SF Barnes

[The Sean]

Barnes bowled spin, thought that was agreed on already.

No question that Barnes spun the ball - we know that by his own admission. The discussion seems rather to be whether or not to categorise him as a "spinner" in the traditional sense (which I never have) due to the other weapons he had in his locker and the pace with which he was capable of bowling - much faster than pure medium if accounts are to be believed, particularly when he took the new ball.

Personally I think categorising him either way is unnecessary (and probably inaccurate) - perhaps he warrants a category of his own.

 

[SJS]

No question that Barnes spun the ball - we know that by his own admission. The discussion seems rather to be whether or not to categorise him as a "spinner" in the traditional sense (which I never have) due to the other weapons he had in his locker and the pace with which he was capable of bowling - much faster than pure medium if accounts are to be believed, particularly when he took the new ball.

Personally I think categorising him either way is unnecessary (and probably inaccurate) - perhaps he warrants a category of his own.

Well said.

There really is no reason why every bowler must fit one of our categories. How does one categories O'Reilly for example. Bradman called him the greatest bowler of all time and offered his reason of why he thought O'Rielly had the edge over Barnes - "because O'Reilly bowled the googly while Barnes didn't. This sounds like putting Barnes and O'Reilly in the same category. Is that category - leg spinner ? Obviously not for in the next paragraph Bradman calls Grimmett the best leg- spinner ever. Clearly Don did not classify O'Reilly as a leg spinner.

I do not see any reason to classify Barnes as a spinner. He was a new ball bowler, he bowled at a brisk to fast medium pace, was a terror with the new ball, very good with the old but better with the new. He never bowled even first change.

O'Reilly, like Kumble, bowled with the old ball and next to never with the new. O'Reilly"s partner in crime was a spinner Grimmett while Barnes partnered new ball bowler Frank Foster

 

[L Trumper]

Barnes bowled spin, thought that was agreed on already.

Agreed on by whom? Also what is this fixation with putting everybody in some kind of specific category?

 

[watson]

Agreed on by whom? Also what is this fixation with putting everybody in some kind of specific category?

Agreed by everyone who has been reading the various bits of evidence and following the thread.

Barnes bowled lots of different types of deliveries, but his main wicket taking delivery, the one he bowled the most was the leg-break. A leg-break created by finger-spin.

Therefore, in the context of his 'stock' delivery he is, by definition: a leg-break finger-spinner

Consider;

Bernard Hollowood in conversation with Albert Hollowood (1970);

“Oh yes, he could ‘em all, but he got his wickets with fast leg-breaks. Marvelous, absolutely marvellous, he was. Fast leg-breaks and always on a length.” Others, Barnes included, have claimed that he bowled every known ball except the googly – swingers, off breaks, top spinners, the lot. But undoubtably his chef d’oeuvre was the leg break. He took a long run, a bounding springy run, and as his arm came over in a perfect action, mid on and mid off could hear the snap of his long fingers as they rolled and squeezed the ball into its revolutionary parabola. There has been no one like him. O’Reilly could bend them from leg, but not with Barnes’s consistency or devil. Douglas Wright could bowl fastish leg breaks, but not on the length that destroys and goes on destroying.
(The Picador Book of Cricket, page 37-38)

And Hollowood should know as he played extensively with Barnes at the Staffordshire club.

It is ...at any rate clear that Barnes executed his leg break without turning the wrist, an action which gives some notice to the batsman. Appartently Barnes manipulated the leg turn mainly by leverage of the third finger - as most leg spinners do, though most of them need to twist over the wrist."

This probably explains his maintaing the seam position as would an inswing bowler so that the ball would swing inwards in the air and still break away on pitching.

....Mentally mingle the best of Tate and Bedser; length, pace, swing, then add a tincture of Orielly, then maybe some adumbration will emerge or loom of Barnes in full spate.

(Cardus)

Note: This quote from Neville Cardus comes via SJS who should have the original reference source.

And Cardus should know as he wrote not long after Barnes' time and was a foremost authority on the game.

 

[watson]

Agreed on by whom? Also what is this fixation with putting everybody in some kind of specific category?

Because we can.

 

[kyear2]

We seem to have no difficulty in labeling O'Reilly or even Underwood as spinners, so what is the problem with Barnes, no matter the pace, if you spun the ball, u are a spinner. In unhelpful conditions even Verity approached a brisk medium, only in helpful (spinning/damp) conditions did he primarily bowl slower.
It's not to denigrate in any way, and people are placed in catergories because that is what catergories are for, especially from an era where video evidence is scare at best.

 

[the big bambino]

Simply bcos he wasn't a spinner. Yes he broke from leg but so do other faster bowlers not just leggies. So unless you are comfy calling Bedser a spinner (and you wouldn't) then the appellation can't be applied to Barnes.

I'd also be wary of terms used to describe Barnes as it is possible that the same term has garnered a different meaning over the years. The term spin was often used to describe the leg cut faster bowlers achieved although Barnes himself maintain he spun the ball...but at a new ball bowlers pace.

On that matter I've heard him described as quick as Eddie Barlow. For those that don't know him think Watson or M Asif or even Kula in terms of pace.

 

[kyear2]

There is a big difference between seaming and spinning the ball, and he spun the ball, and also even Bradman compared him to O'Reilly and said O'Reilly was better because of his googly, don't recall many medium of fast bowlers being judged based on their googly.
The man himself said he spun the ball, it's not that difficult, Bradman made the distinction between tge fast and slow spinners, who are we to argue.

 

[the big bambino]

There is a big difference between seaming and spinning the ball, and he spun the ball, and also even Bradman compared him to O'Reilly and said O'Reilly was better because of his googly, don't recall many medium of fast bowlers being judged based on their googly.
The man himself said he spun the ball, it's not that difficult, Bradman made the distinction between tge fast and slow spinners, who are we to argue.

Bradman was rating them not categorising them. He just said that O'Reilly had a trick that Barnes didn't have. Incidentally Barnes must have gotten wind of this comment and responded; "Googly...I never needed one".

Yes there is a big diff in seam and spin though the effect is intended as the same - defeat the bat with lateral movement. Barnes getting it by means he thought were superior and down to his skill rather than assistance from the pitch.

Apart from the googly he appeared to have everything else and he could change his pace down to bowl at an authentic spinner's pace. If he wanted too. But he was faster than O'Reilly, (to say nothing of Warne, Grimmett and other bowlers Bradman rated as spinners separate of O'Reilly), in the main. So unless you are comfortable calling Asif a spinner then I wouldn't claim Barnes could be categorised as such. My own opinion, fwiw, is that he couldn't be categorised except as someone who managed to master practically every skill in bowling.

 

[the big bambino]

Btw kyear2 I'm enjoying your posts and your interest in Barnes and the game's entertaining history too. After finding this site and reading some of its content it is the most important aspect amongst others persuading me to join. Hope we can chat more on this and other threads.

 

[watson]

Simply bcos he wasn't a spinner. Yes he broke from leg but so do other faster bowlers not just leggies. So unless you are comfy calling Bedser a spinner (and you wouldn't) then the appellation can't be applied to Barnes.

I'd also be wary of terms used to describe Barnes as it is possible that the same term has garnered a different meaning over the years. The term spin was often used to describe the leg cut faster bowlers achieved although Barnes himself maintain he spun the ball...but at a new ball bowlers pace.

On that matter I've heard him described as quick as Eddie Barlow. For those that don't know him think Watson or M Asif or even Kula in terms of pace.

Then how do you account for the testimonies by Hollowood and Cardus?

There is no trickery or ambiguity in their langauge. They are plain and specific in their words.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Asif was a magician. Had wrists like a spinner and seamed the ball both ways massively at a decent pace.

 

[the big bambino]

Then how do you account for the testimonies by Hollowood and Cardus?

There is no trickery or ambiguity in their langauge. They are plain and specific in their words.

I used to have that Hollowood article in a compilation by Kenneth Gregory (from memory) called In celebration of cricket. I can't check it for you now as I threw away the book in response to people making me feel bad about my fascination with cricket. I've even stopped reading and collecting cricket books. I think that will change now I can talk abt cricket with fellow nuts.

The article you refer to does compare his break to Wright and O'Reilly but as a helpful comparison to those who never saw Barnes but may have the latter bowlers. I am borrowing from shaky memory but I believe he also compared his pace with Barlow, whom as a FM bowler, was considerably quicker than either Tiger or Wright.

There is no ambiguity in the article. It says what it means. I am just saying over the years terms have acquired different meanings and we have to becareful when old articles use words that had one meaning then and possibly a different one now. Especially so when talk of spin automatically makes us think Warne or Kumble when Barnes was different in style and faster in speed.

 

[archie mac]

I would love an Amerian, for instance, to read this thread

It is very confusing to understand the old time bowlers method. Spofforth for instance was considered fast but Blackham often stood up to the stumps for him. Was this just Blackham being brave?

Spofforth said he was fast as a young bowler but then became smarter and varied his pace.

I always thought Hugh Trumble was an off spin bowler but apparently he was another who's pace changed depending on conditons. I have read a lot of cricket books, and swerve seems to describe everything from break to turn to swing. I can't believe that no one could swing the ball before the great King. I am a poor bowler but every now an again I make the ball swing without doing anything different. So surely bowlers swung the ball from the earliest days of cricket and once they did this I am sure they would have tried to perfect it. Bowlers are good like that

 

[SJS]

I would love an Amerian, for instance, to read this thread

It is very confusing to understand the old time bowlers method. Spofforth for instance was considered fast but Blackham often stood up to the stumps for him. Was this just Blackham being brave?

Spofforth said he was fast as a young bowler but then became smarter and varied his pace.

I always thought Hugh Trumble was an off spin bowler but apparently he was another who's pace changed depending on conditons. I have read a lot of cricket books, and swerve seems to describe everything from break to turn to swing. I can't believe that no one could swing the ball before the great King. I am a poor bowler but every now an again I make the ball swing without doing anything different. So surely bowlers swung the ball from the earliest days of cricket and once they did this I am sure they would have tried to perfect it. Bowlers are good like that

On someone swinging the ball before Bart, who knows. There were those who might have bowled leg breaks like Barnes and managed to bowl one that swung in and then moved away. It would be noticed only if it well directed as well as on a length. In anyevent it would have been an accident rather than design.

Someone mentioned Warne's ball to Gatting as a sign that he could bowl the same delivery as barnes did, well I wonder why we call it the "Ball of the Century" in that case - if it was so common place in Warney's armoury. Warne himself, in the interviews says, "it just happened" just one of those things.

I think there is a reason for no swing bowlers and that lies in the history of bowling.

We will discuss this in detail in the history of cricket thread but here I would say that, probably, since spin and break off the wicket was what bowlers used most to deceive batsman as far as lateral movement is concerned (length and line taken as given) all budding bowlers started with grips that gave them maximum chance of achieving the maximum rotation on the ball to get the maximum lateral movement after pitching. It is difficult to imagine a possibility when it has never ever existed. Its possible that some bowler, or even a kid in a park, bowled a ball that moved in the air and no one took notice. What counts is for someone to do it, even accidentally, and then perhps repeat it and then realise what was happening, then try and find what was happening, try to and eventually master it in the manner Bart King did. There is no record that anyone before ever did it.

Its quite like with Bosanquet and his tennis ball. He just happened to 'notice' a phenomenon and worked on it. It may have happened before him sure its possible, but if no one did anything about it - it doesn't count

 

[archie mac]

On someone swinging the ball before Bart, who knows. There were those who might have bowled leg breaks like Barnes and managed to bowl one that swung in and then moved away. It would be noticed only if it well directed as well as on a length. In anyevent it would have been an accident rather than design.

Someone mentioned Warne's ball to Gatting as a sign that he could bowl the same delivery as barnes did, well I wonder why we call it the "Ball of the Century" in that case - if it was so common place in Warney's armoury. Warne himself, in the interviews says, "it just happened" just one of those things.

I think there is a reason for no swing bowlers and that lies in the history of bowling.

We will discuss this in detail in the history of cricket thread but here I would say that, probably, since spin and break off the wicket was what bowlers used most to deceive batsman as far as lateral movement is concerned (length and line taken as given) all budding bowlers started with grips that gave them maximum chance of achieving the maximum rotation on the ball to get the maximum lateral movement after pitching. It is difficult to imagine a possibility when it has never ever existed. Its possible that some bowler, or even a kid in a park, bowled a ball that moved in the air and no one took notice. What counts is for someone to do it, even accidentally, and then perhps repeat it and then realise what was happening, then try and find what was happening, try to and eventually master it in the manner Bart King did. There is no record that anyone before ever did it.

Its quite like with Bosanquet and his tennis ball. He just happened to 'notice' a phenomenon and worked on it. It may have happened before him sure its possible, but if no one did anything about it - it doesn't count

I just wonder if someone did it on a regular basis before but it was called something else other than swing? Interesting is all.

As you say as King was the one who could do it on a regular basis he is the father of the art.

Some say it was not Bosanquet but Reggie Schwarz who came up with the googly. I have not seen much research into this claim but would change cricket history if correct

 

[fredfertang]

Can't remember off hand where I read it but some writer back before the war wrote that candidates for the first bloke to have actually bowled a googly were a bunch of 1880's Australians Tom Horan, Joey Palmer and Jim Phillips - there's no doubt that Bosanquet perfected it playing "twisti twosti", which is what made him think about it - the Aussies probably didn't twig that the ball going the other way was because they turned their wrists round further - I expect they thought the ball had hit a stone instead

 

[the big bambino]

Quite possible on those old pitches...

We must also remember that there were plenty of spin bowlers in Barnes' day. Including exponents of the new found googly. So if cricket writers of the era were inclined to categorise him a spin bowler there were plenty around to be compared to.

But he wasn't. He was something apart and as he was given the new ball I'd favour calling him a new ball bowler but with an uncanny power of spin.

 

[L Trumper]

Then how do you account for the testimonies by Hollowood and Cardus?

There is no trickery or ambiguity in their langauge. They are plain and specific in their words.

Apart from you and kyear2 , no one really seems comfortable calling Barnes a spinner. Besides there were lot of changes to bowling in the meanwhile. During his playing time, there was never a consensus regarding Barnes being a spinner, even though man himself identified as spinner. Considering that I'd hesitate to label him one way or other.

 

[Migara]

NO that's not the basic difference between them . . . there is much more to it.

1. Barnes bowled with the new ball, Kumble didn't.
2. Barnes was one of the best new ball bowlers in the history of the game - not Kumble
3. Barnes moved the bal very sharp and very late in to the batsman - Kumble couldn't
4. Barnes made the ball move very sharply off the pitch from leg stump to hit the off stump - Kumble's leg breaks turned negligibly if at all.

Not to mention that Barnes bowled with great success both at home and away including against Australia - not Kumble.

They were a bit different

And possibly Barnes' sty;e was more succesful with a new ball while Kumble's was with the old ball