-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread
- Thread starter Red
- Start date
kyear2
Cricketer Of The Year
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.
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.
watson
Banned
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';
NUFAN
Y no Afghanistan flag
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.
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.
Satyanash89
Banned
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.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.
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
Coronis
Cricketer Of The Year
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.
NUFAN
Y no Afghanistan flag
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?
Coronis
Cricketer Of The Year
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.
smash84
The Tiger King
harsh.ag
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
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.
Coronis
Cricketer Of The Year
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.
fredfertang
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
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
the big bambino
International Captain
Seeing is believing. Trouble is we wont and haven't seen it all. So you have to rely on 1st hand accounts and stats. I can't credit people who say stats aren't everything. When someone says that they are often attempting to establish the primacy of their opinion over facts. Stats and reports from the day are superior to anyone's opinions. Especially if you haven't seen the player.
The stats have been pretty comparable from every decade since the 20s making comparisons fairly authentic. The batting ave in Barnes' day was transitioning to that trend. In Lohamnn's day the batting average was low however. About 19. Thats gotta tell you something abt the state of the pitches. Which is why, I'm surmising, slow left armers and medium paced right armers dominated then. As pitches improve fast and leg spin bowling come into their own. Which is why I'm not certain Lohamnn, Turner, Ferris etc are transferable to a modern era. But someone like Barnes who could take Hill's off stump after pitching outside leg will always be a champion. Besides the Australian pitches of the time had improved as had our batting. Barnes was the best bowler in our conditions; the hardest in the world at that time.
Even though Barnes' time was one of transition you can still make a comparison with subsequent eras. That is why I think comparing a bowler's ave to the global ave has some merit. The global ave will give clues of the conditions prevailing. The individual ave, in comparsion, how good or bad the bowler is. For someone to establish a difference of 10 btwn his effort compared to the overall ave has done something that people like Marshall have done. And this with only the benefit of a few games against SA. He was special and if anything his ave is inflated due to the preponderance of games he played against Oz.
The stats have been pretty comparable from every decade since the 20s making comparisons fairly authentic. The batting ave in Barnes' day was transitioning to that trend. In Lohamnn's day the batting average was low however. About 19. Thats gotta tell you something abt the state of the pitches. Which is why, I'm surmising, slow left armers and medium paced right armers dominated then. As pitches improve fast and leg spin bowling come into their own. Which is why I'm not certain Lohamnn, Turner, Ferris etc are transferable to a modern era. But someone like Barnes who could take Hill's off stump after pitching outside leg will always be a champion. Besides the Australian pitches of the time had improved as had our batting. Barnes was the best bowler in our conditions; the hardest in the world at that time.
Even though Barnes' time was one of transition you can still make a comparison with subsequent eras. That is why I think comparing a bowler's ave to the global ave has some merit. The global ave will give clues of the conditions prevailing. The individual ave, in comparsion, how good or bad the bowler is. For someone to establish a difference of 10 btwn his effort compared to the overall ave has done something that people like Marshall have done. And this with only the benefit of a few games against SA. He was special and if anything his ave is inflated due to the preponderance of games he played against Oz.
Last edited:
the big bambino
International Captain
That'll do.
the big bambino
International Captain
In his era Barnes' ave against Australia is spectacular. It is only bettered by Blythe. However the latter did all his damage in Eng. He wasn't Barnes' equal in Australia. Down under Barnes is the top wicket taker with only FR Foster beating his ave but in 8 fewer matches.
NUFAN
Y no Afghanistan flag
I didn't actually know this.
Its been fun ranting like a lunatic. As good as Barnes was, no one has convinced me that he should make my all time team though.
NUFAN
Y no Afghanistan flag
How many other cricketers picked for their bowling had an opportunity to average under Barnes in his era?