It's a tough comparison.Who do you guys think is the better bowler?
Barnes: Averaged 16.43 to pick up 189 wickets.
McGrath: Averaged 21.64 to pick up 563 wickets
That doesn't take longevity into account though.can't say for sure about McGrath being better than Barnes but if you standardize the averages using this thread (http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/2672805-post357.html) then I think that Barnes > Asif > McGrath
Barnes was a Chris Harris, with +20k on the ball.First clarify the premise of the comparison please. What was Sydney Barnes?
A fastish finger spinner who got bite off the wicket with a very strong wrist and finger action? Or a seam bowler whose main strength was applying cut to the balls rather than swinging them conventionally?
If anyone has some insights on his bowling style (or possibly has seen him live), please bring 'em to the table. Cricinfo descriptions confuse me a lot in this case.
We had a good thread on this a year or two back which someone with a proper computer and without 2 screaming kids to look after might hopefully be able to dig up.First clarify the premise of the comparison please. What was Sydney Barnes?
A fastish finger spinner who got bite off the wicket with a very strong wrist and finger action? Or a seam bowler whose main strength was applying cut to the balls rather than swinging them conventionally?
If anyone has some insights on his bowling style (or possibly has seen him live), please bring 'em to the table. Cricinfo descriptions confuse me a lot in this case.
Great post PEWS. I have the same question that outswinger@pace had. What was his bowling style? Any ideaIt's a tough comparison.
The first key point we must consider when comparing those careers is the fact that Barnes played in an era that was much more bowler-friendly in general. If you standardise their averages across time then Barnes's rises considerably. Even beyond what those numbers (which are still in Barnes's favour in terms of average) tell you, an argument can be made to suggest that the drop in bowling averages as the balance tips towards the bowlers is not linear, and that the better bowlers will dominate even more relative to the mean the lower the global batting average is. Should one believe that then the difference in averages becomes almost insignificant.
On the flip side, the same applies to the number of wickets they took. They played a lot more Tests in McGrath's day so a career of 189 wickets in the early 20th century was really worth about the same as a career of 563 wickets in more modern times. The bowlers had Test careers of very similar lengths so the longevity issue is basically negated.
So it's close; they had very similar careers relative to their peers. I lean towards Barnes though.
Barnes is described by press of the day as right arm medium pace....I would envision then someone in the Walker, Massie typeGreat post PEWS. I have the same question that outswinger@pace had. What was his bowling style? Any idea
Press is avery deceptive source to use, especially when terms as swing, drift, turn, where the context of it unknown. Swere was used in early literature, and must be describing both swing and drift. As given in cricinfo about Barnes, there is no way a bowler can achieve both swing and spin in same delivery, because it's mechanically impossible. But drift and spin, is possible (drift is lateral movement in air due to forward spin of the ball whereas swing is due to backward spin on the ball, and as a result Warne's back spinner swings in the air!). It's simply not possible to bowl at 130k and get spin of reasonable proportions.Barnes is described by press of the day as right arm medium pace....I would envision then someone in the Walker, Massie type
Cutters don't swing mate. The seam rotation goes haywire when you bowl a cutter, by pulling your fingers on on side of the ball. It will deviate off the pitch but will be gun barrel straight through air.maybe he was the first one to bowl cutters?