SF Barnes

[the big bambino]

So true. Unless for some hard to fathom reason you doubt everything people have witnessed and then recorded even though you haven't seen them youself...

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Monk

McGrath would be the "easiest" quick in the last 30 years to keep up at the stumps to.

I don't know about that. His line was consistent and he wasn't the fastest of the great bowlers either but the bounce he could get off a length would make it hard to keep up to. I'm no wicket keeping expert but I'd have thought a skiddier bowler would be easier.

[social]

This whole stumping/pace argument is such nonsense

Furthermore, it is almost impossible to compare modern cricket with that of more than a hundred years ago i.e. whilst the rules and colour of clothing (in the longer format at least) havent changed greatly, virtually everything else

[the big bambino]

Sounds about right. Waqar has stumping dismissals so keepers have stood up to him despite his pace and swing. Maybe his fuller length and accordingly less bounce made it possible for keepers to do that.

[greg]

To the wicket-keeping debate one could also add the changing practices in fielding positions. People scoff these days when one comes across references to players being "specialist" longstop fielders as a comment on the standard of wicket-keeping. When actually it perhaps should be seen more as a comment on the difficulty of what was required of a wicket-keeper in a different era.

[SJS]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

I don't know about that. His line was consistent and he wasn't the fastest of the great bowlers either but the bounce he could get off a length would make it hard to keep up to. I'm no wicket keeping expert but I'd have thought a skiddier bowler would be easier.

If the bounce is consistent it is not an issue . The best keepers get up as the ball starts coming up after pitching so it is only a question of rising quicker for the bouncier tracks or those against bowlers who get more bounce. The better keepers will adjust automatically. Bowlers that get more bounce being more difficult to keep to is the same as saying the tracks with more bounce are more difficult for keepers standing up.

[Monk]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

I don't know about that. His line was consistent and he wasn't the fastest of the great bowlers either but the bounce he could get off a length would make it hard to keep up to. I'm no wicket keeping expert but I'd have thought a skiddier bowler would be easier.

McGrath went with the cliche of "hitting the top of off" as his MO when bowling. As a keeper, that's pretty predictable, and you're taking the ball at waist-ish height, which is comfortable. So yeh, my point was to do with his consistency making it easy (easier).

I think bowlers who skid through are worse because they're a lot harder to take below your knees up at the stumps. At least when you're back to them the ones that keep really low can come to you after 2 bounces.

[Biryani Pillow]

Until WW1 cricket was very much an 'off side' game - for example, Wilfred Rhodes was considered a great mid-off and mid-off was a hugely important position. In earlier days hits to leg were considered by many to be 'indecent', even unsporting. Bowlers generally bowled a line more inclined to the off side and the keepers had a clear view. Also most slow spinners looked to turn the ball away from the right handed batsman. If you read the likes of Strudwick or Tiger Smith on the subject they basically say this.

It would appear that, in the 1920s, fashions changed and off spinbecame more popular and quicker bowlers started to cultivate swing more and more and many found inswing much easier. Never having kept I suspect that off spin/inswing is harder to take as the ball goes into a blind area until passing the batsman so, for pace bowlers, keepers might start to stand back more. I think through the 50s this happened more and more and then the view of Alan Knott held sway and keepers stood back to some very medium pace bowlers. This has altered in the last 20 years I think and a keeper standing up is much more likely

I understand the Maurice Tate's keepers always stood up to him - he was very accurate and, I suspect, bowled generally around the 80mph mark (going by descriptions of players who played against him).

With regard to speeds down the ages - Hobbs played against Ernie Jones & Tibby Cotter and would have noted if they were quicker or slower than, say, Larwood or Constantine (he considered them of similar pace, taken over time). Hammond played against Larwood and Lindwall, Cowdrey against Lindwall and Lillee. That such players don't say otherwise suggests not to much (if any) difference in pace.

Hobbs actually said the best fast bowler he ever saw was Neville Knox - who had a very short career hampered by what today sounds like stress fractures.

As has be observed here, those considered quick from the 70s (when I started watching) would still be considered fast today. Seeing film of Chris Old I would now say he generally bowled in the mid 80s, sometimes a shade quicker, rather nippier than I recall.

Re Barnes - from reading a number of players comments (Strudwick, Smith, Hobbs, Noble and others) I'd suggest, c1911/12, he bowled in the low 80s, but with great control and spin, and could put down a 'surprise' ball that was somewhat quicker.

[the big bambino]

Interesting comment about off side play. I'll have to read up on the style and line of bowling to check. I think keepers kept back to the fastest bowling back in the golden age as Richardson's and Lockwood's stats suggest in addition to stories about them.

I have never seen a picture where Barnes' keeper stands back. Always up and I'm sure he would have insisted on it. I have a picture in a Frith book showing Minnett cutting at Barnes. Keeper up slips well back. However the slips aren't as deep as those who fielded for Tate. Davis estimated Tate bowled around Kasper's pace based on the depths of his slips. Barnes I believe was slower. Around Kula and Asif's pace. Barnes was the greater bowler though.

[the big bambino]

Your mention of Cowdrey recalls the time he and Titmus played Lillee and Thommo in 74/75. Being a callous boy I couldn't wait and anticipated Lillee and Thommo killing both. However both batted with skill and courage and that was the moment that made me change my mind about cricket and its history. Well, I remember thinking, these old blokes can play...

Your point about him facing Lindwall and Miller and not finding Lillee and Thommo anymore intimidating is something I've also thought about. There are many other examples and tells you differences in speeds are negligible.

It also tells you that champions like Cowdrey and Lloyd traversed some decades which is a long time in sport, and coped well with the game's changes. They certainly live up to Bradman's maxim that a champion in one era would be a champion in any other.

[Monk]

Quite incredible to think Cowdrey faced Lindwall and Miller in his first test match in 1954, then faced Lillee and Thommo in his final series in 1975. Almost 20 years later.

[watson]

Originally Posted by the big bambino

Interesting comment about off side play. I'll have to read up on the style and line of bowling to check. I think keepers kept back to the fastest bowling back in the golden age as Richardson's and Lockwood's stats suggest in addition to stories about them.

I have never seen a picture where Barnes' keeper stands back. Always up and I'm sure he would have insisted on it. I have a picture in a Frith book showing Minnett cutting at Barnes. Keeper up slips well back. However the slips aren't as deep as those who fielded for Tate. Davis estimated Tate bowled around Kasper's pace based on the depths of his slips. Barnes I believe was slower. Around Kula and Asif's pace. Barnes was the greater bowler though.

Although to be more accurate we say that Barnes was the same (or similar) pace to O'Reilly and DVP Wright, and then watch a video of them bowling back in the 1930s to get a good visual idea.

[watson]

Originally Posted by Monk

Quite incredible to think Cowdrey faced Lindwall and Miller in his first test match in 1954, then faced Lillee and Thommo in his final series in 1975. Almost 20 years later.

Likewise, Rohan Kanhai began his career facing Trueman and Statham and then finished his career facing Snow and Willis.

[the big bambino]

Originally Posted by watson

Although to be more accurate we say that Barnes was the same (or similar) pace to O'Reilly and DVP Wright, and then watch a video of them bowling back in the 1930s to get a good visual idea.

I think he was quicker but how to measure? The best yardstick I can think of is find a photo of O'Reilly bowling with slips in frame, hope the distance to camera is approximately the same in both photos and measure off their slips. See if they are the same or different.

Actually I know - I could measure off the pitch in both photos bcos thats 22 yards right? Work out a roughly approximate scale from that and use it to measure off the distance to slips.

Yes I know its anal...

[the big bambino]

I've just done that admittedly pretty rough check. If I take Barnes' 1st slip and position him behind the keeper in that photo where Minnett cuts at him I'd guesstimate his distance at about 18 to 20 yards.

It was harder getting a reading on O'Reilly from pictures in the same book but I'd guesstimate the distance from stumps to slips at abt 7 yards. In short what you'd expect for a spinner. I have a picture of Hassett getting caught in the slips off Wright and his slips look deepish for a spinner. You may quibble abt the distances measured and I wouldn't certify the claims in this post. What is clear is Barnes' slips are significantly deeper then those of O'Reilly or Wright. Slip depth being a measure of bowling speed would then suggest Barnes' was swifter than either.