Page 121 of 233 FirstFirst ... 2171111119120121122123131171221 ... LastLast
Results 1,801 to 1,815 of 3483
Like Tree211Likes

Thread: The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

  1. #1801
    Hall of Fame Member NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    18,241
    But if you include the 1890s some of those other bowlers were still bowling and most of the names you mentioned are batsman in Barnes own team.
    NRL Tipping Champion 2014

    Over 0.2: Putland to Nevill, OUT, no run, full ball swings in late to crash into his pads. Nevill is almost falling over trying to get bat on it but can't. Huge shout for LBW and Umpire Martell eventually raises the finger! P.Nevill - lbw b:Putland 0 (1 ball, 1 minute).

  2. #1802
    International Vice-Captain kyear2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    w.i
    Posts
    4,219
    Barnes averaged a good but hardly spectacular (for the era) 21 vs Australia and only againts South Africa did he significantly lower his numbers by averaging 8 with a strike rate of 25 againts them. By reading the Wisden Almanacs from that series we can truely see not only how helpful some of the pitches were, but how over matched the S.A's were, in the first innings of the series we can see that both opening bowlers took 5 wickets apiece while bowling out the opposition for under 100.00. We still can't definitively say what he bowled and when, and when he opened the bowling it was possibly seam and not spin and in todays conditions he probably would have been a seamer, though I belive that he probably was primarily a quick spinner. We cannot watch his bowl to back up some of the claims of his deliveries and left with tales of him bolwing at 80mph (still can't figure out how anyone came to that conclusion in 1910) and bowling off spin, leg spin and seam without any perceived change of action.
    Taking into account all of those factors and the conditions of the day, which were not that different from the late 19th Century, he doesn't quite leap past the players which I and most have previously chosen. But I know many will see it differntly and I respect that.

    Regarding Lillee, when one looks at his numbers they hardly stand out from the era and to solely use the opinions of his peers to elevate him above everyone else is flawed.
    In the '70's his numbers and performances was virtually indentical to Holding's (for example), yet Lillee is rated the best of the era while Holding is hardly rated at all while being faster and equally skilled in most regards. In the '80's Marshall came along and his raw numbers and performances outshined them both. He never lost a Test series despite numerous retirements, bans and the loss of form of Greenigde, Richards and others. He proved himself and performed brilliantly everywhere, (including the sub continent) while Lille basically played his entire career in England, Australia and New Zealand. Yet Benaud, Chappell and co. still rated Lillee higher than Marshall, with Benaud not even ranking Marshall among his six best fast bowlers and probably behind Imran and Hadlee as well who made his All Rounders short list. Chappell admitted to favoring Lillee because he could rely on him while he was captain, and Benuad has been seen as critical of the "intimidation" utilised by the W.I quicks, which is utter s#i%e as there was no more intimidating bowler that D.K Lillee. So to base an opinion based purely on peer review is a bit hit and miss at best.
    Just to be clear if you want to say that Lillee is the best, one is free to do so, but don't based on some one's opnion, look at his numbers, circumstances and his performances and do so. Lillee was a great bowler who did overcome a lot after his injury, but I don't personally see where he distinguished himself in his era to be seen as the best and they are some holes in his record.



    Disclaimer: Written at 3am after loosing the first writeup.
    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 | Cameron+ | Procter3 | Steyn1 | Tayfield4 | Donald2

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

  3. #1803
    Hall of Fame Member NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    18,241
    Yep Barnes the minnow basher.

    When compiling ATG XIs it's not for the first time on this forum, BARNES OUT for me.

  4. #1804
    International Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,112
    Quote Originally Posted by NUFAN View Post
    Whos opinion of Barnes should I/we be listening to and not forming our own opinion?

    I consider Lillee an ATG and I don't have a problem with Barnes having the ATG tag either, it's just I don't get why he is rated so much higher than others who were just before or during his career.
    Who's opinion? It would seem just about any professional cricketer from the first half of the 20th century.

    It should also be noted that Cardus refused to compare Barnes and Turner 'because he bowled in conditions not known to Barnes';

    Six giants of the Wisden century

    By Neville Cardus

    I have been asked by the Editor of Wisden to write appreciations of six great cricketers of the past hundred years. I am honoured by this invitation, but it puts me in an invidious position. Which ever player I choose for this representative little gallery I am bound to leave out an important name. My selection of immortal centenarians is as follows:-- W.G. Grace, Sir Jack Hobbs, Sir Donald Bradman, Tom Richardson, S.F. Barnes and Victor Trumper.

    But where -- I can already hear in my imagination a thousand protesting voices (including my own)--where are Ranji, Spofforth, Rhodes, J.T. Tyldesley, who, in one rubber v. Australia, was the only professional batsman in England thought good enough to play for his country on the strength of his batting alone? Where are Macartney, Aubrey Faulkner, O'Reilly, Keith Miller, Woolley, Lindwall, Sir Leonard Hutton? And where are many other illustrious names, Australian and English?

    I'll give reasons why my six have been picked. There have been, there still are, many cricketers who possess the gifts to bat brilliantly, skilfully and prosperously. There have been, there still are, many bowlers capable of wonderful and destructive arts. But there have been a few who have not only contributed handsome runs and taken worthy wickets by the hundred, but also have given to the technique and style of cricket a new twist, a new direction.

    These creative players have enriched the game by expanding in a fresh way some already established method. One or two of them have actually invented a technical trick of their own.

    Sadly for their posterity, they have often been the experimental unfulfilled pioneers, such as B.J.T. Bosanquet, who was the first bowler to baffle great batsmen in Test cricket by means of the googly. J.B. King, a Philadelphian, demonstrated the potentialities of a swerving ball. My immortal six were at one and the same time masters of the old and initiators of the new.........

    S.F. BARNES

    Most cricketers and students of the game belonging to the period in which S.F. Barnes played were agreed that he was the bowler of the century. Australians as well as English voted him unanimously the greatest......

    Against Australia he took 106 wickets, average 21.58. Only Trumble and Peel have improved on these figures in Tests between England and Australia (I won't count Turner's 101 wickets at 16.53 because he bowled in conditions not known to Barnes and Trumble).....

    Wisden - Six giants of the Wisden century


  5. #1805
    Hall of Fame Member NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    18,241
    So cardus decides to exclude Turners terrific feat because he thought the conditions too foreign. How unlucky.

    Why does Cardus not want to pick Trumble or Peel I wonder? Perhaps Cardus just liked Barnes MO more, thus helping Barnes cause 100 years on.

    Which century did people rate Barnes the bowler of the century? Haven't we worked out that most of the other good bowlers finished their careers in the 19th century, so really he was just the bowler of the decade..

    Cardus chose Richardson and Trumper in his 6, perhaps his six had some degree of romanticism about them.

  6. #1806
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Pune, India
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by kyear2 View Post
    Regarding Lillee, when one looks at his numbers they hardly stand out from the era and to solely use the opinions of his peers to elevate him above everyone else is flawed.
    In the '70's his numbers and performances was virtually indentical to Holding's (for example), yet Lillee is rated the best of the era while Holding is hardly rated at all while being faster and equally skilled in most regards. In the '80's Marshall came along and his raw numbers and performances outshined them both. He never lost a Test series despite numerous retirements, bans and the loss of form of Greenigde, Richards and others. He proved himself and performed brilliantly everywhere, (including the sub continent) while Lille basically played his entire career in England, Australia and New Zealand. Yet Benaud, Chappell and co. still rated Lillee higher than Marshall, with Benaud not even ranking Marshall among his six best fast bowlers and probably behind Imran and Hadlee as well who made his All Rounders short list. Chappell admitted to favoring Lillee because he could rely on him while he was captain, and Benuad has been seen as critical of the "intimidation" utilised by the W.I quicks, which is utter s#i%e as there was no more intimidating bowler that D.K Lillee. So to base an opinion based purely on peer review is a bit hit and miss at best.
    Just to be clear if you want to say that Lillee is the best, one is free to do so, but don't based on some one's opnion, look at his numbers, circumstances and his performances and do so. Lillee was a great bowler who did overcome a lot after his injury, but I don't personally see where he distinguished himself in his era to be seen as the best and they are some holes in his record.



    Disclaimer: Written at 3am after loosing the first writeup.
    Again, I think certain aspects of Lillee's numbers DO stand out in his era... wickets per match, and the frequency of his 5 and 10-wicket hauls are quite amazing... 5 wpm, with a very low economy rate and 7 10 wicket hauls in 70 matches (one every 10 matches) are statistics no one of his era surpasses. Only Hadlee's record compares in terms of wpm and big hauls, but Lillee had far more competition for wickets, which makes it even more remarkable.
    His average is unremarkable, but it's similar to why Richards' batting average is comparatively "low"... include WSC and their numbers become quite phenomenal. You make a fair point that Lillee shouldn't be rated the best simply on reputation among experts and his peers, but the stats ARE brilliant in their own way...

    CW's fetish with averages really annoys me sometimes, they aren't the be all, end all when you look at stats

  7. #1807
    State Vice-Captain
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    1,326
    Actually yes, if you read the whole article, he mentions Richardson as the "fully realised personification of a fast bowler that every schoolboy dreams of". He also makes references about Trumper's style, so some of his choices were influenced by romanticism, clearly. But jeez, when every Australian and English cricketer of the time agree that he was the best, its damn hard to ignore. The South African team were not minnows btw, they were actually quite strong at that time iirc. I mean in 1928, when the Windies toured England, they still considered him the best bowler they faced. Now, England didn't have the strongest bowling lineup at that time, but Tate and Larwood were certainly playing. Barnes was 55 and they reckoned him the best they played.
    ATG World XI
    1. J.B Hobbs 2. H. Sutcliffe 3. D.G Bradman 4. W.R Hammond 5. G.S Sobers 6. M.J Procter 7. A.C Gilchrist 8. M.D Marshall 9. S.K Warne 10. M. Muralitharan 11. G.D McGrath

  8. #1808
    Hall of Fame Member NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    18,241
    I hope in years to come people will think this is a creditable statement 'NUFAN refused to include Barnes in his ATG world XI because he bowled in conditions not known to player X'.

  9. #1809
    Hall of Fame Member NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    18,241
    Quote Originally Posted by Coronis View Post
    Actually yes, if you read the whole article, he mentions Richardson as the "fully realised personification of a fast bowler that every schoolboy dreams of". He also makes references about Trumper's style, so some of his choices were influenced by romanticism, clearly. But jeez, when every Australian and English cricketer of the time agree that he was the best, its damn hard to ignore. The South African team were not minnows btw, they were actually quite strong at that time iirc. I mean in 1928, when the Windies toured England, they still considered him the best bowler they faced. Now, England didn't have the strongest bowling lineup at that time, but Tate and Larwood were certainly playing. Barnes was 55 and they reckoned him the best they played.
    Comparatively SA were minnows or weaker opponents for sure. Is it fact that everyone thought Barnes was the best? I haven't seen a survey, I mean perhaps it's implied in the same way that everyone in this era thinks Sachin is the best and I'm sure he wouldn't get 100% of current votes.

    Were the windies being polite perhaps to the old, great man? Why wasn't Barnes still in the England team if he was still the countries main man?

  10. #1810
    State Vice-Captain
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    1,326
    Quote Originally Posted by NUFAN View Post
    Comparatively SA were minnows or weaker opponents for sure. Is it fact that everyone thought Barnes was the best? I haven't seen a survey, I mean perhaps it's implied in the same way that everyone in this era thinks Sachin is the best and I'm sure he wouldn't get 100% of current votes.

    Were the windies being polite perhaps to the old, great man? Why wasn't Barnes still in the England team if he was still the countries main man?
    He pissed off the selectors basically. Wanted more pay etc., wanted to bring his wife on tour. Otherwise he would've been selected for the first tour after the war.

  11. #1811
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    21,766
    Quote Originally Posted by NUFAN View Post
    I hope in years to come people will think this is a creditable statement 'NUFAN refused to include Barnes in his ATG world XI because he bowled in conditions not known to player X'.
    And smalishah's avatar is the most classy one by far Jan certainly echoes the sentiments of CW

    Yeah we don't crap in the first world; most of us would actually have no idea what that was emanating from Ajmal's backside. Why isn't it roses and rainbows like what happens here? PEWS's retort to Ganeshran on Daemon's picture depicting Ajmal's excreta

  12. #1812
    Hall of Fame Member NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    18,241
    Sounds like he's wasn't a team player, another mark against his name.

  13. #1813
    International Debutant harsh.ag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    India
    Posts
    2,788
    Quote Originally Posted by NUFAN View Post
    I hope in years to come people will think this is a creditable statement 'NUFAN refused to include Barnes in his ATG world XI because he bowled in conditions not known to player X'.

    Comparatively SA were minnows or weaker opponents for sure. Is it fact that everyone thought Barnes was the best? I haven't seen a survey, I mean perhaps it's implied in the same way that everyone in this era thinks Sachin is the best and I'm sure he wouldn't get 100% of current votes.

    Were the windies being polite perhaps to the old, great man? Why wasn't Barnes still in the England team if he was still the countries main man?
    Come now, Nufan. Yeah, putting him in the atg xi is not a sure shot, of course. He didn't play for England much because the ECB (in whatever form it existed) was a stuck up, snobbish b***h, and not capable of handling players like him. He wasn't a god, obviously, but he did perfect some fairly unusual and daunting deliveries, especially considering that those deliveries were being bowled by a supposed medium pacer. Capable of getting the best men out no matter their form. Seems legit to put in your squad to open the bowling with Lillee on the first day, then first change after Marshall and Lillee on the 4th and 5th days.
    If you were that old, and that kind, and the very last of your kind, you couldn't just stand back and watch children cry.

  14. #1814
    State Vice-Captain
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    1,326
    Quote Originally Posted by NUFAN View Post
    Sounds like he's wasn't a team player, another mark against his name.
    I'd be pretty ****ing pissed if I was the best bowler in the side, and was not put in to open the bowling like I usually did. Can't really put anything against him for wanting more pay and to bring his wife with him either.

  15. #1815
    Cricket Web Staff Member fredfertang's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    It is a far far better place ............ etc etc
    Posts
    12,217
    Quote Originally Posted by NUFAN View Post
    Sounds like he's wasn't a team player, another mark against his name.
    Nah - he was just a bit forward-thinking by the standards of his time and wasn't prepared, unlike most contemporary professionals, to be treated like a piece of **** - he was no prima donna



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Thread Hijacks
    By sledger in forum Site Discussion
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: 10-02-2010, 04:32 PM
  2. Sri Lanka Thread
    By chaminda_00 in forum 2009 ICC World Twenty20
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-05-2009, 05:29 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
  •