SF Barnes & CTB Turner, and other early era bowlers.

[Red]

SF Barnes is widely appreciated by cricket historians. Some go as far to say that he was the greatest bowler of all time. Yet CTB Turner is rarely mentioned in the same way. SF Barnes will often be named in "greatest" English combos, and often be named in ATG combos, but CTB Turner is never (well, never that I've seen) named in an Australian all time XI, let alone a world XI. Yet Turner's output was remarkable. From 17 test matches, he took 5 wickets in an innings 11 times (plus 4 wickets 4 times). In FC class cricket, he took 5 wickets in an innings 102 times from 155 matches played.

Perhaps part of the explanation is that Australia have produced a number of great pace bowlers, as well as a number of great spinners, and England (I think it's fair to say) haven't produced as many great bowlers.

Turner is a fascinating bowler:

To have seen these masters of the art at the Oval is a pleasant recollection, and not one of them creates a happier memory than Turner in his rather long rhythmic run and beautiful right-arm action without any effort to make the most of his medium height--five feet nine inches. He delivered the ball almost facing square down the pitch, and, added to his off-break with slightly varied pace about fast-medium, was ability to turn the ball from leg, send down a fast yorker, and, above all, to get quick lift from the turf.

cricinfo

I'm quite interested in bowlers from this era. CTB was considered the "Terror" because of his pace and, but the science of the day decreed he bowled at 55 miles per hour-

Papers Past ? Bruce Herald ? 29 Hakihea 1893 ? SCIENTIFIC AND USEFUL.

Anyway, feel free to discuss early era bowlers should you wish to. Or not.

 

[watson]

Walter Hammond held Charles Spofforth in high regard, and seemingly rated him the greatest bowler of all time. All time ending in 1947, the year his book was published;

Yet let it be said that if I were choosing a side, out of all the cricketers who have ever lived, I would put Bradman's name down first - and probably Spofforth's second.

Was Larwood as great as Spofforth? Again, I must hide behind words, because I really don't know. On his day, I think that Larwood was top of them all; I do not believe anyone has ever been quite as devastating as he could be; but he was not as consistent as Spofforth, nor was he so good on any except a chosen pitch. The same might be said, of course, of any bowler of Larwood's speed.

Cricket My World, page 165

Incidently, in Hammond's specific discussion of great bowers in his book, Turner and SF Barnes didn't even get a look in.

 

[MartinB]

I suspect Australia producing more fast bowlers than England plays a big part in the English rembering Syd Barnes.

After all Syd Barnes is the last English Fast bowler with a better bowling average in England/Australia test matchs (limit 30 wickets) than Jeff Thomson !!!, and Jeff does not come into consideration for an ATG Australian side

For interest here is the stats for England / Australia tests since 1900:

England Australia Bowling Stats.

Two Australian bowlers from pre first world War 1 years are

Hugh Trumble As well as being useful bowler, he had a batting average of 21 and some times opened the batting (a Jason Gillspie type player). He was a contempory of Barnes

Monty Noble I England/Australia tests has a better bowling average than Fred Trueman.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

Walter Hammond held Charles Spofforth in high regard, and seemingly rated him the greatest bowler of all time. All time ending in 1947, the year his book was published;



Incidently, in Hammond's specific discussion of great bowers in his book, Turner and SF Barnes didn't even get a look in.

Yeah the Demon for sure. He would have been an absolute handful, he bowled at high pace but not constantly. His change of pace was incredible by all accounts, and as Hammond says, consistantly good bowler.