• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

All time world test XI selection

S

subshakerz

International Coach
Nikhil99.99 said:
Barnes>O’Reilly was universally accepted opinion.106 wkts at 36 innings in 20 matches at 21.5 vs Australia doesn’t look bad.S.F Barnes adjusted stats had him no.2 in DoG’s 100 greatest bowler.From DoG’s 100 greatest bowler.
No.2

Sydney Barnes (England) 967

Quality Points: 891
Career Points: 76





Career: 1901-1914
Wickets: 189
Gold Performances: 4
5/44 vs. Australia at Melbourne 1911/12 (15.75)
8/29 vs. South Africa at The Oval 1912 (16.91)
8/56 vs. South Africa at Johannesburg 1913 (16.99)
9/103 vs. South Africa at Johannesburg 1913 (17.00)
Silver Performances: 15
Bronze Performances: 5

Overall Average/Strike-Rate/Points Per Innings: 20.25 (16.43) 50.92 (41.66) 8.19 (rank 1)
50 Innings Peak Average/Strike-Rate/Points Per Innings (1901-1914): 20.25 50.92 8.19 (rank 7)
Non-Home Average/Strike-Rate/Points Per Innings: 21.89 53.77 8.17 (rank 2)
Quality Opposition Average/Strike-Rate/Points Per Innings: 25.42 63.38 6.34 (rank 21)

The best bowler of all-time? Certainly, Sydney Barnes has a great case as he has the highest quality points of any bowler to have played the game. Very little footage is available of him (I have posted a link of the only YouTube footage I know to exist). His adjusted averages and strike-rates across all criteria are very good, but are still comparable to other great bowlers. His average against Australia is nothing special. But what separates Barnes from the rest is the sheer impact he made on the matches he played in. He averaged a neat 7 wickets a match and achieved a medal performance in 24 out of the 50 innings he bowled in. As a point of comparison, 36% of Don Bradman's innings were medal-worthy. A difficult character, he played in less than half of England's test matches between 1901 and the Great War. He also missed the last test match of the South African series in 1913/14 because of a financial disagreement. If he did play, he would possibly have reached 50 wickets in the series, and 200 wickets overall. In 28 tests. There is only one bowler that can close to being as prolific as SF Barnes. And he is no.1.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I wish I could switch my vote from O'Reilly to Barnes. Totally forgot about Barnes.
 
Nikhil99.99

Nikhil99.99

U19 Cricketer
subshakerz said:
Yeah, I wish I could switch my vote from O'Reilly to Barnes. Totally forgot about Barnes.
Click to expand...
Barnes isn’t eligible.I wasn’t debating about O’Reilly or Barnes.I have huge respect for both of them.I just meant O’Reilly is among 10 of the greatest bowlers of all time.And Barnes >O’Reilly was universally accepted opinion.
So,I was just saying Barnes is among few major contenders to be the greatest bowler of all time.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top