Barnes 1912 Sa series Vs Hadlee 1985 Aus Series

[Thala_0710]

Dave Nourse, Aubrey Faulkner and Herbert Taylor are a level above any of the Windies Batsmen of modern times.

That's true probably but the rest of the team is much worse. Also, the low averages also indicate how much more bowling friendly the conditions were in that period (a reason why we rate those aforementioned guys higher). Taking that into account, my statement holds I feel.

 

[Johan]

South Africa vs England series 1904 – South Africa won the series 4-1

South Africa vs England series 1906 – England won 1-0, South Africa were on the verge of victory in the third test, needing less than a hundred runs with 5 wickets in hand.

South Africa vs England series 1910 – South Africa won the series 3-2

South Africa vs England series 1912 – England won 3-0, Sydney Barnes took 34 wickets @ 8.29, without him, South Africa would likely win one of the last two games, if not both.

South Africa vs England series 1913 – England won 4-0, Barnes took 49 wickets in 4 games @ 10.94, without him, South Africa would win the third test, they were on the way to win the fourth test anyway if the game had continued.

Wow, I'd love to have that record as minnows! regardless, they were a weaker side than England and Australia, but were competitive even in Australia where their bowling attack was virtually worthless, frankly speaking, we count the records of all teams into account, when I discuss Tendulkar I don't call for his records against 90s England or Sri Lanka to be erased, that's not how Cricket works.

 

[Thala_0710]

South Africa vs England series 1904 – South Africa won the series 4-1

South Africa vs England series 1906 – England won 1-0, South Africa were on the verge of victory in the third test, needing less than a hundred runs with 5 wickets in hand.

South Africa vs England series 1910 – South Africa won the series 3-2

South Africa vs England series 1912 – England won 3-0, Sydney Barnes took 34 wickets @ 8.29, without him, South Africa would likely win one of the last two games, if not both.

South Africa vs England series 1913 – England won 4-0, Barnes took 49 wickets in 4 games @ 10.94, without him, South Africa would win the third test, they were on the way to win the fourth test anyway if the game had continued.

Wow, I'd love to have that record as minnows! regardless, they were a weaker side than England and Australia, but were competitive even in Australia where their bowling attack was virtually worthless, frankly speaking, we count the records of all teams into account, when I discuss Tendulkar I don't call for his records against 90s England or Sri Lanka to be erased, that's not how Cricket works.

No one is saying erase the series from Barnes' record. It's a great series. But when you take into the account, the more bowling friendly wickets and weaker opposition, it isn't at the level of Hadlee's effort. As simple as that.

 

[Johan]

No one is saying erase the series from Barnes' record. It's a great series. But when you take into the account, the more bowling friendly wickets and weaker opposition, it isn't at the level of Hadlee's effort. As simple as that.

It's being discredited on basises that aren't exactly strong.

 

[Thala_0710]

It's being discredited on basises that aren't exactly strong.

I mean you can't really say that the SA batting line up was close to the quality of the AUS batting line up? Or deny that the pitches were more bowling friendly then. So why are the basis wrong?

 

[Johan]

That's true probably but the rest of the team is much worse. Also, the low averages also indicate how much more bowling friendly the conditions were in that period (a reason why we rate those aforementioned guys higher). Taking that into account, my statement holds I feel.

most of these guys aren't exactly Anderson with longevity, regardless, they're being forced to play against Barnes who averages 9 against Saffers, so obviously, that would impact their stats gravely, for example, Snooke and Tancred outside of games where they face Barnes are mid 20s to high 20s averaging players, which for the time outside of Australia, is very much above average. You're not taking into the account that almost all their games, Barnes was there to destroy them which would obviously destroy their numbers.

 

[Johan]

I mean you can't really say that the SA batting line up was close to the quality of the AUS batting line up? Or deny that the pitches were more bowling friendly then. So why are the basis wrong?

Hadlee's series being better is a fine take (even tho, I'd disagree), it's the Bumrah comparison that throws me off.

 

[Thala_0710]

Hadlee's series being better is a fine take (even tho, I'd disagree), it's the Bumrah comparison that throws me off.

The SA batting line up was a bit better then the WI batting line up. But that is equalized by the more favourable bowling conditions back then. Thus both Barnes and Bumrah had a similar bowling challenge imo.
They produce similar avgs, eco, SR etc. Barnes ofc bowls more overs and hence has the higher WPM which takes his effort a tier or two above. What is the issue here?

 

[Johan]

The SA batting line up was a bit better then the WI batting line up. But that is equalized by the more favourable bowling conditions back then. Thus both Barnes and Bumrah had a similar bowling challenge imo.
They produce similar avgs, eco, SR etc. Barnes ofc bowls more overs and hence has the higher WPM which takes his effort a tier or two above. What is the issue here?

The SA batting lineup is way better than the Windies one, Windies is well below average and actually minnow tier while SA were a competitive side back then and their batting would've led them to victories over England in the 1914 series without Barnes. can you name one game where Windies batting led them to a win over a big side this decade? If you want to compare it to a series, compare it to Bradman's 1930 Ashes.

 

[Thala_0710]

The SA batting lineup is way better than the Windies one, Windies is well below average and actually minnow tier while SA were a competitive side back then and their batting would've led them to victories over England in the 1914 series without Barnes. can you name one game where Windies batting led them to a win over a big side this decade? If you want to compare it to a series, compare it to Bradman's 1930 Ashes.

The batting line ups that SA won with against ENG were pretty different. The top 3 were completely different even in the 1910 win, with Faulkner and Nourse the only commonalities, and I already conceded that Faulkner is easily better too than the WI bats. But overall, I'm not seeing it. It's not as if the other batsmen avg 35+ over the other part of the career even excluding Barnes's games. So, it's either the bowling friendly conditions or the batsmen being poor that are causing the avgs to be similar (or poorer in some cases to the WI guys). Hence again, a similar level of bowling challenge for both Barnes or Bumrah.
It's up to you to go with the pitches or batsmen logic. But you can't have both.

 

[Johan]

The batting line ups that SA won with against ENG were pretty different. The top 3 were completely different even in the 1910 win, with Faulkner and Nourse the only commonalities, and I already conceded that Faulkner is easily better too than the WI bats. But overall, I'm not seeing it. It's not as if the other batsmen avg 35+ over the other part of the career even excluding Barnes's games. So, it's either the bowling friendly conditions or the batsmen being poor that are causing the avgs to be similar (or poorer in some cases to the WI guys). Hence again, a similar level of bowling challenge for both Barnes or Bumrah.
It's up to you to go with the pitches or batsmen logic. But you can't have both.

35+ on matting wickets isn't really a reality, the fact that guys like Zulch, Nourse, Taylor average as high as they did and had to face Barnes for half his games is already a testament to their ability. The conditions were certainly bowling friendly but the batting of South Africa is blatantly better, and now going to the conditions...

Barnes: 83 @ 9.85
Rest of English bowlers: 54 @ 24.98

Bumrah: 13 @ 9.23
Rest of Indian bowlers: 26 @ 18.76

so Yeah, it's obvious whose job is way harder

 

[Thala_0710]

35+ on matting wickets isn't really a reality, the fact that guys like Zulch, Nourse, Taylor average as high as they did and had to face Barnes for half his games is already a testament to their ability. The conditions were certainly bowling friendly but the batting of South Africa is blatantly better, and now going to the conditions...

Barnes: 83 @ 9.85
Rest of English bowlers: 54 @ 24.98

Bumrah: 13 @ 9.23
Rest of Indian bowlers: 26 @ 18.76

so Yeah, it's obvious whose job is way harder

I'll have to check the math on the 1913-14 series but I've only been talking about the Barnes performance vs SA in the triangular series.
Bumrah: 13 @ 9.23
Others: 26 @ 20.34

Barnes : 34 @ 8.29
Others : 24 @ 20.29

So basically, not much difference at all on avgs. Actually, Bumrah was bowling with the better bowlers (and their performance was equal to the others in the Barnes games). One could argue that in fact, he might have possibly had the tougher assignment!

 

[Johan]

I'll have to check the math on the 1913-14 series but I've only been talking about the Barnes performance vs SA in the triangular series.
Bumrah: 13 @ 9.23
Others: 26 @ 20.34

Barnes : 34 @ 8.29
Others : 24 @ 20.29

So basically, not much difference at all on avgs. Actually, Bumrah was bowling with the better bowlers. One could argue that in fact, he might have posdibly had the tougher assignment!

what? How?

Barnes bowled with Frank Woolley and Frank Foster, prior averaged 23 before the war and the latter averages 20 in general. Also, fundamentally that argument doesn't work as home bowlers are generally more dominant at home than away from home.

also, my initial statement was regarding the 1913-14 South Africa series, in addition, Kyear's statement was also generally about South Africa instead of 3 off tests in the Triangular series.

 

[Thala_0710]

what? How?

Barnes bowled with Frank Woolley and Frank Foster, prior averaged 23 before the war and the latter averages 20 in general. Also, fundamentally that argument doesn't work as home bowlers are generally more dominant at home than away from home.

also, my initial statement was regarding the 1913-14 South Africa series, in addition, Kyear's statement was also generally about South Africa instead of 3 off tests in the Triangular series.

Frank Woolley is not remotely comparable to a Jadeja/Shami level of bowler frankly. Not even remotely close. The guy picked 1.3 WPM on avg ffs! Foster was good, but again not these guys level. Jadeja and Shami are both arguably top 50 bowlers of all time and both (along with Ishant who avgs 18 in WI), were all great in WI.
Woolley especially is not there at all.

 

[Thala_0710]

also, my initial statement was regarding the 1913-14 South Africa series, in addition, Kyear's statement was also generally about South Africa instead of 3 off tests in the Triangular series.

This would be a completely different discussion from my end then.

 

[Johan]

Frank Woolley is not remotely comparable to a Jadeja/Shami level of bowler frankly. Not even remotely close. The guy picked 1.3 WPM on avg ffs! Foster was good, but again not those guys level. Jadeja and Shami are both arguably top 50 bowlers of all time.

Woolley was a brilliant bowler before the war and won a game with the ball against Australia just a little later, Frank Foster was also coming off taking 32 wickets in the 1912 Ashes (and No, there was nothing all that bad in Aussie wickets for batting, unless it rained a lot) at the average of 21, they didn't have longevity so can't be compared to those lads but they had the quality.

 

[Thala_0710]

Woolley was a brilliant bowler before the war and won a game with the ball against Australia just a little later, Frank Foster was also coming off taking 32 wickets in the 1912 Ashes (and No, there was nothing all that bad in Aussie wickets for batting, unless it rained a lot) at the average of 21, they didn't have longevity so can't be compared to those lads but they had the quality.

Foster you could argue yes. Woolley did win 1 game against the Aussies but that's about it.
Woolley isn't there is on quality.

 

[Johan]

Foster you could argue yes. Woolley did win 1 game against the Aussies but that's about it.
Woolley isn't there is on quality.

Yeah, so you have Foster, Rhodes also bowled in some of these games and he was better than either Shami or Jadeja

 

[Thala_0710]

Woolley's efforts pre war:
1909 vs AUS: 1 match 0 wkts
1910 vs SA: 5 mats 7 wkts @35.86
1911-12 vs AUS: 5 mats 8 wkts @26.13
1912 Triangular: 6 mats 17 wkts @8.94
1913-14 vs SA: 5 mats 7 wkts @39.14

A great triangular where he had 2 great games, but no he isn't there on quality.

 

[Johan]

Woolley's efforts pre war:
1909 vs AUS: 1 match 0 wkts
1910 vs SA: 5 mats 7 wkts @35.86
1911-12 vs AUS: 5 mats 8 wkts @26.13
1912 Triangular: 6 mats 17 wkts @8.94
1913-14 vs SA: 5 mats 7 wkts @39.14

A great triangular where he had 2 great games, but no he isn't there on quality.

that's good.

also man, it really does look like the saffers weren't the minnow rn doesn't it