SF Barnes

[SJS]

A lovely picture of Ted Macdonald bowling in a match.

Ted Macdonald

[SJS]

Originally Posted by SJS

First of all, Spofforth did not bowl at 90 mph. He did bowl some very quick balls but most of the time he wasnt above fast medium.

Secondly, wicket keepers did not stand up to him all the time.

Finally, why do you assume he wasn't as accurate as McGrath ?

By the way, while keepers are most diificult to compare over a century since the change in wickets/ground conditions, dramatic change in protective equipment has changed the way in which keepers approach the job more than the other disciplines.

The long stop was one of the most important fielders in the side at one time. It appears laughable today and one would wonder what kind of nincompoops were keeping wickets if the best fielder had to be posted right behind the keeper almost on the fence. Well that has to do more with quality of wickets to start with than anything else.

Blackham became the first wicket keeper to stand up AND dispense with the long stop. It was looked at incredulously by the cricketing fraternity. It was unheard of. So whatever we say of standards, comparing to those days and the conditions as pevailed then, he must have been tremendous.

Bradman once saw a pair of gloves belonging to this "Prince amongst wicket-keepers" and was amazed at how little protection they offered. He writes ...

"He must have been stoic to have kept in them. Without doubt a modern player would have had his hands ruined if he was to use them for any length of time against fast bowling."

[The Sean]

Originally Posted by Manee

Unfortunately, I refuse to believe that a bowler of near 90mph could have the keeper standing up lest he be Mcgrath-like in accuracy and possess little to no bounce.

Spofforth didn't bowl anywhere near 90mph - hence my comment about mixing fiery agression (which he had in spades) with cleverness and variation. Despite a reputation these days as some kind of express-paced tearaway, he generally bowled what we would consider medium pace to fast medium, with the occasional very fast ball thrown in.

[SJS]

Denzil Batchelor, one of the greatest cricket writers of all time writes of Larwood...

There was no reason to suppose that Australian ascendency was to be challenged. And then came Larwood.

He came, as I remember, in that first Sydney Test, bowling with the press box behind him, with Allen, Voce, Leyland and Verity craning forward at short legs and silly mid on. He bowled faster than anyone I have ever seen bowl; faster than Lindwall, far faster than McCarthy. He bowled, according to my memory, far fewer bouncers than Voce; but he rose, at terriffic and dangerous pace, to threaten the short ribs; to threaten the heart. If you played a stroke at him, it was apt to be a defensive dab liable to send the ball in the hands of that on-side field. Such was leg theory and Larwood was the theorist transformed into lightening action. Those who argued against this form of attack said "it wasn't cricket. It got its effects, it got its wickets, from intimidation." Those who defended it said : "No game is worth playing by men without a spice of danger. Here is the game. There is the danger. Where are the men ?"

It remains to say that Larwood was (also) the most accurate bowler of all time.

For me the most interesting comment there is that his rising balls, rising at dangerous pace, did not threaten the head of the batsman. No, far from it. They did not even threaten the upper ribs. They threatened "the short ribs". They were frighteningly fast, deadly accurate, of a length and height that prevented you from playing a stroke and not high enough for you to duck under them at the last moment. No surprise that Larwood did not hit too many Australians nor could they get out of his way.

His great speed combined with his unerring accuracy made him, at his peak (which was at that time 1932-33) one of the greatest and fastest bowlers of all time if not the greatest.

Hence the legend of Larwood. Other than Bradman, I have read no account by any contemporary cricketer of Larwood (or writer) who did not stand in awe of his bowling at that time. The greatest tragedy of 1932-33 was not that the relations between England and Australia came to breaking point but that the reactions of the authorities deprived the game and posterity of one of the greatest spectacles we may have seen/read/heard in 1934 - Don Bradman (without doubt a phenomenon and the only player with the skill, the eye, the footwork to tackle this great bowler) getting to terms with Larwood bowling at his peak.

For me, Bradman's legacy is lessened by the removal of Larwood from the scene when both were at their peak.

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by SJS

The greatest tragedy of 1932-33 was not that the relations between England and Australia came to breaking point but that the reactions of the authorities deprived the game and posterity of one of the greatest spectacles we may have seen/read/heard in 1934 - Don Bradman (without doubt a phenomenon and the only player with the skill, the eye, the footwork to tackle this great bowler) getting to terms with Larwood bowling at his peak.

For me, Bradman's legacy is lessened by the removal of Larwood from the scene when both were at their peak.

As big a hero as Larwood was to me, I think 34 would have been a disappointment. Larwood, himself, recognised that he was far faster in Australia than England due to the footing. Larwood could not have replicated the speeds he bowled in the Bodyline series if he had played in 34.

Still a crying shame though.

[luckyeddie]

Originally Posted by SJS

Thats not correct.

Its true he used his fingers to impart leg spin and not really the wrist as is done by leg spinners but that does not mean he bowled like Iverson. Ralph Barker's account is slightly misleading in this regard.

A regular leg spinner uses the wrist to get most of the turn. In fact the wrist turned at 45 to 60 degrees to the arm as you can see in these pictures of Warne and Grimmett below below





So they get most of the effort on the ball from the wrist movement at the time of release. Hence the term wrist spinner.

Barnes was different from these leg spinners in that he did not bend his wrist at all. His wrist was firm in line with his bowling arm as would be for a medium pacer, He just used his very long fingers to snap almost violently at the time of release. The fact that he did not turn his wrist at all is what made the ball spin viciously in the air "without losing the integrity of the seam position". The seam continued in the direction in which it was pointing as it would do for a seamer. This is why his deliveries could first swing in the air, and then after pitching, break away like a leg break making him near impossible to play.

He could control the swing and extent of break off the wicket by merely adjusting the direction in which the seam was poniting. Thats why he was not a wrist spinner but a swerve and break bowler and he bowled at fairly high speeds and released the ball from a very high point - again something regular leg spinners dont do. His arm was very erect during delivery and the wrist was not bent. There arent many pictures of Barnes available but you can get an idea from this sequence.

Very impressive, SJS. He truly was a remarkable man, and it's no surprise that he was a mystery. He even had time to have a shave between images 2 and 3. He might also have been the inspiration for the 'statue ball' much beloved by at least one of his modern-day twirly compatriots, because by image 4, his moustache had grown back.

[Manee]

Originally Posted by SJS

Finally, why do you assume he wasn't as accurate as McGrath ?

I meant if he bowled at the extreme pace that people said.

[The Sean]

Originally Posted by SJS

A lovely picture of Ted Macdonald bowling in a match.

Ted Macdonald

The accounts of MacDonald's run-up and action never fail to mention the effortless smoothness and beauty he bowled with. Like Michael Holding some five decades later, there are stories of the umpires noting that they could not hear his footsteps in the turf as he ran up behind them. He played just 11 Tests, and had only one really successful series, yet built up a magnificent record in County cricket and left very few of those who faced him in any doubt about his greatness.

He was another who met a tragic early end when he died in freakish circumstances at the age of just 46. Having collided with another car, he got out and moved to check on the other driver - only to be knocked down and killed by a third car as it then drove past.

[SJS]

Originally Posted by The Sean

The accounts of MacDonald's run-up and action never fail to mention the effortless smoothness and beauty he bowled with. Like Michael Holding some five decades later, there are stories of the umpires noting that they could not hear his footsteps in the turf as he ran up behind them. He played just 11 Tests, and had only one really successful series, yet built up a magnificent record in County cricket and left very few of those who faced him in any doubt about his greatness.

He was another who met a tragic early end when he died in freakish circumstances at the age of just 46. Having collided with another car, he got out and moved to check on the other driver - only to be knocked down and killed by a third car as it then drove past.

Bradman thought very highly of him. In Farewell to cricket he writes.

" Gregory was without doubt the superior player because of his superlative fielding and fine batting but purely as a bowler, Macdonald was his superior.

The tall Victorian had a perfect rhythmic action, incredible stamina and real pace plus the ability to do things with the ball.

Taking everything into consideration, he would probably win a cricket Gallup Poll - take the points of the best of all fast bowlers. Very close behind him, in my opinion (on his 1948 form) is Ray Lindwall."

[fredfertang]

I have heard it said, by a man who to my certain knowledge met Jack Gregory, that the reason why MacDonald left Australia was because the authorities in Tasmania were after him for fraud - an Australian writer called Nick Richardson, who wrote a "biography" of Ricky Ponting has apparently written a biography of MacDonald but can't find a publisher - I suppose it's inevitable, but still sad, that publishers are more interested in a 2002 book about Punter than they are in a full length biography of one of the legendary figures of the game

[SJS]

Originally Posted by fredfertang

I have heard it said, by a man who to my certain knowledge met Jack Gregory, that the reason why MacDonald left Australia was because the authorities in Tasmania were after him for fraud - an Australian writer called Nick Richardson, who wrote a "biography" of Ricky Ponting has apparently written a biography of MacDonald but can't find a publisher - I suppose it's inevitable, but still sad, that publishers are more interested in a 2002 book about Punter than they are in a full length biography of one of the legendary figures of the game

You know he clean bowled Bradman in his 40th year playing for Lancashire against the 1930 Austraians in this match He also got Archie Jackson and Vic Richardson to have the Aussies struggling at 49 for 3.

[Burgey]

Originally Posted by SJS

You know he clean bowled Bradman in his 40th year playing for Lancashire against the 1930 Austraians in this match He also got Archie Jackson and Vic Richardson to have the Aussies struggling at 49 for 3.

Indeed. Bradman said MacDonald still had it when they played in that match, that he was a sight to behold. Wonder if he'll qualify for the pre-WW2 XI if we have one to put up vs the post WW2 XI which is being sorted now.

Maybe he won't have played enough matches though.

[SJS]

Originally Posted by Burgey

Indeed. Bradman said MacDonald still had it when they played in that match, that he was a sight to behold. Wonder if he'll qualify for the pre-WW2 XI if we have one to put up vs the post WW2 XI which is being sorted now.

Maybe he won't have played enough matches though.

I think he played all his Test cricket in one year, so it becomes a bit difficult to justify on the basis of such a short career.

[The Sean]

Originally Posted by SJS

I think he played all his Test cricket in one year, so it becomes a bit difficult to justify on the basis of such a short career.

Indeed - just 11 Tests and 43 wickets in less than 12 months of Test cricket. Though given the amount of cricket played pre WW2 was much less, the runs/wickets cutoff criteria will probably be less. That being said, a 50 or 75 wicket minimum would still be reasonable and so Ted would miss out regardless.

His FC record - 1,395 wickets at 20.76 - is wonderful though.

[SJS]

Originally Posted by The Sean

His FC record - 1,395 wickets at 20.76 - is wonderful though.

Thats true but then one has to remember that he got only 152 of those wickets in Australia (at 23.5 each). Almost all of the others in England where, in county cricket, the top bowlers got their wickets cheaper by comparison.

Even Ironmonger, who is never ranked in any list of truly great players and who played almost all his cricket in Australia, got his 464 first class wickets at 21.5.