) he delivered in each year till 1901

• 
  1894 : ZILCH (1 match)
• 1895 : 275 (2 matches)
• 1896 : 115 (1 match)
• 1897 : ZILCH
• 1898 : ZILCH
• 1899 : 375 (1 match)
• 1900 : ZILCH
• 1901 : 216

Thats it. 981 deliveries or 163 overs and 5 matches in 8 years !!

And yet he was selected for the English side for the 1901-02 tour of Australia. Well he must have been some bowler to play just 'club' cricket and yet be taken to Australia.

3. In Australia in Tests he took

1. 5 for 65 on debut in the first test as England won.
2. 6 for 42 in the first innings of the second test and
3. 7 for 121 in the second innings of the 2nd test as england lost
4. He bowled only 7 overs in the 3rd test as he twisted his knee and missed the last two Tests also and England proceeded to lose four Tests in a row.

It is not difficult to see how much Barnes, on his very first tour ay 28, meant to the England side. His 19 wickets in the three tests he played (taken in the first two really) were the highest by any England bowler and cost him 17 runs each.

4. Why was he taken to Australia? Because those 316 balls he bowled in 1901 were in a solitary match he played for Lancashire in 1901. His only match for two years. He took 6 for 70 and his skipper was Archie MacLaren the man who was chosen to lead England that winter.

5. Should he have played earlier? Maybe. But thank God he did play in that one first class game under MacLaren in 1901 or we would not even have heard of him !

6. England played a total of 62 tests from Barnes debut in 1901 to his last game in 1914. Of these he played only 27! What we need to ask ourselves is what his figures would have looked like had he played all those games.

7. Its not as if he was dropped for lack of performance. He NEVER EVER failed in a series (even where he played just a solitary test. Have a look.

[B]Series Year/Opponents	 O	 M	 R	 W	 5w	 10w	 Best	 Avg	 S/R	 E/R[/B]
1901-1902 AUS v ENG	138.2	33	323	19	3	1	 7/121	17	43.68	2.33
1902 (Home) ENG v AUS	32	13	99	7	1	0	 6/49	14.14	27.43	3.09
1907-1908 AUS v ENG	273.2	74	626	24	2	0	 7/60	26.08	68.33	2.29
1909 (Home) ENG v AUS	155.3	52	340	17	2	0	 6/63	20	54.88	2.19
1911-1912 AUS v ENG	297	64	778	34	3	0	 5/44	22.88	52.41	2.62
1912 Triangular Series	190	64	404	39	6	3	 8/29	10.36	29.23	2.13
1913-1914 SAF v ENG	226	56	536	49	7	3	 9/103	10.94	27.67	2.37
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Overall (7 series)	1312.1	356	3106	189	24	7	 9/103	16.43	41.66	2.37[/COLOR]

So how was he faring as against his contemporaries.

8. In the 27 tests that England played him, he took 189 wickets as we know at 16.04 and a strike rate of 41.6.
​

Here is how other England bowlers fared in those 27 games.

Number of wickets taken
Overall by all England Bowlers : 475

Leading Wicket takers :

[B]Bowler	Wickets[/B]
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Barnes	189[/COLOR]
Foster	45
Rhodes	33
Cr'ford	30
Woolley	29
Fielder	25
Blythe	21
JWHT	20
Braund	18

Top averages

[B]Bowler	Average[/B]
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Barnes	16.4[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Navy"][B]Rest  	28.9[/B][/COLOR]

Woolley	19.9
Foster	20.6
Cr'ford	24.7
Fielder	25.1
Blythe	26.3
JWHT	27.3
Brearley	27.3
Rhodes	32.2
Hearne	48.1

Top Strike Rates

[B]Bowler	Str rate[/B]
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Barnes	41.6[/COLOR]
[B][COLOR="Navy"]REST	60.6[/COLOR][/B]
	
Woolley	43.6
Crawford	47.5
Fielder	51.9
Blythe	52.9
Foster	54.3
JWHT	59.7
Rhodes	70.6
Hearne	72.0
Brearley	88.4
Hutchings	90.0
Braund	103.7
Hirst	130.5

It goes on and on.

• He had 24 five fors in these 27 games. All others put together had 17.
• Seven times he took ten or more wickets in a test and only once, in these 27 games did any other England bowler, Frank Woolley, take a ten for.
• Yet he missed 35 Tests while playing just 27 !!

These are the stats we need to keep in mind when assessing this remarkable bowler.

By the way, 15 of those 27 tests, England played him in, were between 1909 to 1914 when he was between 36 and 41 years old. England preferred to ignore him when he was at his peak. People talk that he got better as he grew older. Thats only because he took more Test wickets as he got older and thats because he wasn't played earlier.

Between 1903 and 1907 England played 18 Tests in four series and excluded him in every single one of them.

I would like to believe that Hadlee might have been chasing Barnes' record rather than Botham's if England selectors had done a better job.

Finally, just to show what this 'club' bowler could do, he actually played against three international sides well into his fifties. Here is what happened.

• In September 1927, Barnes, now 54, played against the touring New Zealanders in a first class game. In 35 overs he took 4 for 47 including the legendary Charlie Dempster.
  
• Then, next year, against the visiting West Indians, our man Barnes, bowled 27 overs (almost non-stop it seems since the innings lasted exactly 60 overs) and took 7 West Indian wickets for 51 runs. He was past 55 years.
  
  He took another five wickets in the second innings and Wales actually won the match. Barnes got Challenor in both innings.
  
• In 1929, it was the turn of the South Africans. In under 14 overs, 5 of which were maidens, Barnes took 6 South African wickets for a mere 28 runs. These included South African greats Bruce Mitchell and Herbie Taylor. Mitchell was Bradman's contemporary and played his last Test in 1949. So much for the argument based on the bad wickets of the early 20th century. He took another 4 in the second knock as Wales came close to defeating the visitors losing by just 10 runs!!

Five 5 - fors in 3 matches against touring sides spread over three years including two ten wicket or more per match hauls and this man was into his mid-fifties!!! You may give any argument you want but this is the performance of a master craftsman whose skills were so great that no amount of ravages wrought by time could dim their brilliance.

It is so sad, that Barnes did not get to play a match against Bradman's Australians in 1930. That would have been magnificient. A young all time great against a champion bowler in the 58th year of his amazing career.

I think while if he had played all those Tests in the first decade of the 20th century he could have been close to 400 wicket mark, imagine if he had continued after the first world war !!

PHEW!!!

 

[Ikki]

Lets end it ?? ......

End it ? Us ?

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

No, not me. I don't think I know as much as Test pro's and selectors.

In all seriousness, I am willing to be won over by the Barnes argument (I actually was for a while) but I just think there is a lot of question over it.

Ones I'd like answered: why is there such a difference between his performances against Australia and S.Africa if S.Africa were of the same standard as the others? If Barnes is the greatest, then is Colin Blyth the second greatest?

 

[Richard]

No, because Blythe was a mere orthodox fingerspinner. Barnes' high esteem is not merely due to his statistical excellence, but to his unique style. Like Muralitharan, no-one has since been able to bowl like him.

 

[Ikki]

No, because Blythe was a mere orthodox fingerspinner. Barnes' high esteem is not merely due to his statistical excellence, but to his unique style. Like Muralitharan, no-one has since been able to bowl like him.

Really, could care less how he bowls like. Considering neither of us have seen him nor know exactly what/how he bowled it makes the above even more irrelevant for me.

Not picking on you, just saying that is not an explanation that would make me side with Barnes.

 

[Richard]

We don't know exactly how or what Maurice Tate bowled either - does that stop anyone considering him one of this country's finest seam-bowlers?

 

[Ikki]

We don't know exactly how or what Maurice Tate bowled either - does that stop anyone considering him one of this country's finest seam-bowlers?

You're digressing. Whether he was unique or a carbon copy matters little to me. Whether Maurice Tate and Barnes are equally unique or unmatchable in terms of technique do not come into it for me. I am not going to say one Cricketer is better than another due to his action. How Barnes' action makes him so much different to Blyth is irrelevant to me considering they had similar success.

For you who are judging him on 'how he bowled' then considering you haven't seen it nor know exactly what he bowled it shows no logic to just assume as such and because of that label him the greatest bowler ever.

 

[bagapath]

thanks SJS. he must've been very special really. i wonder why bradman didnt consider him in his all time xi. at least richie benaud did. that must be some consolation for good old barnesey.

 

[social]

thanks SJS. he must've been very special really. i wonder why bradman didnt consider him in his all time xi. at least richie benaud did. that must be some consolation for good old barnesey.

Bradman rated O'Reilly higher because Barnes was a leg-spinner that couldn't bowl a googly

Then again, Barnes wanted the new ball (where a leggie would've been pummeled today) so who knows what he bowled

Too many uncertanties for my liking

 

[Richard]

You're digressing. Whether he was unique or a carbon copy matters little to me. Whether Maurice Tate and Barnes are equally unique or unmatchable in terms of technique do not come into it for me. I am not going to say one Cricketer is better than another due to his action. How Barnes' action makes him so much different to Blyth is irrelevant to me considering they had similar success.

For you who are judging him on 'how he bowled' then considering you haven't seen it nor know exactly what he bowled it shows no logic to just assume as such and because of that label him the greatest bowler ever.

It's nothing to do with his bowling-action and everything to do with what came out of his hand.

 

[Ikki]

It's nothing to do with his bowling-action and everything to do with what came out of his hand.

What does it matter what came out of his hand? You are looking at end result right? His wickets taken, runs conceded, etc. By the same standards Blyth should be considered the 2nd greatest bowler ever if Barnes is considered 1st.

 

[Richard]

No, because what came out of Barnes' hand leaves many people in no doubt that his record would have been far, far more conclusive than it was (never mind less) had he played more. With Blythe (who also had a very abbreviated career - he suffered from epilepsy) it's generally consented to be the other way around. No-one considered Blythe the best fingerspinner of his own time - he was a notable second to Wilfred Rhodes.

 

[Ikki]

No, because what came out of Barnes' hand leaves many people in no doubt that his record would have been far, far more conclusive than it was (never mind less) had he played more. With Blythe (who also had a very abbreviated career - he suffered from epilepsy) it's generally consented to be the other way around. No-one considered Blythe the best fingerspinner of his own time - he was a notable second to Wilfred Rhodes.

Wilfred Rhodes record is not in the same vicinity as Blythe's.

Blythe bowled at Test level for a decade and had only 8 less Tests than Barnes. Conclusiveness is not an issue here.

He even has a better record against Australia than Barnes does.

 

[Richard]

Rhodes' Test record in a comparable form to Blythe's is every bit as good, and his First-Class record over more than twice the length of Blythe's is likewise. Rhodes was irrefutably a better bowler than Blythe. Blythe is MacGill to Rhodes' Warne; a relatively average performer made to look excellent because the limited chances given him by the master's career caused circumstances to conspire in his favour.

No-one in their right mind would consider Blythe anything more than a decent support bowler. Unless, that is, they looked solely at statistics and didn't place enough value on testimony. Barnes was so much more than this.

 

[Ikki]

Rhodes' Test record in a comparable form to Blythe's is every bit as good, and his First-Class record over more than twice the length of Blythe's is likewise. Rhodes was irrefutably a better bowler than Blythe. Blythe is MacGill to Rhodes' Warne; a relatively average performer made to look excellent because the limited chances given him by the master's career caused circumstances to conspire in his favour.

No-one in their right mind would consider Blythe anything more than a decent support bowler. Unless, that is, they looked solely at statistics and didn't place enough value on testimony. Barnes was so much more than this.

In a comparable form? What does that mean? Take Rhodes' figures in exactly the era Blythe played then compare.

Blythe's first class record is impressive but not as long as Rhodes. However, 439 matches is not a short sample. Blythe's first class record is better than Barnes' though and is 4 times as long.

Anyway, this is Rhodes' record during the same time Blythe played - considering he played so long. Still not as good as Blythe.

Sorry buddy, not buying it.

ADD: Barnes may be great for reasons other than statistics, but statistically he is not far and away better than others. Too many questions over him and his era in comparison to later ones.

 

[Richard]

In a comparable form? What does that mean? Take Rhodes' figures in exactly the era Blythe played then compare.

Blythe's first class record is impressive but not as long as Rhodes. However, 439 matches is not a short sample. Blythe's first class record is better than Barnes' though and is 4 times as long.

Anyway, this is Rhodes' record during the same time Blythe played - considering he played so long. Still not as good as Blythe.

I'm well aware of that - count the number of games in my Rhodes sample. Comparable to the number in the Blythe career.

Here's a comparison to what you showed - at the start of MacGill's career this is Warne's record. MacGill averaged over 13 runs lower than Warne. Was MacGill anywhere near as good a bowler as Warne over their careers? Not even close.

Had Blythe played more, as I said, no-one is in any doubt that his average would've gone up. He, like MacGill, was simply fortunate to have a bit-part career that resulted in a flattering average. Blythe was not anywhere near as good as Rhodes.

Blythe's First-Class career is indeed impressive. But it's not as good as Rhodes'. Both averaged a fraction over 16 - Rhodes, however, did it for 32 years to Blythe's 15.

 

[Ikki]

I'm well aware of that - count the number of games in my Rhodes sample. Comparable to the number in the Blythe career.

Here's a comparison to what you showed - at the start of MacGill's career this is Warne's record. MacGill averaged over 13 runs lower than Warne. Was MacGill anywhere near as good a bowler as Warne over their careers? Not even close.

Had Blythe played more, as I said, no-one is in any doubt that his average would've gone up. He, like MacGill, was simply fortunate to have a bit-part career that resulted in a flattering average. Blythe was not anywhere near as good as Rhodes.

Blythe's First-Class career is indeed impressive. But it's not as good as Rhodes'. Both averaged a fraction over 16 - Rhodes, however, did it for 32 years to Blythe's 15.

That's not even near to what I showed. Shocking stuff.

Barnes and Blythe debuted around the same time and Rhodes only a year before. Blythe pulls it in after 10 years, Barnes after 14 but Wilfred keeps going for about 30 years. That is the reason I discounted just some random peak as that isn't Blythe's peak figures but his career figures. You're, essentially, comparing Rhodes' peak figures with Blythe's career figures.

MacGill comes in when Warne has played more than a 1/3 of his career. They did not debut together like Blythe, Barnes and Rhodes. It also coincided with Warne's period of injury/restructure. That's why the stats in your comparison don't make sense or compare.

Whether Rhodes' peak is almost as long as Blythe's career is not the issue. Because it is only 4-5 years of a 30 year period. Blythe's career is 10 years. To put that into perspective: Allan Donald's career is also 10 years. There is no questioning of quality here because the sample is more than long enough.

The reason I gave the previous comparison with Rhodes' is because it is when Rhodes started and the same time it coincided with Blythe. I thought maybe his overall figures are poorer because he played on for so much longer so I only took the first 10 years (Blythe's career) to give him an advantage. However, he was not as good as Blythe even in that period.

Anyway, this is Barnes and Blythe study. Has little to do with Rhodes.

Really, the fact that Rhodes was able to play for 30 years should also raise a question of the standard of the era.

 

[Richard]

Not really, hardly anyone else was able to. Rhodes was exceptional, same as Alec Stewart was exceptional in a more modern clime. He could still be playing now if not for the itchy-feet stupidity of the UK press.

The whole point I am making by mentioning Wilfred Rhodes is that you are attempting to portray Blythe as above his station. Blythe was not as good as Rhodes, never mind Barnes.

I couldn't care less about who was at their peak or anything like that - fact is for a fair while MacGill's record appeared far better than Warne's. The reasons are irrelevant. But MacGill wasn't anywhere near as good as Warne, and likewise Blythe's record wasn't actually as good as Rhodes'. Rhodes was superior to Blythe in every respect. Blythe's career record is as good as it is by pure fluke, same way MacGill's career record was much, much better than Warne's for a long while by pure fluke. Neither Blythe nor MacGill were actually that good. Anyone looking at their career records and thinking they were very good has been misled. Fortunately, MacGill's record has got worse and, when Test-standard sides only are considered, his career record now gives a reasonably accurate impression of his calibre. Sadly, Blythe was killed in WWI, having barely turned 35 when war broke, so a similar thing didn't happen in his case as has in MacGill's.