SJS
Hall of Fame Member
The legendary S F Barnes, in his last ever test series made a record that stands till today. The figures of his achievement are staggering to put it very mildly.
Barnes played only the first four Tests of the series. England won three of them. Barnes figures, well known to most cricket buffs are still worth repeating
If he had played the last Test, it is impossible to imagine the record would ever have been broken. As it is, with about 13 months left for the centenary of the end of this amazing bowler's career, the record still stands.
There is a tendency to run down Barnes' figures by talking of the opposition and the conditions. While it is clear that of the three countries playing Test cricket by then, South Africa were the weakest. However, there is more to it.. . .
South Africa were coming out of their minnow status in the new century. Having lost four straight series (eight straight Test matches) to England in the 12 years of the end of the 19th century, all at home, they had begun to get back at the 'mother country' in the first decade of the 20th.
In 1905-06 they trounced England 4-1 at home.
Granted a tour of England in 1907, as a reward, they performed very creditably, drawing the Tests at the Lord's and The Oval and lost by 53 runs at Headingley in a low scoring game. England had played their full strength side (barring Barnes who they continued to treat shabbily) with a side that reads the who's who of the English stars of the day.
In 1909-10 England toured South Africa again and again the lost the series, this time by three games to two. The English side had included Jack Hobbs, Frank Woolley, Wilfred Rhodes, Simpson-Hayward, Colin Blythe . . . and no Barnes !
England had now won only one of the last three series and just 3 of the 13 Tests. This has to be remembered when we talk of the 1913-14 series.
Another factor that needs to be remembered is how the other England bowlers' fared in that last series of Barnes. Here are the figures of Barnes against those of rest of England for the four Tests in which he played . . .
The Rest of England included Rhodes, Woolley, Douglas, Hearne, Bird and Relf
It is interesting to see that there isn't such a great difference between the economy rates of Barnes (2.4) and the Rest (2.6). They were good bowlers and were able to keep the South Africans on a tight enough leash. They just couldn't take wickets the way Barnes did. Hence the strike difference of 27.7 against 74.2.
And remember the man was forty years old.
Coming back to Barnes' farewell to Tests, who is to say when he should have retired. The guy just kept getting better with age inspite of England treating him like a pariah and selecting him very reluctantly to start with claiming Test matches were completely different from the leagues he was used to playing in and then when he astounded the world, not least the Aussies on who he was let loose, they used every pretext, mostly related to his personality and how difficult he was to handle, to keep him out of the side and yet this is what he did. In his last 10 Tests he took 88 Test wickets at 10.7 each.
Of course, it has a lot to do with the fact that eight of these games were against South Africa who were completely clueless against him. Australians were obviously far better. Yet, seen in the context of the rest of England's bowlers who is to say whether he needs to have retired, or rather never played again for, he never announced his retirement.
Another interesting aspect of Barnes' bowling has to do with how he fared at the beginning of a Test as against in the latter parts. There is a general perception that with uncovered pitches the latter part of the matches used to be a delight for bowlers. Well . . . not true for Barnes. His figures for the four innings make very interesting reading. Have a look.
It is interesting to see that the performances in the first and third innings are far better. He also bowls much more overs (in both innings) when England field first. This is very strange. Anyone with a theory on this ?? :o)
Barnes played only the first four Tests of the series. England won three of them. Barnes figures, well known to most cricket buffs are still worth repeating
- Tests : 4
- Wkts : 49
- Avg : 10.94
- St Rt : 27.7
- Eco. : 2.37
- 5 fors : 7 . . . in just 4 Tests !!!
- 10 fors : 2 . . . in just 4 Tests !!!
If he had played the last Test, it is impossible to imagine the record would ever have been broken. As it is, with about 13 months left for the centenary of the end of this amazing bowler's career, the record still stands.
There is a tendency to run down Barnes' figures by talking of the opposition and the conditions. While it is clear that of the three countries playing Test cricket by then, South Africa were the weakest. However, there is more to it.. . .
South Africa were coming out of their minnow status in the new century. Having lost four straight series (eight straight Test matches) to England in the 12 years of the end of the 19th century, all at home, they had begun to get back at the 'mother country' in the first decade of the 20th.
In 1905-06 they trounced England 4-1 at home.
Granted a tour of England in 1907, as a reward, they performed very creditably, drawing the Tests at the Lord's and The Oval and lost by 53 runs at Headingley in a low scoring game. England had played their full strength side (barring Barnes who they continued to treat shabbily) with a side that reads the who's who of the English stars of the day.
- CB Fry
- Tom Hayward
- Johnny Tyldesley
- Reggie Foster
- Les Braund
- George Hirst
- Gilbert Jessop
- Crawford
- Arnold
- Dick Lilley
- Colin Blythe
- Knox
In 1909-10 England toured South Africa again and again the lost the series, this time by three games to two. The English side had included Jack Hobbs, Frank Woolley, Wilfred Rhodes, Simpson-Hayward, Colin Blythe . . . and no Barnes !
England had now won only one of the last three series and just 3 of the 13 Tests. This has to be remembered when we talk of the 1913-14 series.
Another factor that needs to be remembered is how the other England bowlers' fared in that last series of Barnes. Here are the figures of Barnes against those of rest of England for the four Tests in which he played . . .
Code:
[B]Player O M R W 5w 10w Best Avg S/R E/R[/B]
S F Barnes 226 56 536 49 7 3 9/103 10.9 27.7 2.4
Rest of England 371.1 83 953 30 1 0 5/89 31.8 74.2 2.6
It is interesting to see that there isn't such a great difference between the economy rates of Barnes (2.4) and the Rest (2.6). They were good bowlers and were able to keep the South Africans on a tight enough leash. They just couldn't take wickets the way Barnes did. Hence the strike difference of 27.7 against 74.2.
And remember the man was forty years old.
Coming back to Barnes' farewell to Tests, who is to say when he should have retired. The guy just kept getting better with age inspite of England treating him like a pariah and selecting him very reluctantly to start with claiming Test matches were completely different from the leagues he was used to playing in and then when he astounded the world, not least the Aussies on who he was let loose, they used every pretext, mostly related to his personality and how difficult he was to handle, to keep him out of the side and yet this is what he did. In his last 10 Tests he took 88 Test wickets at 10.7 each.
Of course, it has a lot to do with the fact that eight of these games were against South Africa who were completely clueless against him. Australians were obviously far better. Yet, seen in the context of the rest of England's bowlers who is to say whether he needs to have retired, or rather never played again for, he never announced his retirement.
Another interesting aspect of Barnes' bowling has to do with how he fared at the beginning of a Test as against in the latter parts. There is a general perception that with uncovered pitches the latter part of the matches used to be a delight for bowlers. Well . . . not true for Barnes. His figures for the four innings make very interesting reading. Have a look.
Code:
[B]Inn # O M R W 5w Best Avg S/R[/B]
First 417.2 122 946 77 11 8/56 12.3 32.5
Second 179.1 49 398 23 3 6/52 17.3 46.7
Third 583.2 152 1410 74 9 9/103 19.1 47.3
Fourth 132.2 33 352 15 1 5/102 23.5 52.9
[B]Overall 1312.1 356 3106 189 24 9/103 16.4 41.7[/B]