Barnes 1912 Sa series Vs Hadlee 1985 Aus Series

[DrWolverine]

Hadlee’s 1985 is the best series ever by a bowler imo

 

[Johan]

This proves how we can see the same thing and interpret it wildly different based on what we want to.

I highlighted something you posted above, "considering the pitches they played on" and that's a large reason, along with so many others, that many don't include pre WWI for these discussions.

There's a reason no one calls the dude with an average of 16 the greatest ever, and that's context, with said context being same SA team and the era involved.

Well obviously never see eye to eye on this one, so there's no need to continue.

But to disregard the sub par nature of a batting lineup where 7 of the 11 top 7 batsmen fielded in a series had an average below 15, isn't someone that's willing to have a serous conversation about this.

I guess you also invalidate Hanif Mohammad's, Fazal Mahmood's and Peter May's entire careers considering they also played on similar matting wickets and wet pitches their entire career except the last couple years? surely your argument invalidates that right? just for record, the same Ray Lindwall, Alan Davidson's and so forth that people rate, were pitful on matting wickets compared to Sydney Barnes in South Africa, heck Davidson on matting wickets averaged 22.33 with just 14 wickets in 4 games, against an even more pitful lineup, if matting wickets were so easy why couldn't one of the greats in Davidson manage to dominate them like Barnes did?

Ray Lindwall bowled one spell on the same matting wickets, against an even more pitful lineup, went for 1/42 and 0/22, Miller went for 2/40 and 0/18, Benaud went there during his peak and still couldn't even come close to what Barnes achieved. That's two ATG bowlers (Ray, Davidson) and one ATG quality (Miller) bowler who had the same situation as Barnes and couldn't even come in the Milion miles radius of him.

there are certainly more who call Barnes the greatest of all-time than there are those who ignore pre world war I, that's a factuality. Learie Constantine, Jack Hobbs, Wilfred Rhodes, Victor Trumper all unanimously considered Barnes the greatest, that's a good amount of highly knowledgeable people who'd know the context better than you who thought Barnes was the greatest.

it's not like Barnes either faltered to good wickets either, there was nothing wrong with Australia to bat on, and he played a bunch there and took 34 wickets in 5 wickets against a really good batting lineup in 1910-11 I think on normal wickets.

Yeah, that's exactly it, you cannot prove these batsmen are terrible because they can just be average bats that happened to face the biggest bowling outlier of all-time, the fact that even with this attack it's very, Very probable the saffers would've won the series if not for Barnes/rain, when the other team has Hobbs, Woolley and Rhodes, proves my point that they can't have been that bad. The fact the rest of the English lineup failed against them, further proves so

 

[kyear2]

I guess you also invalidate Hanif Mohammad's, Fazal Mahmood's and Peter May's entire careers considering they also played on similar matting wickets and wet pitches their entire career except the last couple years? surely your argument invalidates that right? just for record, the same Ray Lindwall, Alan Davidson's and so forth that people rate, were pitful on matting wickets compared to Sydney Barnes in South Africa, heck Davidson on matting wickets averaged 22.33 with just 14 wickets in 4 games, against an even more pitful lineup, if matting wickets were so easy why couldn't one of the greats in Davidson manage to dominate them like Barnes did?

Ray Lindwall bowled one spell on the same matting wickets, against an even more pitful lineup, went for 1/42 and 0/22, Miller went for 2/40 and 0/18, Benaud went there during his peak and still couldn't even come close to what Barnes achieved. That's two ATG bowlers (Ray, Davidson) and one ATG quality (Miller) bowler who had the same situation as Barnes and couldn't even come in the Milion miles radius of him.

there are certainly more who call Barnes the greatest of all-time than there are those who ignore pre world war I, that's a factuality. Learie Constantine, Jack Hobbs, Wilfred Rhodes, Victor Trumper all unanimously considered Barnes the greatest, that's a good amount of highly knowledgeable people who'd know the context better than you who thought Barnes was the greatest.

it's not like Barnes either faltered to good wickets either, there was nothing wrong with Australia to bat on, and he played a bunch there and took 34 wickets in 5 wickets against a really good batting lineup in 1910-11 I think on normal wickets.

Yeah, that's exactly it, you cannot prove these batsmen are terrible because they can just be average bats that happened to face the biggest bowling outlier of all-time, the fact that even with this attack it's very, Very probable the saffers would've won the series if not for Barnes/rain, when the other team has Hobbs, Woolley and Rhodes, proves my point that they can't have been that bad. The fact the rest of the English lineup failed against them, further proves so

We can simply agree to disagree.

There's noting either of us can say to the other to change the perspective of how are see things.

The era simply surpasses my cut off, and stretches too far into the lost era of the game.
Even in the instance that I make an exception as I do for Hobbs for his undisputed brilliance and being the batting standout in a low scoring era, the disparity in his record alone would be a red flag, even if not added to the hopelessness of the batting lineup he faced. I don't even factor in NZ for O'Reilly far less.

And unlike O'Reilly, what I've seen of his bowling doesn't convey special, or anything that would be transferrable as a slow medium bowler to the modern era.

Its not anti English, anti black and white or anti anything. The main criteria for me is how much are your skills transferrable to any era of the game. O'Reilly and Hutton lasses that for me without doubt. I can't say the same for Barnes and guys like Grace isn't even a consideration.

 

[Johan]

We can simply agree to disagree.

There's noting either of us can say to the other to change the perspective of how are see things.

The era simply surpasses my cut off, and stretches too far into the lost era of the game.
Even in the instance that I make an exception as I do for Hobbs for his undisputed brilliance and being the batting standout in a low scoring era, the disparity in his record alone would be a red flag, even if not added to the hopelessness of the batting lineup he faced. I don't even factor in NZ for O'Reilly far less.

And unlike O'Reilly, what I've seen of his bowling doesn't convey special, or anything that would be transferrable as a slow medium bowler to the modern era.

Its not anti English, anti black and white or anti anything. The main criteria for me is how much are your skills transferrable to any era of the game. O'Reilly and Hutton lasses that for me without doubt. I can't say the same for Barnes and guys like Grace isn't even a consideration.

I'm willing to agree to disagree.

simply put, I really can't find any faults with Barnes, I for one cannot come to rate the Interwar era without rating the pre War Golden Era, I'm not a fan of the idea that English or Australian Cricket somehow improved right after the most devastating war that had soaked European beaches in blood at the time. I think this is also supported by a lot of things, people like Woolley and Hobbs were excellent after the war, Hobbs's technique being seen as the best of them all. Woolley even went as far as saying that he believes that Hammond wouldn't have been able to make the English team before 1914 before Hammond hit his prime, now that may be an exaggeration but shows us the consensus that was present at the time and what era was regarded as universally superior.

Barnes bowled to a lineup of Victor Trumper, Warren Bardsley, Warwick Armstrong, Clement Hill, Vernon Ramsford and Charles Kelleway on Australian batting wickets and took 34 wickets in just 5 games, that's an excellent batting lineup on batting friendly wickets, that shows his ability on dry normal pitches.

Personally speaking, I don't think I can make definitive judgement on pre 1950 Cricketers even based on the slow framerate choppy black and white footage let alone on the basis of the footage of a Barnes that was confirmed to be well in his old age, I've seen footage of bowlers who were considered far inferior to him and he looks brilliant, one has to remember that a Barnes in his 50s was deemed a better bowler than Harold Larwood.

for the record, I never even considered the idea of you being Anti-England, let alone think you are that. Believe me, If I thought that, then you'd know.

All in all, Agree to disagree.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

This proves how we can see the same thing and interpret it wildly different based on what we want to.

I highlighted something you posted above, "considering the pitches they played on" and that's a large reason, along with so many others, that many don't include pre WWI for these discussions.

There's a reason no one calls the dude with an average of 16 the greatest ever, and that's context, with said context being same SA team and the era involved.

Well obviously never see eye to eye on this one, so there's no need to continue.

Who are these no one? Everyone who saw Barnes well on to 1980s were swearing Barnes was the greatest bowler there had ever been and the greatest there will ever be. Hutton faced Barnes when Barnes was 62 and was in disbelief . And so were everyone from Constantine, Sutcliffe etc. who faced Barnes when Barnes was 50-60 years of age. Everyone can’t be lying how good this guy was. Plus the stats of Barnes with era adjustment and whatever adjustment is second to none. Even his stats against Australia are as good as any bowler against top side.

Peak Bedser was putting ridiculous stats in 1950s. Barnes would have run havoc.

 

[Johan]

Who are these no one? Everyone who saw Barnes well on to 1980s were swearing Barnes was the greatest bowler there had ever been and the greatest there will ever be. Hutton faced Barnes when Barnes was 62 and was in disbelief . And so were everyone from Constantine, Sutcliffe etc. who faced Barnes when Barnes was 50-60 years of age. Everyone can’t be lying how good this guy was. Plus the stats of Barnes with era adjustment and whatever adjustment is second to none. Even his stats against Australia are as good as any bowler against top side.

Peak Bedser was putting ridiculous stats in 1950s. Barnes would have run havoc.

Source?

 

[DrWolverine]

Everyone who saw Barnes well on to 1980s were swearing Barnes was the greatest bowler there had ever been and the greatest there will ever be.

Fair enough

Peak Bedser was putting ridiculous stats in 1950s. Barnes would have run havoc.

Barnes running havoc in 1950s? Really?

Hutton faced Barnes when Barnes was 62 and was in disbelief .

And so were everyone from Constantine, Sutcliffe etc. who faced Barnes when Barnes was 50-60 years of age.

No one can be a good cricketer at that age.

 

[Johan]

No one can be a good cricketer at that age.

Constantine thing is something I'd vouch for, Constantine would've seen Barnes in 1928 when the West Indies with a world class pace attack toured England (they got mauled), Barnes faced Windies and took 7/51 and 5/67 in one of the tour games, he'd have been around 54-55 years old. It should be at 12:30

 

[DrWolverine]

A 55 year old cricketer being world class?
Barnes in his 50s being better than Peak Larwood?
It is not practically possible.

 

[Coronis]

A batsman averaging 99.94 over 20 years?
A mid 40’s batsman being better than peak Kohli?
It is not practically possible.

 

[Johan]

A 55 year old cricketer being world class?
Barnes in his 50s being better than Peak Larwood?
It is not practically possible.

They actually faced once

At home – well, at the Crown Farm ground in Mansfield – the 19-year-old Larwood gave clear notice of his promise, taking 6-70 in Staffordshire’s second innings; an impressive return after he had gone wicketless when the opposition batted first, giving 6-92 as match figures.

But he was matched, indeed just pipped, by a famous name from cricket’s recent past – none less than the great SF Barnes. By now 51 (though still a decade or more away from finishing his playing days), Sydney Barnes took 3-43 and 4-48 for matches figures of 7-91.

LARWOOD'S 120th BIRTHDAY CELEBRATED

www.trentbridge.co.uk

Sydney Francis Barnes is an absurdity

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Barnes running havoc in 1950s? Really?

Peak Bedser was averaging like 19-20. Barnes was so far ahead of Bedser, it’s not even debatable. Barnes would have run havoc in 50s, dare I say well into 70s,80s etc. No one doubts how good Peak Alec Bedser would have been in 70s,80s, Barnes was a better bowler by far.

A 55 year old cricketer being world class?
Barnes in his 50s being better than Peak Larwood?
It is not practically possible.

Imagine someone like Murali bowling without retiring? Without over bowling. Barnes was most probably better, Barnes didn’t need pace he just needed to get the ball in his hand.

 

[DrWolverine]

Barnes would have run havoc in 50s, dare I say well into 70s,80s etc.

No way

 

[DrWolverine]

Imagine someone like Murali bowling without retiring?

Eventually he would slow down.
The body would not be able to take it.
That’s just science and how human body works.

 

[Johan]

Peak Barnes would run havoc in any generation, anywhere

 

[Johan]

Eventually he would slow down.
The body would not be able to take it.
That’s just science and how human body works.

Barnes definitely slowed down
that just didn't stop him from being better than Larwood/Constantine/Griffith and all the interwar period, it's an absurdity of Cricket.

 

[DrWolverine]

If you are saying peak Barnes doing well in any era, it is certainly possible.

But if you are saying 50 year old man Barnes doing well, that is not possible at all.

 

[DrWolverine]

Glen McGrath is arguably the greatest living fast bowler today. But at the age of 55, he cannot be better than Pat Cummins or Kagiso Rabada.

 

[Johan]

If you are saying peak Barnes doing well in any era, it is certainly possible.

But if you are saying 50 year old man Barnes doing well, that is not possible at all.

don't know about that, he was by all means an exceptional bowler even until 1928, but his body would've been way less damaged than other bowlers because he didn't bowl that much and took a 9 year break after the first world war.

 

[sayon basak]

Why are we even talking about this stuff?