Wisden's Cricketers of the Century

[Richard]

And Barnes simply was not that freakish. Look at his rival Saunders. Had Saunders played as much as Barnes against South Africa he would have had a similar record if not better.

Presuming, of course, that Saunders had fared as well as Barnes did had he played more against South Africa.

Really, it's fairly outrageous to suggest Saunders was Barnes' equal based on a whole 2 Tests against the SAfricans. Saunders' First-Class record is not remotely comparable to Barnes', for a start, and Barnes also did rather better than 9-66 and 6-110 against SA. Barnes also played them at a time they were Test-class; Saunders did not. Saunders' record against England (64 wickets at 25.31) is not in the same class as Barnes' against Australia (106 at 21.58).

Saunders was simply an excellent bowler. Barnes was an exceptional one, one perhaps more gifted than any bowler ever to walk the planet.

 

[Ikki]

Presuming, of course, that Saunders had fared as well as Barnes did had he played more against South Africa.

Really, it's fairly outrageous to suggest Saunders was Barnes' equal based on a whole 2 Tests against the SAfricans. Saunders' First-Class record is not remotely comparable to Barnes', for a start, and Barnes also did rather better than 9-66 and 6-110 against SA. Barnes also played them at a time they were Test-class; Saunders did not. Saunders' record against England (64 wickets at 25.31) is not in the same class as Barnes' against Australia (106 at 21.58).

Saunders was simply an excellent bowler. Barnes was an exceptional one, one perhaps more gifted than any bowler ever to walk the planet.

It's actually fairly outrageous to deny the fact that in the two truly test class teams, the top bowler from these teams did around about the same damage. Even Victor Trumper averaged 29 at a SR of 33 against them. Howell averaged 12 at an SR of 22 against them. Hopkins averaged 23 at a SR of 28. I mean, we are talking about one crappy team here.

Or let's assume Barnes played as many matches against S.Africa as Saunders did. Same thing. Their records are close and because Barnes played S.Africa much more he is statistcally much better. It goes to show how he wasn't completely ahead of his time at all.

 

[silentstriker]

Sobers > Tendulkar, you think?

Yea, I would say so. I would probably rank Sobers after Bradman and Hobbs in the all time stakes as pure batsmen.

 

[Slifer]

Not me, I dont look too kindly on his awful record against New Zealand (Sobers that is)

 

[JBMAC]

SJS, I was wondeing whether you saw much of Greg Chappell and where you would put him as a batsman?

Certainly no where near as brutal as Richards, more a classical style than that. I didn't see Sobers so I cannot comment, other than going by footage, records and what people say of him.

Edit: Ian Chappell share your view on Sobers - he regards him as the best batsman he ever saw.

Chappell's record, though, is very, very good. And he was a delight to watch.

Greg Chappell was an elegant strokemaker who did not appear to hit the ball hard but it "flew" to the boundary.His grace and timing were a feature of his game.I have seen only a handful of players to match him in style/grace.
Kim Hughes
David Gower
Rohan Kanhai
Alvin Kallicharan
To name a few

 

[SJS]

SJS, I was wondeing whether you saw much of Greg Chappell and where you would put him as a batsman?

Certainly no where near as brutal as Richards, more a classical style than that. I didn't see Sobers so I cannot comment, other than going by footage, records and what people say of him.

Edit: Ian Chappell share your view on Sobers - he regards him as the best batsman he ever saw.

Chappell's record, though, is very, very good. And he was a delight to watch.

One of my great regrets in life is not having seen Greg Chappell batting live. Whatever one has seen on TV is mesmerising. As JB put it so succinctly, the ball seemed to just fly off the bat. He never appeared to be hitting the ball - nothing of power in his strokes all smooth timing. Fabulous driver of the ball but really played all the strokes.

I felt, I could be wrong since I did not see enough of him, that he was not a great driver through the covers. But mid off to wide of mid on, you couldn't imagine better driving. Very upright in his driving, which is understandable considering the areas in the 'V' he preferred driving to. The best Australian batsman it has been my privilege to watch I am sure.

Add Waugh's silkiness to Ponting's skills and you may get an idea of what kind of a batsman Greg Chappell was. I am sure some bowler may have made him look awkward at the crease at some moment in his career but I really find it hard to believe there could have been many. He was elegance personified and very commanding and regal at the wicket.

I have often wondered how the legends of the past must have played and I try to look at some modern day batsmen and try to imaging them as the greats one never saw. With Chappell I think of Peter May whom I did not see and Dexter whom I did. Dexter exuded power inspite of the great timing while I like to believe that when May drove, you didn't hear the ball going of the bat as one felt with Greg Chappell.

 

[SJS]

I always thought it was criminal the small number of votes Barnes received -

I was quite scandalised when I first came across that list and saw where on it Barnes figured.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah, was pretty shocked too, tbh.

Thanks for your thoughts on GC, both SJS and JB. I loved watching the guy growing up. Great player.

 

[Richard]

Not me, I dont look too kindly on his awful record against New Zealand (Sobers that is)

That's an interesting one, really. Sobers' first series was against a team that, for all intents and purposes, was the Bangladesh of its day. I really don't think anyone would claim Bangladesh (or New Zealand circa 1956) are worthy of consideration when looking at a batsman's Test credentials.

In his second series, Sobers failed, badly. And in his third and final, he played one massive innings and once more did nothing besides that.

Now, do these 2 series show conclusively that Sobers could not play New Zealand bowling? Of course not - not least because the bowling-attacks in 1968\69 and 1972 bear pretty much zero resemblence. However, it's the simple truth that it is a blight on his record, a highly disappointing one, and there are others (such as Sachin Tendulkar) who've done the same and more. The "he didn't need to because his side were overwhelmingly superior" argument can't even be used, as both series were drawn and had Sobers succeeded it might well have altered the outcome.

But for these, I'd have pretty much zero hesitation in acknowledging that Sobers could easily have been the second-greatest batsman to lift willow since the dawn of the 20th-century. But like Everton Weekes before him, who was apparently found-out once by short deliveries in Australia, there is a small but vital gap in his CV.

What's most annoying is that New Zealand and West Indies did not face each other more than twice between 1960 and 1974. Had they done so, we could have had some more conclusive evidence.

 

[Richard]

It's actually fairly outrageous to deny the fact that in the two truly test class teams, the top bowler from these teams did around about the same damage. Even Victor Trumper averaged 29 at a SR of 33 against them. Howell averaged 12 at an SR of 22 against them. Hopkins averaged 23 at a SR of 28. I mean, we are talking about one crappy team here.

Or let's assume Barnes played as many matches against S.Africa as Saunders did. Same thing. Their records are close and because Barnes played S.Africa much more he is statistcally much better. It goes to show how he wasn't completely ahead of his time at all.

There was a marked change in South Africa as of January 2nd 1906. Before then (and they faced Australia just once in that time) they were indeed "one crappy team", and not Test-class at all. However, once they gained the wristspin trio of Schwarz, Vogler and Faulkner, they clearly became a force to be reckoned with, and were obviously up to Test standard. The only Australian bowler to achieve markedly outstanding figures against them in this time was Bill Whitty (another whose First-Class record was not a patch on Barnes'), who took 50 wickets in 8 Tests at 17.50.

You simply cannot contend that the South Africa of 1901\02 was in any way relevant to the South Africa thereafter. Once again, as with so much Bangladesh-related, the issue of teams gaining Test status before they merited it causes problems.

 

[Ikki]

There was a marked change in South Africa as of January 2nd 1906. Before then (and they faced Australia just once in that time) they were indeed "one crappy team", and not Test-class at all. However, once they gained the wristspin trio of Schwarz, Vogler and Faulkner, they clearly became a force to be reckoned with, and were obviously up to Test standard. The only Australian bowler to achieve markedly outstanding figures against them in this time was Bill Whitty (another whose First-Class record was not a patch on Barnes'), who took 50 wickets in 8 Tests at 17.50.

You simply cannot contend that the South Africa of 1901\02 was in any way relevant to the South Africa thereafter. Once again, as with so much Bangladesh-related, the issue of teams gaining Test status before they merited it causes problems.

Barnes played S.Africa from 1912-1914. Here are bowlers in that same time, who played against S.Africa and their figures:

Australia:

Bill Whitty - 8 matches; Avg. 17.5, SR 41.1

Jimmy Mathews - 3 matches; Avg. 10.92, SR 30.8

England:

Major Booth - 2 matches; Avg. 18.57, SR 44.5

Frank Woolley - 3 matches; Avg. 13.85, SR 29.5

Morice Bird - 10 matches - Avg. 15.0, SR 33.0

Let's get some sense here. And whether they inherited good wristspinners doesn't mean much when we're talking about their batting.

 

[Richard]

Barnes played S.Africa from 1912-1914. Here are bowlers in that same time, who played against S.Africa and their figures:

Australia:

Bill Whitty - 8 matches; Avg. 17.5, SR 41.1

Jimmy Mathews - 3 matches; Avg. 10.92, SR 30.8

England:

Major Booth - 2 matches; Avg. 18.57, SR 44.5

Frank Woolley - 3 matches; Avg. 13.85, SR 29.5

Morice Bird - 10 matches - Avg. 15.0, SR 33.0

I'm truly amazed you set any stall whatsoever by those who took 13 wickets (Matthews), 7 wickets (Booth), 14 wickets (Woolley) and 8 wickets (Bird). I could name 50 bowlers (and some of these aren't even bowlers) who took tiny numbers of wickets at a good average against X team over a short period of time - it means nothing, whatsoever.

The only person whose record against South Africa even approaches Barnes' (83 wickets in 7 games) is Whitty. I'm astonished you mention Saunders rather than him, on the several occasions you bring the Barnes case up. Neither Saunders nor Whitty's own mothers would not have put them on Barnes' plane as a bowler, and Barnes' record against all other teams shows why fairly concusively.

Let's get some sense here. And whether they inherited good wristspinners doesn't mean much when we're talking about their batting.

It alters whether their team is fit to be considered a Test-playing one or not.

 

[Ikki]

I'm truly amazed you set any stall whatsoever by those who took 13 wickets (Matthews), 7 wickets (Booth), 14 wickets (Woolley) and 8 wickets (Bird). I could name 50 bowlers (and some of these aren't even bowlers) who took tiny numbers of wickets at a good average against X team over a short period of time - it means nothing, whatsoever.

That's a rather daft statement. Few tests were played then and even less with S.Africa. We're not even talking about 1 bowler here, but many who did ridiculously well against S.Africa. And some of these really weren't great bowlers.

The only person whose record against South Africa even approaches Barnes' (83 wickets in 7 games) is Whitty. I'm astonished you mention Saunders rather than him, on the several occasions you bring the Barnes case up. Neither Saunders nor Whitty's own mothers would not have put them on Barnes' plane as a bowler, and Barnes' record against all other teams shows why fairly concusively.

First of all, Bill Whitty played 8 and, secondly, he is bettered by Booth, actually.

The fact that, surprisingly, you can pick out this many bowlers in only 2 test sides sways any case of lesser matches or not. It wasn't a matter of needing a larger sample, that's as large of a sample as you need. S.Africa were piss poor and Barnes' record is inflated tremendously.

And reply to daft statement #2: Barnes and Saunders only played against S.Africa and England/Australia. Saunders' record against England is actually very close to Barnes against Australia whilst his record is actually better against S.Africa.

It alters whether their team is fit to be considered a Test-playing one or not.

Except I never made a statement regarding whether they were fit to be considered test playing or not. I made the statement that had Saunders played as many matches against S.Africa as Barnes did he would have a much closer record to Barnes thus smashing the myth that Barnes was some kind of freak - comparable to Bradman.

 

[Richard]

That's a rather daft statement. Few tests were played then and even less with S.Africa. We're not even talking about 1 bowler here, but many who did ridiculously well against S.Africa. And some of these really weren't great bowlers.

They didn't, though. Taking 15 wickets or less isn't doing ridiculously well.

On that logic, Ricky Ponting did ridiculously well in the 2005 Ashes, with his 1 wicket for 9 proving that England were so poor Shane Warne's 40 wickets should obviously be discounted. And don't tell me 1 wicket over 1 series is different to 15 over 3 - they're both exactly the same, hauls far too small to prove anything whatsoever.

First of all, Bill Whitty played 8 and, secondly, he is bettered by Booth, actually.

Whitty's record is not a patch on Booth's. 50 wickets at 17.50 (Whitty's haul) >>>>>>>>>>>> 7 at 18.57 (Booth's).

The fact that, surprisingly, you can pick out this many bowlers in only 2 test sides sways any case of lesser matches or not. It wasn't a matter of needing a larger sample, that's as large of a sample as you need. S.Africa were piss poor and Barnes' record is inflated tremendously.

As I said - you can't pick-out any bowlers whose achievements against South Africa even approached Barnes'. Only Whitty's even vaguely resembles it. Any fool can take 10 or 20 wickets for not much over a handful of games, that's not a remotely impressive performance against any team compared to 89 wickets for not much.

And reply to daft statement #2: Barnes and Saunders only played against S.Africa and England/Australia. Saunders' record against England is actually very close to Barnes against Australia whilst his record is actually better against S.Africa.

Saunders' record against England, or anyone else, does not even approach Barnes' against Australia, or anyone else.

Except I never made a statement regarding whether they were fit to be considered test playing or not.

No, but I did. Nothing involving South Africa is worthy of being called "Test" before January 1906. The whole 2 matches Saunders played against South Africa should not even be a part of Test history.

I made the statement that had Saunders played as many matches against S.Africa as Barnes did he would have a much closer record to Barnes.

He wouldn't, though, because there's nothing at all to suggest he or anyone else was capable of taking 89 wickets in 7 games. No-one else did that.

 

[Perm]

Kazo just spoilin' for a fight one feels

 

[Ikki]

They didn't, though. Taking 15 wickets or less isn't doing ridiculously well.

On that logic, Ricky Ponting did ridiculously well in the 2005 Ashes, with his 1 wicket for 9 proving that England were so poor Shane Warne's 40 wickets should obviously be discounted. And don't tell me 1 wicket over 1 series is different to 15 over 3 - they're both exactly the same, hauls far too small to prove anything whatsoever.

Oh lord...what the *** does that have to do with anything? We are talking about guys who played 20 or less Test matches in their career. These guys played 3-4 tests a whole year, and if 3-4 tests aren't enough, what about Barnes' - he only played 7?

And out of a pool of what, 10 bowlers - probably even LESS TRUE bowlers - I just named you 5 with ridiculous stats. It isn't a case about few tests or few balls.

Whitty's record is not a patch on Booth's. 50 wickets at 17.50 (Whitty's haul) >>>>>>>>>>>> 7 at 18.57 (Booth's).

Sorry, brainfart. I mean't Bird.

As I said - you can't pick-out any bowlers whose achievements against South Africa even approached Barnes'. Only Whitty's even vaguely resembles it. Any fool can take 10 or 20 wickets for not much over a handful of games, that's not a remotely impressive performance against any team compared to 89 wickets for not much.

You're right, any fool can. But not a lot of fools in the same 2 year space. Get it?

Saunders' record against England, or anyone else, does not even approach Barnes' against Australia, or anyone else.

Ok, let's compare, just so you can get it:

Now what about that does not even 'approach' Barnes?

No, but I did. Nothing involving South Africa is worthy of being called "Test" before January 1906. The whole 2 matches Saunders played against South Africa should not even be a part of Test history.

Oh god...why do I try? You will never concede a point. You'd rather make yourself look dumb than accept fault.

He wouldn't, though, because there's nothing at all to suggest he or anyone else was capable of taking 89 wickets in 7 games. No-one else did that.

Guess what, neither was Barnes. He only got 83. And take a look at the SRs, as you can see, they would have gotten darn close - which is the entire point, Barnes' record is heavily inflated by his matches against South Africa.

 

[Richard]

Oh lord...what the *** does that have to do with anything? We are talking about guys who played 20 or less Test matches in their career. These guys played 3-4 tests a whole year, and if 3-4 tests aren't enough, what about Barnes' - he only played 7?

And out of a pool of what, 10 bowlers - probably even LESS TRUE bowlers - I just named you 5 with ridiculous stats. It isn't a case about few tests or few balls.

You didn't. It doesn't matter in the slightest how many Tests anyone played, simply how many wickets they took. None of these bowlers had ridiculous(ly good) stats at all. Because 15 wickets at 18 isn't ridiculously good, at all.

Sorry, brainfart. I mean't Bird.

Bird's record is not a patch on Whitty's either. 50 wickets at 17.50 (Whitty's haul) >>>>>>>>>>>> 8 wickets at 15 (Bird's haul). If you are seriously prepared to argue such tiny wicket hauls mean so much as a thing, there is no point me continuing this.

You're right, any fool can. But not a lot of fools in the same 2 year space. Get it?

Yes, a lot of fools could very easily. There will be a large number of bowlers who have hardly bowled over (say) 2 years and yet have an excellent average for (say) 10 wickets or so. That's the nature of cricket.

Ok, let's compare, just so you can get it:

Now what about that does not even 'approach' Barnes?

21 is by a fair distance a better average than 25. Now compare their First-Class averages too, where once more Barnes comes out on top by a considerable margin despite having no fixed First-Class team at any point in his career.

Oh god...why do I try? You will never concede a point. You'd rather make yourself look dumb than accept fault.

I have nothing to be faulted for, nor to concede. I have said ever since I looked at the situation - about 3 or 4 years ago - that South Africa did not merit Test status until January 1906. That has never changed. Saunders should never have played a Test against South Africa. Therefore, I will give no credence to anyone suggesting he did.

Guess what, neither was Barnes. He only got 83. And take a look at the SRs, as you can see, they would have gotten darn close - which is the entire point, Barnes' record is heavily inflated by his matches against South Africa.

If you are honestly prepared to look at a strike-rate accross 8 or 10 wickets and simply presume that this makes a bowler capable of taking 83 had he bowled more, well, as I say, there's no point me arguing this any further. Had each and every single one of these (mostly middling) bowlers bowled more overs, their strike-rates and averages would have gone up.

 

[Ikki]

You didn't. It doesn't matter in the slightest how many Tests anyone played, simply how many wickets they took. None of these bowlers had ridiculous(ly good) stats at all. Because 15 wickets at 18 isn't ridiculously good, at all.

15 wickets at 18 against the same side in a few tests IS ridiculously good.

Bird's record is not a patch on Whitty's either. 50 wickets at 17.50 (Whitty's haul) >>>>>>>>>>>> 8 wickets at 15 (Bird's haul). If you are seriously prepared to argue such tiny wicket hauls mean so much as a thing, there is no point me continuing this.

No, I was taking in the ratios. You can only take so many wickets bowling so many balls. You also gotta remember Barnes bowled a ****load more than anyone else. Almost 50 overs a match, that's Murali-esque. The fact that even part-timers come away with these kinds of stats shows how poor S.Africa were.

Yes, a lot of fools could very easily. There will be a large number of bowlers who have hardly bowled over (say) 2 years and yet have an excellent average for (say) 10 wickets or so. That's the nature of cricket.

No, not a lot of fools in only 2 teams over a 2 year period over 1 side could. This isn't just a case of not enough wickets, this is just how rarely cricket was played. To get a 100 wickets in your career was a big thing then. So to take 15 or so in 3-4 tests IS quite amazing and the fact that a lot of 'fools' did similarly proves that it simply isn't a case of one player getting lucky over a short amount of time.

21 is by a fair distance a better average than 25. Now compare their First-Class averages too, where once more Barnes comes out on top by a considerable margin despite having no fixed First-Class team at any point in his career.

LMAO, and 51 is by a fair distance a better SR than 54. Barnes' average is 3.8 runs better than Saunders' and Saunders SR is 3.2 balls better than Barnes'. Very comparable AND close.

The distance between them against S.Africa is, however, in favour of Saunders - although they were different sides. Just showing how poor S.Africa were. Test-class or not.

I have nothing to be faulted for, nor to concede. I have said ever since I looked at the situation - about 3 or 4 years ago - that South Africa did not merit Test status until January 1906. That has never changed. Saunders should never have played a Test against South Africa. Therefore, I will give no credence to anyone suggesting he did.

But no one gives a crap who you deem Test worthy or not. You're just using your selective criteria to transform the argument into something you might have a leg to stand on.

If you are honestly prepared to look at a strike-rate accross 8 or 10 wickets and simply presume that this makes a bowler capable of taking 83 had he bowled more, well, as I say, there's no point me arguing this any further. Had each and every single one of these (mostly middling) bowlers bowled more overs, their strike-rates and averages would have gone up.

This is what is funny, the bowlers in this time played 15 or so Tests in their whole career. To play 3-4 tests against S.Africa is essentially a third of their Test career. This is akin to the silly arguments belittling Headley because he played only 22 Tests.

You may have a leg to stand on when there is one bowler...but not 5...from 2 teams.

 

[Richard]

15 wickets at 18 against the same side in a few tests IS ridiculously good.

No, it's not. It's a decent performance over a very short period of time.

No, I was taking in the ratios. You can only take so many wickets bowling so many balls. You also gotta remember Barnes bowled a ****load more than anyone else. Almost 50 overs a match, that's Murali-esque. The fact that even part-timers come away with these kinds of stats shows how poor S.Africa were.

Exactly. Barnes bowled more than anyone else, because he was better than anyone else. Much better. No-one else was good enough to bowl anywhere near as much as he did, so his performances were that much more notable than anyone else's. No-one else was able to achieve notable performances against South Africa, because they didn't play enough. Had anyone bowled as many overs as Barnes did, they'd never have had a cat-in-hell's chance of doing as well as he did, because he was substantially better than anyone else.

No, not a lot of fools in only 2 teams over a 2 year period over 1 side could. This isn't just a case of not enough wickets, this is just how rarely cricket was played. To get a 100 wickets in your career was a big thing then. So to take 15 or so in 3-4 tests IS quite amazing and the fact that a lot of 'fools' did similarly proves that it simply isn't a case of one player getting lucky over a short amount of time.

Well, if that's the way you think, that's the way you think. I, on the other hand, don't. 15 wickets in 3 or 4 Tests will never, ever be anything special, to me or most other people I'd imagine.

LMAO, and 51 is by a fair distance a better SR than 54. Barnes' average is 3.8 runs better than Saunders' and Saunders SR is 3.2 balls better than Barnes'. Very comparable AND close.

Haha. If you think so. I, on the other hand, don't.

But no one gives a crap who you deem Test worthy or not. You're just using your selective criteria to transform the argument into something you might have a leg to stand on.

I give a crap about it. And I won't take any notice of anyone telling me that South Africa in 1902 mean a thing as to Test status. If someone tries to tell me they do, I'll say "no point in me conversing with you then".

This is what is funny, the bowlers in this time played 15 or so Tests in their whole career. To play 3-4 tests against S.Africa is essentially a third of their Test career. This is akin to the silly arguments belittling Headley because he played only 22 Tests.

You may have a leg to stand on when there is one bowler...but not 5...from 2 teams.

It's nothing like the arguments belittling Headley. If 3-4 Tests is 1\3 of your career, it is nothing conclusive. No amount of fact that many players only played 15 Tests in a career (the very best always played more than that anyway) changes the fact that 3 or 4 Tests proves absolutely nothing about anyone.

 

[Ikki]

Whatever dude, I've had enough of going in circles. Again, I've given you a proper chance to put a proper argument forward and you've failed. I don't need you to admit it to know .