SF Barnes

[Migara]

Looking at last few pages I notice that people are believing cricket hostorians writings as biblical truths. To say the least they are filled with idioms and verbal splendour, more lokks like short stories than technical reports. One have to take out the cream toppings to see the cake.

1. Barnes was a medium fast bowler? No he wasn't. Pace of early bowlers were notoriously overestimated by cricket historians. Just look at the clip at "British Pathe" where Arthur Morris is bowling. Morris was regarded as "fast", but his run up, action and physique never warrants such pace. To most of the fast medium bowlers of that era, keeper stood up. What was Barnes pace more like? I'd say military medium or just above. Just bit quicker than Kumble, bowling around 100-105k (still damn fast for a spinner).

2. Did he spin it? Certainly yes. Did he spin it long? May be not on a today's road, but on substandard pitches of 1900s must have been a night mare.

3. Did he swing it? Yes, must have, but only when bowling the seam up, which would have swung in and hit timber. Did he swing and spin it? No, only superman who can do it, because it defies lwas of physics. But he must have got some serious drift.


So I decided to give a go at the nets. Unfortunately, I have no clips, but this is what I found. I bowled with an action of a normal medium pacer, and turned the rolled the ball out of the back hand.

a. It drifts awful lot with this action.
b. nswing of faster ball looks similar to drift, but batsman hardly has any time to adjust when he's lulled in to security of slow leg cutters
c. Batsmen found bowling with a new ball difficult to face than an old ball due to bounce it produced

So I understand, Barnes did this with a front of the hand type action, which would allow still more drift (Legspinners front of the hand legbreak generally drifts alarmingly than stock ball)

 

[watson]

I thought that this essay was quite interesting

More on how SF Barnes spun his leg break

I have long been mystified by the legendary success of SF Barnes, and have (so far) failed to find any definitive description of his bowling methods.

But from the scattered clues I now believe that Barnes stock delivery, the medium paced leg-break, was spun from the front of the hand (palm facing the batter) by using the ring finger of his right hand to flick the ball off his index finger.

In a description I read in 100 greatest bowlers by Phil Edmonds and Scyld Berry it was said that Barnes held the ball with his index, middle and ring fingers along and touching the seam, and that he could bowl off breaks and leg breaks without much change of action - but that the leg-break was his usual and most devastating delivery.

It seems clear from pictures and written accounts that Barnes bowled from the front of his hand (palm facing the batter) so that a conventional leg-spinner's bac-of-hand leg-break is not a possibility. And a front of hand delivery would usually imply that Barnes bowled leg-cutters - a delivery in which spin is imparted by cutting the fingers across the left hand side of the ball as it is released. However this is not probable, because leg -cutters have never been very much use except as surprise variations, and anyway Barnes denied in interviews that he bowled leg-cutters - he said that he spun the ball.

To spin the ball implies that the ball is gripped with the fingers when spin is imparted - not that (as with a leg cutter) the fingers are scraped down the edge of the ball at the moment of release.

But if Barnes actually spun a leg-break from the front of his hand, then this would generate very little spin, due to the normal anatomical restrictions on movement in that direction. Technically, the wrist rotation depends on forearn rotation - and the action of supination from the starting position of having the middle finger pointing upwards, the forearm rotation which generates off spin has a much larger range of movement (about 180 degrees) than the action of pronation which generates leg spin (probably less than 90 degrees).

So Barnes must have flicked the ball with his fingers. Specifically, from this (and other) photographs it looks as if Barnes has his ring finger curled along the seam so as to flick a leg break off his index finger:

Sydney Barnes | England Cricket | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo

This is a different kind of finger flick from that used by Jack Iverson or Ajantha Mendis - since Iverson and Mendis use the middle finger to flick the ball off the thumb.

Because the middle finger is longer and stronger than the ring finger, I assume that Iverson and Mendis were able to impart more rapid rotations on the ball than Barnes. However, in order to flick a leg break off the thumb, the bowler must rotate the wrist so that the thumb faces towards first slip (roughly). This means that the ball is delivered almost from the side of the hand, which reduces its pace.

Barnes method enabled him to deliver the ball with the palm almost facing the batter, so enabling him to bowl at a brisk medium pace (and open the bowling). Together with Barnes supreme accuracy and the bounce due to his height and upright action, the moderate leg spin was devastating.

I presume that Barnes off break was delivered in an almost conventional fashion, except that the ball was gripped between index and ring fingers, instead of the usual grip between index and middle fingers.

Alternatively, it is possible Barnes could have rotated his wrist and flicked an off break/ googly from the back of his hand using his ring finger - but I would guess that this would have been easy for the batter to pick since the googly would have been visibly delivered from the back of the hand, and also much slower.

If it is correct that Barnes flicked his leg breaks off his index finger using the ring finger then this might explain why apparently nobody has been able to copy his action (except, according to his own account, Ian Peebles, early in his career - although Peebles did not explain the nature of his action, merely that he used the same method as Barnes).

It is remarkable that Barnes ring finger, a finger which is usually weaker and harder to control than other fingers, could generate sufficient power and exert sufficient control to yield the kind of results Barnes achieved; and that the finger joints could stand up to the strain of so much bowling for so many years.

The Doosra: More on how SF Barnes spun his leg break

 

[archie mac]

Looking at last few pages I notice that people are believing cricket hostorians writings as biblical truths. To say the least they are filled with idioms and verbal splendour, more lokks like short stories than technical reports. One have to take out the cream toppings to see the cake.

1. Barnes was a medium fast bowler? No he wasn't. Pace of early bowlers were notoriously overestimated by cricket historians. Just look at the clip at "British Pathe" where Arthur Morris is bowling. Morris was regarded as "fast", but his run up, action and physique never warrants such pace. To most of the fast medium bowlers of that era, keeper stood up. What was Barnes pace more like? I'd say military medium or just above. Just bit quicker than Kumble, bowling around 100-105k (still damn fast for a spinner).

2. Did he spin it? Certainly yes. Did he spin it long? May be not on a today's road, but on substandard pitches of 1900s must have been a night mare.

3. Did he swing it? Yes, must have, but only when bowling the seam up, which would have swung in and hit timber. Did he swing and spin it? No, only superman who can do it, because it defies lwas of physics. But he must have got some serious drift.


So I decided to give a go at the nets. Unfortunately, I have no clips, but this is what I found. I bowled with an action of a normal medium pacer, and turned the rolled the ball out of the back hand.

a. It drifts awful lot with this action.
b. nswing of faster ball looks similar to drift, but batsman hardly has any time to adjust when he's lulled in to security of slow leg cutters
c. Batsmen found bowling with a new ball difficult to face than an old ball due to bounce it produced

So I understand, Barnes did this with a front of the hand type action, which would allow still more drift (Legspinners front of the hand legbreak generally drifts alarmingly than stock ball)

Arthur Morris the left handed opening batsman? Or is there another AM who was a fast bowler?

If it is AM the batsman, comparing his pace would be like showing the next generation a film of Martin batting and saying how bad the batsman of today were

 

[Migara]

Arthur Morris the left handed opening batsman? Or is there another AM who was a fast bowler?

If it is AM the batsman, comparing his pace would be like showing the next generation a film of Martin batting and saying how bad the batsman of today were

Arthur Mold, I beg your pardon.

Arthur Mold | England Cricket | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[the big bambino]

I've seen film of Mold. If its the same one mentioned here then its risible making a judgment abt his pace from that. He was just mucking around in a net attempting to prove he wasn't a thrower. Abt as authentic as saying Mitch Johnson was a spin bowler if the only surviving film of him was the net he had at the WACA the other day.

Back in the day fast bowlers cracked heads and broke fingers like they still do. You can only do that if you have the requisite speed. Unless you're desperate enough to argue that humanity's bones were chalkier back then and using your feeble grand father as evidence.

 

[fredfertang]

I've seen film of Mold. If its the same one mentioned here then its risible making a judgment abt his pace from that. He was just mucking around in a net attempting to prove he wasn't a thrower. Abt as authentic as saying Mitch Johnson was a spin bowler if the only surviving film of him was the net he had at the WACA the other day.

Back in the day fast bowlers cracked heads and broke fingers like they still do. You can only do that if you have the requisite speed. Unless you're desperate enough to argue that humanity's bones were chalkier back then and using your feeble grand father as evidence.

........ I'm afraid there are a few on these boards who do the same - the thing I find remarkable is the way that plenty of people whose opinions are listened to and accepted by them express the view that Frank Tyson was ****ing quick.

That said Neville Cardus, who saw Mold, Larwood and Tyson bowl, and described all three as quick, is condemned as some sort of incurable romantic who actually knew nothing about the game

 

[the big bambino]

Believe me Fred when it comes to deciding who to believe - Neville Cardus or someone who writes off the game's entire past bcos he saw an old clip of Arthur Mold - I think I know who's opinion I'll trust.

The idea that bowling speeds must have improved bcos the game has evolved is an easy mistake to make. But lets test it over the time span most would be familiar. Since the 1970s pactically every athletic record has been broken. So, if the argument is to be sustained, we must now bowl faster than anyone who bowled in the 70s or 80s. If anyone believes that then they should be happy to explain why they think Peter Siddle is faster than Jeff Thomson for example. I'd find that entertaining.

 

[fredfertang]

Believe me Fred when it comes to deciding who to believe - Neville Cardus or someone who writes off the game's entire past bcos he saw an old clip of Arthur Mold - I think I know who's opinion I'll trust.

The idea that bowling speeds must have improved bcos the game has evolved is an easy mistake to make. But lets test it over the time span most would be familiar. Since the 1970s pactically every athletic record has been broken. So, if the argument is to be sustained, we must now bowl faster than anyone who bowled in the 70s or 80s. If anyone believes that then they should be happy to explain why they think Peter Siddle is faster than Jeff Thomson for example. I'd find that entertaining.

.... and of course were there a shred of merit in that sort of argument then someone in the last hundred years, it seems to me anyway, would have emulated Albert Trott and hit the ball over the Lord's Pavilion

 

[the big bambino]

It seems the modern skeptic believes in the bravado of his own opinion. Imagine if he had actual stats and figures? Why I bet he could extrapolate into the past and discover a time when mankind was so weak he couldn't even propel a ball 22 yards.

[sarc off]

 

[Migara]

Believe me Fred when it comes to deciding who to believe - Neville Cardus or someone who writes off the game's entire past bcos he saw an old clip of Arthur Mold - I think I know who's opinion I'll trust.

The idea that bowling speeds must have improved bcos the game has evolved is an easy mistake to make. But lets test it over the time span most would be familiar. Since the 1970s pactically every athletic record has been broken. So, if the argument is to be sustained, we must now bowl faster than anyone who bowled in the 70s or 80s. If anyone believes that then they should be happy to explain why they think Peter Siddle is faster than Jeff Thomson for example. I'd find that entertaining.

Yeah, what a brilliant analogy! Comparing the some one midway with his pace with the quickest!. and BTW Akthar and Zahid were quicker than Thompson, and Lee was as quick as him. 3 is to 1 over 40 year time period. Now how would it be 100 years back!.

And people who take cricket historians as prophets might disagree. But seeing is believing than reading 3rd party accounts. Arthur mold with such a fat belly and round arm action bowling at 90mph must be a big joke. Come on guys! And keepers of yester year taking stumpings off fast medium bowlers! Keeprs of those days must have been mutated kind to have such quick reflexes to take a 130-135k ball down the leg side. Phew!

 

[Migara]

Because the middle finger is longer and stronger than the ring finger, I assume that Iverson and Mendis were able to impart more rapid rotations on the ball than Barnes. However, in order to flick a leg break off the thumb, the bowler must rotate the wrist so that the thumb faces towards first slip (roughly). This means that the ball is delivered almost from the side of the hand, which reduces its pace.

Totally wrong. Iverson-Gleeson-Mendis eliveries are bowled with thum facing towards mid off, hence back spin. That is why those deliveries don'y spin much, but tend to slide. Ashwin's carom ball is off the fourth finger with wrist position similar to a off break (for obvious reasons). Once again back spin, but much harder spin can be imparted off the 4th finger due to stability of the ball. Once again back spin and ball slides. But these can be delivered lot quicker than a back of the hand type delivery. (Mendis' carom ball vs googly). I belive Barnes some how got it to spin forwards to get that killer spin. Otherwise he would have not got a lot of turn.

 

[SJS]

.... and of course were there a shred of merit in that sort of argument then someone in the last hundred years, it seems to me anyway, would have emulated Albert Trott and hit the ball over the Lord's Pavilion

. . . and with a bat that Sachin Tendulkar might feel reluctant to gift to his cook's son . . . because it wasn't good enough . . .

 

[SJS]

It seems the modern skeptic believes in the bravado of his own opinion. Imagine if he had actual stats and figures? Why I bet he could extrapolate into the past and discover a time when mankind was so weak he couldn't even propel a ball 22 yards.

[sarc off]

I am not so sure one can say that, generally, of the modern skeptic. I think there might be an issue here which has partly to do with the information age we live in. I know people who, just because they can google anything and everything, consider themselves to be pundits of . . . errr . . . anything and everything.

There are still plenty of cricket aficionados around who are real students of the game and its history and who do not form opinions everytime they open wikipedia or statsguru and aslo do not use it to have the last word on the mushrooming cricket chatrooms on the net.

In fact, if one was to see the traffic on these chatrooms and the incredible passion displayed by the members, specially from the sub-continent, an alien might feel this to be the world's most favourite sport and of its fan base as being the most incredibly well informed on the planet. Sadly, one has to just go to watch a Test match at the ground, in the exclusive members areas in the pavilion or the 'penny-seats' and be devastated at the illiteracy of the cricket-watching public compared to those who went to cricket grounds three decades ago.

Its so easy to be a 'knowledgeable-critic' on any subject these days . . .

 

[archie mac]

Arthur Mold, I beg your pardon.

Arthur Mold | England Cricket | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo

Haha, fair enough

Yeah, what a brilliant analogy! Comparing the some one midway with his pace with the quickest!. and BTW Akthar and Zahid were quicker than Thompson, and Lee was as quick as him. 3 is to 1 over 40 year time period. Now how would it be 100 years back!.

And people who take cricket historians as prophets might disagree. But seeing is believing than reading 3rd party accounts. Arthur mold with such a fat belly and round arm action bowling at 90mph must be a big joke. Come on guys! And keepers of yester year taking stumpings off fast medium bowlers! Keeprs of those days must have been mutated kind to have such quick reflexes to take a 130-135k ball down the leg side. Phew!

Merv Hughes had a decent size tummy and still bowled pretty quick and Johnson bowls round armish (is that a word?) every now and again and they are still very quick

 

[greg]

And keepers of yester year taking stumpings off fast medium bowlers! Keeprs of those days must have been mutated kind to have such quick reflexes to take a 130-135k ball down the leg side. Phew!

Have you considered that just because a bowler can bowl quick, or even generally bowls quick, it doesn't follow that they always do so? Keepers aren't going to stand up to bowlers bowling at 85+mph, but drop the speed back to 80mph and they might (and do today), especially on flat wickets. I'm pretty sure i've seen England keepers standing up to Anderson in ODIs, and on occasion he touches 90mph. Broad similarly was touching 90mph a couple of summers ago, but has spent the last year struggling to reach 80. (although there have been suggestions that variations have in part been down to different interpretations of the speed gun).

And anyway pace isn't everything. Before his ban, Asif was consistently judged one of the best bowlers in the world, and yet he rarely bowled much above 80mph.

As for the previous suggestion that you can determine what Barnes bowled from going and experimenting with various deliveries yourself in the nets - well maybe, although have you considered taking this ability to emulate one of the all-time great bowlers and putting yourself forward for a trial at a top side?

 

[the big bambino]

Well said AM, SJS and Greg. I'm amused by Migara and those like him. I wonder why conceit and arrogance needs to expose itself to ridicule? Perhaps it realises intuitively it needs it as a corrective.

If anyone thinks they can go down to the nets a replicate the genius of Barnes then, like Greg, I'll look forward to your imminent test debut...

The point abt keepers standing up also fools the gullible modern skeptic as Greg has pointed out with examples. Another is the bowling of Tate and Bedser. Charles Davis estimated their slips stood back as far as Kasprowicz's. So don't read anything into keepers standing up except that maybe keepers were more skilful once

Neither it is impressive to mention Akhtar, Md Zahid and Lee and fast men now. Add the appaling Tait too if you like. In fact I've seem Zahid before and after his injury and while fast at times doesn't rate in terms of pace, effectiveness or consistency. Just a cricketing footnote really.

Besides I can advance a host of bowlers from the 70s/80s that were as fast. Lillee, Imran, Roberts, Holding, Garner, Croft, Patterson, Willis, Snow...the list is impressively long. Not one runner or swimmer from the 70s/80s could make a final today. Yet all the bowlers just mentioned would be considered express today. Therefore the argument that bowler's speeds have increased as time goes on is exposed for the non sequitor it is.

Oh and don't mention the speed tests in the late 70s. Thomson explained that the way they measure speeds now flatters the modern bowler.

AM has dealt beautifully with body shapes and pace bowling. So many people have said that body shape has nothing to with bowling fast (for example the short Roach is much faster than tall Holder. Paunchy Hughes much quicker than trim McGrath) it makes you despair at the ignorance of those who still believe it.

Australia, England, WI, Pakistan and SA have rich traditions in pace bowling. More so than some other countries. Given their lack of success over the many years one may speculate that the body type least suited to pace bowling is Sri Lankan. Ironically enough.

 

[watson]

Well said AM, SJS and Greg. I'm amused by Migara and those like him. I wonder why conceit and arrogance needs to expose itself to ridicule? Perhaps it realises intuitively it needs it as a corrective.

If anyone thinks they can go down to the nets a replicate the genius of Barnes then, like Greg, I'll look forward to your imminent test debut...

The point abt keepers standing up also fools the gullible modern skeptic as Greg has pointed out with examples. Another is the bowling of Tate and Bedser. Charles Davis estimated their slips stood back as far as Kasprowicz's. So don't read anything into keepers standing up except that maybe keepers were more skilful once

Neither it is impressive to mention Akhtar, Md Zahid and Lee and fast men now. Add the appaling Tait too if you like. In fact I've seem Zahid before and after his injury and while fast at times doesn't rate in terms of pace, effectiveness or consistency. Just a cricketing footnote really.

Besides I can advance a host of bowlers from the 70s/80s that were as fast. Lillee, Imran, Roberts, Holding, Garner, Croft, Patterson, Willis, Snow...the list is impressively long. Not one runner or swimmer from the 70s/80s could make a final today. Yet all the bowlers just mentioned would be considered express today. Therefore the argument that bowler's speeds have increased as time goes on is exposed for the non sequitor it is.

Oh and don't mention the speed tests in the late 70s. Thomson explained that the way they measure speeds now flatters the modern bowler.

AM has dealt beautifully with body shapes and pace bowling. So many people have said that body shape has nothing to with bowling fast (for example the short Roach is much faster than tall Holder. Paunchy Hughes much quicker than trim McGrath) it makes you despair at the ignorance of those who still believe it.

Australia, England, WI, Pakistan and SA have rich traditions in pace bowling. More so than some other countries. Given their lack of success over the many years one may speculate that the body type least suited to pace bowling is Sri Lankan. Ironically enough.

TBB, this is a cricket forum, not a forum on religion or politics. In the greater scheme of things cricket does not matter that much. It really doesn't.

In other words, it really shouldn't matter what Migara, or anyone else says as long as it is polite. Whether they are happy, terse, dogmatic, inflexible, flexible, open-minded, unsure, certain, right, or wrong really doesn't matter one jot because what is written in a post doesn't reflect the reality of what that person is really like, or what they actually think in real life. People are way way more complex than a few posts in a thread.

 

[kyear2]

Awta.

 

[Migara]

Haha, fair enough



Merv Hughes had a decent size tummy and still bowled pretty quick and Johnson bowls round armish (is that a word?) every now and again and they are still very quick

Fair enough, yes. But still THAT action doesn't even resemble what Merv and Johnson are doing. And this guy is fat AND round armish and run up of about ten paces.

 

[the big bambino]

TBB, this is a cricket forum, not a forum on religion or politics. In the greater scheme of things cricket does not matter that much. It really doesn't.

In other words, it really shouldn't matter what Migara, or anyone else says as long as it is polite. Whether they are happy, terse, dogmatic, inflexible, flexible, open-minded, unsure, certain, right, or wrong really doesn't matter one jot because what is written in a post doesn't reflect the reality of what that person is really like, or what they actually think in real life. People are way way more complex than a few posts in a thread.

I have to say that your post is such a misrepresentation of mine I wonder if you are just score settling for some slight that was unintended but you took personally nonetheless.