Barnes 1912 Sa series Vs Hadlee 1985 Aus Series

[Thala_0710]

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

Rhodes bowled a combined 4 overs in the 3 triangular games vs SA.

 

[Johan]

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

also, this is true

 

[Thala_0710]

that's good.

Combined with the rest, it's surely not enough quality to be anywhere near this discussion.

 

[Johan]

Combined with the rest, it's surely not enough quality to be anywhere near this discussion.

when the sample size is so small, the guy in amazing form usually can effect the average by a lot, tho, I guess the whole discussion became meaningless when I realised we're discussing two different serieses lol

 

[kyear2]

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

And we are minnow level.

 

[Johan]

And we are minnow level.

I'd agree, but I'd put Taylor and Faulker, on the current form of the world, above any Indian Batsmen too

 

[kyear2]

Career batting averages:
Gerald Hartigan: 11.4
Herbert Taylor: 40.78
Arthur Nourse: 29.79
Charles Llewellyn: 20.15
Aubrey Faulkner: 40.79
Sibley Snooke: 22.4
Frank Mitchell: 11.6
Reginald schwarz: 13.85
Sidney pegler: 15.48
Claude Carter: 18.1
Thomas Campbell: 15.00

The line up for the next tour was even worse.

Taylor - 40
Hartigen - 11
Tommy Ward - 13
Dan Taylor - 21
Nourse - 29
Phillip Hands - 25
Fred Le Roux - 0
Plum Lewis - 0
Alfred Cooler - 0
Claude Newberry - 7
Dusty Tapscott - 0

Those are the batsmen that he averaged 9 against.

The amount of tests played looks even worse.

They were a minnow level batting group at this point.

 

[kyear2]

the conventional average at the time: 24.52

so Yeah, International level.

South Africa beat England twice at home in the era, and would've won multiple games in the 1913-14 series had it not been for Barnes.

South Africa's record in the golden era is not minnow level, at all.

This is where you go wrong. In the era doesn't mean the same batting line up. The team was different.

You're looking at the era, I'm looking at the changed team during those two series just before the war.

I spoke about this a few hours ago, the WI batting lineup in '80 or even '84 isn't what it was in '88. It was still only 4 years later but a different proposition.

And yeah, a conventional average of 24 is why most don't include the players from this wea with subsequent ones. It was a different game.

I personally would use a different word to describe it.

SA was not a test level batting lineup commiserate with anything subsequent ATG bowlers faced. And that, and that alone is the basis for his lofty rating.

 

[kyear2]

It means batting conditions were tough and SA had a poor batting line up. Either way, Barnes had a much easier job than Hadlee.

Much.

 

[Johan]

This is where you go wrong. In the era doesn't mean the same batting line up. The team was different.

You're looking at the era, I'm looking at the changed team during those two series just before the war.

I spoke about this a few hours ago, the WI batting lineup in '80 or even '84 isn't what it was in '88. It was still only 4 years later but a different proposition.

And yeah, a conventional average of 24 is why most don't include the players from this wea with subsequent ones. It was a different game.

I personally would use a different word to describe it.

SA was not a test level batting lineup commiserate with anything subsequent ATG bowlers faced. And that, and that alone is the basis for his lofty rating.

Notable Batsmen for the 1912-13 series

John Zulch 32
Herbert Taylor 40
Arthur Nourse 29 [32 when Barnes is not playing]

all three were good players, with stats that are good considering the wickets that they played on.

Simply put, this conception that Barnes bashed a minnow level lineup is nonsensical and not pretend in grounds for reality, for reference let's look at an example of actual minnow bashing..

you post the averages of those players with confidence, but ignore that these same players were about to beat England in that very series, they were literally about to win this game.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/england-tour-of-south-africa-1913-14-61684/south-africa-vs-england-4th-test-62519/full-scorecard

had Barnes not been there, they would've won this too, considering how badly rest of the English bowlers tanked in the second inning.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/england-tour-of-south-africa-1913-14-61684/south-africa-vs-england-3rd-test-62518/full-scorecard

I know you're a vocal minority regarding rating pre WWI players but that doesn't even matter, we have a team that was about to win games but you're deeming them minnows on the basis of nothing except their ruined career averages, why were they ruined? because of Barnes ripping them apart and then war immediately after. You always talk about how bowlers affect batter averages, this is the greatest example of it.

you talk about averaging low against that lineup? here's what he averaged against the lineup in England

3 matches, 34 wickets @ 8.29

is that lineup with Aubrey Faulkner and Herbert Taylor, arguably the two best batters of the generation after Jack Hobbs, now minnow as well?

 

[kyear2]

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.

You do know the 1904 team has noting to do with the 1914 team right?

E en the 1910 team was very different.

Again WI 1991 team vs 2001. A decade makes a hell of a difference.

 

[Johan]

Notable Batsmen for the 1912-13 series

John Zulch 32
Herbert Taylor 40
Arthur Nourse 29 [32 when Barnes is not playing]

all three were good players, with stats that are good considering the wickets that they played on.

Simply put, this conception that Barnes bashed a minnow level lineup is nonsensical and not pretend in grounds for reality, for reference let's look at an example of actual minnow bashing..

you post the averages of those players with confidence, but ignore that these same players were about to beat England in that very series, they were literally about to win this game.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/england-tour-of-south-africa-1913-14-61684/south-africa-vs-england-4th-test-62519/full-scorecard

had Barnes not been there, they would've won this too, considering how badly rest of the English bowlers tanked in the second inning.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/england-tour-of-south-africa-1913-14-61684/south-africa-vs-england-3rd-test-62518/full-scorecard

I know you're a vocal minority regarding rating pre WWI players but that doesn't even matter, we have a team that was about to win games but you're deeming them minnows on the basis of nothing except their ruined career averages, why were they ruined? because of Barnes ripping them apart and then war immediately after. You always talk about how bowlers affect batter averages, this is the greatest example of it.

you talk about averaging low against that lineup? here's what he averaged against the lineup in England

3 matches, 34 wickets @ 8.29

is that lineup with Aubrey Faulkner and Herbert Taylor, arguably the two best batters of the generation after Jack Hobbs, now minnow as well?

to put the end to this argument

Barnes in SA 1913/14
49 wickets @ 10.93
Other English Bowlers
30 wickets @ 31.77
Other bowlers in general
83 wickets @ 31.00

I wonder why no other English bowler could bash them minnows huh...maybe because they weren't actually minnows, lmao.

 

[DrWolverine]

That is my argument for Don being the best ever

If batting was so easy during Don’s time, why didn’t every other batsman average 99 or even 80 then

 

[vidiq]

I'd agree, but I'd put Taylor and Faulker, on the current form of the world, above any Indian Batsmen too

Not jaiswal and pant

 

[vidiq]

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.

Who do you think more stronger?
90s Eng or current sl?
90s sl or current sl ?

 

[Johan]

Not jaiswal and pant

Pant definitely, Jaiswal idk, guess we'll see in England.

 

[Coronis]

The line up for the next tour was even worse.

Taylor - 40
Hartigen - 11
Tommy Ward - 13
Dan Taylor - 21
Nourse - 29
Phillip Hands - 25
Fred Le Roux - 0
Plum Lewis - 0
Alfred Cooler - 0
Claude Newberry - 7
Dusty Tapscott - 0

Those are the batsmen that he averaged 9 against.

The amount of tests played looks even worse.

They were a minnow level batting group at this point.

Now, I’m not saying that the team was a “good” team. I also don’t think they were minnows. But the bolded points do indicate how Barnes himself would have a big effect on their average being low, no?

 

[Thala_0710]

Now, I’m not saying that the team was a “good” team. I also don’t think they were minnows. But the bolded points do indicate how Barnes himself would have a big effect on their average being low, no?

Yeah but they weren't exactly killing it in the Barnes-less matches either.

 

[kyear2]

Notable Batsmen for the 1912-13 series

John Zulch 32
Herbert Taylor 40
Arthur Nourse 29 [32 when Barnes is not playing]

all three were good players, with stats that are good considering the wickets that they played on.

Simply put, this conception that Barnes bashed a minnow level lineup is nonsensical and not pretend in grounds for reality, for reference let's look at an example of actual minnow bashing..

you post the averages of those players with confidence, but ignore that these same players were about to beat England in that very series, they were literally about to win this game.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/england-tour-of-south-africa-1913-14-61684/south-africa-vs-england-4th-test-62519/full-scorecard

had Barnes not been there, they would've won this too, considering how badly rest of the English bowlers tanked in the second inning.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/england-tour-of-south-africa-1913-14-61684/south-africa-vs-england-3rd-test-62518/full-scorecard

I know you're a vocal minority regarding rating pre WWI players but that doesn't even matter, we have a team that was about to win games but you're deeming them minnows on the basis of nothing except their ruined career averages, why were they ruined? because of Barnes ripping them apart and then war immediately after. You always talk about how bowlers affect batter averages, this is the greatest example of it.

you talk about averaging low against that lineup? here's what he averaged against the lineup in England

3 matches, 34 wickets @ 8.29

is that lineup with Aubrey Faulkner and Herbert Taylor, arguably the two best batters of the generation after Jack Hobbs, now minnow as well?

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.

 

[kyear2]

Now, I’m not saying that the team was a “good” team. I also don’t think they were minnows. But the bolded points do indicate how Barnes himself would have a big effect on their average being low, no?

A good set of them played less than 10 tests, indicating that they weren't exactly world beaters either and lacked experience.

They can be largely looked at as a team in transition, but that's not a test standard batting line up. We can agree to disagree.