Page 17 of 27 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 255 of 397

Thread: SF Barnes

  1. #241
    Cricketer Of The Year The Sean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    7,518
    Quote Originally Posted by kyear2 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by The Sean; 01-02-2013 at 04:48 AM.
    Member of the Twenty20 is Boring Society

    Quote Originally Posted by grecian View Post
    C'mon Man U.
    RIP Craigos

  2. #242
    SJS
    SJS is offline
    Hall of Fame Member SJS's Avatar
    Virus 2 Champion!
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Mumbai India
    Posts
    19,258
    Quote Originally Posted by The Sean View Post
    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

  3. #243
    State Regular L Trumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    906
    Quote Originally Posted by kyear2 View Post
    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?

  4. #244
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,732
    Quote Originally Posted by L Trumper View Post
    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.
    Last edited by watson; 01-02-2013 at 01:56 PM.
    Tendulkar - M.Waugh - Ponting - Richards - Dhoni - Bevan - Kapil Dev - Hadlee - Akram - Garner - Muralitharan


  5. #245
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,732
    Quote Originally Posted by L Trumper View Post
    Agreed on by whom? Also what is this fixation with putting everybody in some kind of specific category?
    Because we can.

  6. #246
    International Regular kyear2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    w.i
    Posts
    3,986
    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.
    Aus. XI
    Simpson^ | Hayden | Bradman | Chappell^ | Ponting | Border* | Gilchrist+ | Davidson3 | Warne4^ | Lillee1 | McGrath2


    W.I. XI
    Greenidge | Hunte | Richards^ | Headley* | Lara^ | Sobers5^ | Walcott+ | Marshall1 | Ambrose2 | Holding3 | Garner4

    S.A. XI
    Richards^ | Smith*^ | Amla | Pollock | Kallis5^ | Nourse | Waite+ | Procter3 | Steyn1 | Tayfield4 | Donald2

    Eng. XI
    Hobbs | Hutton*^ | Hammond^ | Compton | Barrington | Botham5^ | Knott | Trueman1 | Laker4 | Larwood2 | Barnes3

  7. #247
    International Debutant
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dunno. I say Marco you say Polo.
    Posts
    2,061
    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.

  8. #248
    International Regular kyear2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    w.i
    Posts
    3,986
    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.

  9. #249
    International Debutant
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dunno. I say Marco you say Polo.
    Posts
    2,061
    Quote Originally Posted by kyear2 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by the big bambino; 01-02-2013 at 04:40 PM.

  10. #250
    International Debutant
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dunno. I say Marco you say Polo.
    Posts
    2,061
    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.

  11. #251
    International Vice-Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,732
    Quote Originally Posted by the big bambino View Post
    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.

  12. #252
    Cricketer Of The Year Agent Nationaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    9,788
    Asif was a magician. Had wrists like a spinner and seamed the ball both ways massively at a decent pace.
    Last edited by Agent Nationaux; 01-02-2013 at 05:55 PM.

  13. #253
    International Debutant
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dunno. I say Marco you say Polo.
    Posts
    2,061
    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    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.
    Last edited by the big bambino; 01-02-2013 at 07:48 PM.

  14. #254
    Cricket Web Staff Member archie mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    canberra Australia
    Posts
    10,725
    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
    You know it makes sense.

  15. #255
    SJS
    SJS is offline
    Hall of Fame Member SJS's Avatar
    Virus 2 Champion!
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Mumbai India
    Posts
    19,258
    Quote Originally Posted by archie mac View Post
    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

Page 17 of 27 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. South African Domestic Season 2008/9
    By TT Boy in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 329
    Last Post: 03-06-2009, 07:11 PM
  2. Your All-time Top 5's
    By wfdu_ben91 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 188
    Last Post: 09-03-2009, 06:57 AM
  3. Who is Australia's second best Test cricketer ever?
    By G.I.Joe in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 91
    Last Post: 13-02-2009, 08:20 AM
  4. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-02-2009, 05:27 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •