English ATG Team- Open Voting

[Howe_zat]

Trueman + Larwood

[JBMAC]

Trueman and Tyson( one o the astest i not the astest pommie bowlers I have ever witnessed)

[kyear2]

Even if one goes with the premise that Barnes was a fast bolwer, he averaged 21.5 with a s/r of 54 vs Australia and 9.85 and 25 vs South Africa. Was his numbers againts Australia that much better that other bolwers of the era?
Similarily Frank Tyson averaged 25 with a s/r of 53 vs Australia but againts New Zealand, Pakistan and South Africa averaged 10.94, 11.4, 16.27 respectively.

My final vote goes to Fred Trueman and Bob Willis. Tyson just missed out, though his pace would be rather unsettling. Really Trueman and either of Tyson or Willis I would be happy with.

[Jager]

Larwood and Barnes

[BoyBrumby]

Even if one goes with the premise that Barnes was a fast bolwer, he averaged 21.5 with a s/r of 54 vs Australia and 9.85 and 25 vs South Africa. Was his numbers againts Australia that much better that other bolwers of the era?

Most wickets v Oz in the 1900s

& the 1910s.

Maybe not as much in as I'd have guessed, actually.

[kyear2]

Barnes was quick when he wanted to be, but no where near as quick as Larwood, Trueman, Snow or Tyson who would all properly appreciate a shiny new ball.

Also, by operating with the new ball his prime wicket taking delivery - the leg-spinner - has been somewhat nullified. I don't think that it is possible for a finger spinner to impart maximum revs on a new ball.

Fully agree, was he supposedly that much faster than Underwood, Verity or O'Reilly? Any of the bolwers you mentioned would make better use of the new ball.

[Jager]

Fully agree, was he supposedly that much faster than Underwood, Verity or O'Reilly? Any of the bolwers you mentioned would make better use of the new ball.

I always consider Barnes as a bowler who sent them down at 120-ish and O'Reilly at 105 or so, for comparison.

[kyear2]

Don't think one can really rip a big leggie at 120ish?

[Michaelf7777777]

SF Barnes and Fred Trueman get my votes

[NUFAN]

I always consider Barnes as a bowler who sent them down at 120-ish and O'Reilly at 105 or so, for comparison.

So why would you want Barnes as one of your opening bowlers if he is going to bowl as quick as Arjuna Ranatunga?

[Eds]

Fred Trueman & Sydney Barnes.

[watson]

I always consider Barnes as a bowler who sent them down at 120-ish and O'Reilly at 105 or so, for comparison.

Bradman was under the impression that Barnes and O'Reilly were very similar bowlers. Granted he never saw Barnes in action, but it is very likely that he would have spoken to plenty of people who did.

Therefore, opening the bowling with Barnes would be like opening the bowling with O'Reilly, minus the googly, which Barnes never bowled. It's do-able of course, but I think that Trueman and Snow/Larwood would be more effective.

Barnes would be more likely to pick up wickets as a first change bowler once he could grip the ball better IMO.

[kingkallis]

Trueman & Barnes

[Eds]

At the end of the day, Sydney Barnes was an opening bowler. That's where he bowled. And in that position, he was more successful than any of the other options.

[Howe_zat]

At the end of the day, Sydney Barnes was an opening bowler. That's where he bowled. And in that position, he was more successful than any of the other options.

So were all the other options though.