CW's Ranking of Pace Bowlers (Tests)

[Fuller Pilch]

Another one of these???

Hadlee

 

[morgieb]

McGrath

 

[HookShot]

Is Sydney Barnes qualified for the vote?

If Barnes is a pace bowler then so are O’Reilly and Underwood.

 

[HookShot]

Malcolm Marshall

 

[Coronis]

Marshall

Is Sydney Barnes qualified for the vote?

If he were alive he’d smack you for that.

"Cut it!" He glared, and again I wondered if he might hurl something at me. "I spun the ball!" Those long, gnarled fingers gyrated around imaginary leather.

 

[Bitmap]

Marshall

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

If he were alive he’d smack you for that.

"Cut it!" He glared, and again I wondered if he might hurl something at me. "I spun the ball!" Those long, gnarled fingers gyrated around imaginary leather.

I think Barnes would have objected to being called not a pace bowler as well. (I think he'd have expected to top both lists.)

 

[subshakerz]

Marshall

 

[Starfighter]

If Barnes is a pace bowler then so are O’Reilly and Underwood.

Never watched any of them I guess, or read any decent descriptions.

 

[HookShot]

Never watched any of them I guess, or read any decent descriptions.

In Barnes’ day there were three categories of bowlers;

Spinners
Medium pacers
Fast

Spinners like Colin Blythe and Wilfred Rhodes floated the ball with spin.

Medium pacers like Hugh Trumble, George Lohmann, Monty Noble and SF Barnes cut and/or spun the ball but bowled at a quicker flatter trajectory.

Fast bowlers like Ernie Jones and Tom Richardson simply hurled the ball as hard as they could.

These days the term “medium pacer” is reserved for bowlers like Shane Watson, and bowlers like Kumble, Afridi and Underwood are still classified as spinners even though their bowling speed wasn’t too far below 130kph at times.

ie. SF Barnes in modern parlance would be a spinner.

 

[bagapath]

If Barnes is a pace bowler then so are O’Reilly and Underwood.

not so sure about that.
barnes bowled with the new ball at a brisk Steve Waugh type of medium pace using the seam with much greater accuracy and countless variations. whereas oreilley and underwood were bonafide spinners who used their wrist and fingers to impart rotations on the ball at a slightly faster velocity than traditional spinners; a bit like anil kumble or chandra did. one can't really club waugh and kumble in the same pace bracket. or barnes and o'reilley.

 

[HookShot]

Never watched any of them I guess, or read any decent descriptions.

This newspaper article about SF Barnes was written in 1912. If you want to see the plates/diagrams then you’ll need to open up the link.

A GREAT BOWLER.

BARNES AND HIS METHODS.

OFF AND LEG BREAKS.

HOW BATSMEN ABE DECEIVED.


7 August 1912


The most talked of bowler since A. C. MacLaren sprung him on the world of cricket ten years ago has been S. F. Barnes, of Warwickshire, Lancashire, Staffordshire, and England. He was, when discovered, the best right-handed medium paced bowler in England. He is now the best of his type in the world; and has been so for some years wrote E. H. D. Sewell in the 'Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic' recently.

Barnes claim to the position of best bowler in the world is based on his ability to pitch a leg-break a good length on the wlcket conjoined with the power to spin the ball for that break enough to make the ball turn on a good wlcket. Some have bowled the legbreak as fast or faster than he, notably Joseph Vine, but nobody has been able to make the ball deviate on pitching on a run-getting surface to the same extent as he.

That Is why I treat his leg-break as Plate 1 In Barnes menu. Good length varies according to the state of the pitch and the stature of the batsman, but for a bowler of Barnes' speed I have taken six yards trom the stumps as Barnes best length. The ordinary leg-break pitching six yards from the stumps may be played with safety for ever by a good batsman, chiefly by employing back play. But Barnes' bowling is so quick off the pitch that he compels forward play from nearly enveryone except players like Fry, Faulkner, and Spooner, who are the best exponents of the art of watching the ball from the pitch now playing.

For the rank and file there is, in safety toward play, the danger of the snick to first or second slip. If they hit freely the good length ball is very apt to go in the air to cover. The same ball, pitching on or about the four yards line, will be driven back along the ground anywhere between mid-off and cover according to the stroke employed. But Barnes very rarely drops the ball beyond the five yards line. He is not given to attempting yorkers so his half-volley is a rare thing.

The same ball if it does not bite will go straight on to secure the Ibw of a indifferent umpire since a glance at Plate 1 clearly shows that the ball, pitching at the six yards point does not touch the wicket unless it breaks from leg on pitching.

Pitched on the off-stump it would do to, even if it pitched eight yards from the stumps (see Plate 1), and this fact alone doubles the difficulty in his bowling. For the batsman in playing forward to such a ball (as some would do despite the distant pitching off the ball) has to be prepared for both the break from leg and the straight through.

I come to the second dish which our chef serves just as hot as, when not hotter than his piece de resistance. I am treating now of the off-break which pitches at point A and breaks enough to hit the wicket. The only reasons this ball is easier to play than this bowler's leg-break are that (1) it pitches off the wicket and the bat may thus be backed-up safely by the pads, and (2) because to right-hand batsman off-breaks are always easier to play than leg-breaks. I don't think this applies to left-handed batsman who give so very different reasons why it should not. In playing hard forward to ball A a catch in the mld-on direction is likely, especially if the ball '****s.' and Barnes' pace is a direct invitation to the batsman not to play forward gently.

In the last teat match at Lord's Barnes bowled one off-break to Shwars which pitched fully eight inches outside the off-stump and missed the leg-stump. The batsman having no time to get his leg across. He would have cost his aide four byes and himself a stinging crack on the thigh had he done so. This ball followed very shortly a good speclnen ot the one I have diagrammed in Plate I, and that, as Mitchell told me directly afterwards, he couldn't touch once a year.

Plate 2. Ball B. Here is another toothsome morsel, when you are on the fielding side bien entendu. Besides his ordinary (extraordinary?) leg-break and off-break, Barnes can also bowl the In-swerve. It often happens that a bowler, after applying leg-break spin, sees the ball 'float' inwards toward the batsman, or if It started on his leg-stump, away from him on the leg side. Against a head wind, or one blowing from third-man, Barnes can do this at will; indeed, be can do It on a still day.

The particular deception in this Is that after long bored to death with fast leg-breaks and off-breaks, the batsman, on seeing the ball In the air well outside his off stump, end apparently over-teased, gets across his wicket to collect the four runs offering through the covers. But this Is no half-volley. Losing its initial momentum, but retaining much of its lateral spin, the ball now becomes more susceptible to the air pressure which is acting with great force on its righthand surface (looking at it through the would be striker's spectacles) - and therefore deviates suddenly from the off in to the batsman. If he is too planted on his feet, set for the offside four, the umpire generally errs and gives him out lbw.

Because such a ball will never hit the stumps after pitching a goodish length. Or If the batsman just sees in time what is happening, and is very quick on his pins to boot, he may get tack in time and make short-leg do the rest, or get out of his trouble as best he may. In any event this inswerver is not an easy ball. In considering it one has to remember especially that it is bowled more or less with leg-break action. This being so the batsman thinks, if It is pitching short, that here is a certain four cut, and if well up a driven four. Whereas it is neither, and thus determined attack has to be changed while the ball is travelling about four yards into solid defence. In the face of these facts, is Barnes' success to be wondered at?

In Plate 2 the third dotted line shows the course of the plain straight ball pitching on the off stump about eight yards from the wicket. This would hit the leg slump if unobstructed or it did not bounce too high. It is likely to produce Ibw, as pitching short It is sure to be attempted for runs on the leg side. Miss-timing by a fraction of a second does the rest. In new of the foregoing, is there after all, any sense with the wish we sometimes hear that wickets should be enlarged and bats narrowed?

http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/114473144?searchTerm=Sf%20barnes%20bowler&searchLimits=#

 

[Starfighter]

This newspaper article about SF Barnes was written in 1912. If you want to see the plates/diagrams then you’ll need to open up the link.

You are aware there is footage of Barnes. Yes it's a not very clear, but there's also plenty of footage of Tate and Bedser, who were widely considered similar in pace. And there's plenty of O'Reiily and Underwood.

None of what is in that article contradicts the fact that Barnes was considerably faster than O'Reilly or Underwood.

 

[Coronis]

In new of the foregoing, is there after all, any sense with the wish we sometimes hear that wickets should be enlarged and bats narrowed?

Interesting that there was a time when they thought smaller bats would be good for the game, considering where we now are.

 

[HookShot]

not so sure about that.
barnes bowled with the new ball at a brisk Steve Waugh type of medium pace using the seam with much greater accuracy and countless variations. whereas oreilley and underwood were bonafide spinners who used their wrist and fingers to impart rotations on the ball at a slightly faster velocity than traditional spinners; a bit like anil kumble or chandra did. one can't really club waugh and kumble in the same pace bracket. or barnes and o'reilley.

O’Reilly, like Barnes was a finger-spinner who didn’t use his wrist at all. Their technique and pace seem to be very similar.

Underwood I’m not sure, but I think that he cut the ball rather than spun it.

Bill O’Reilly – Down At Third Man

Posts about Bill O’Reilly written by downatthirdman

downatthirdman.wordpress.com

 

[Slifer]

Marshall. No bs cherry picking needed.

 

[Starfighter]

O’Reilly, like Barnes was a finger-spinner who didn’t use his wrist at all. Their technique and pace seem to be very similar.

Underwood I’m not sure, but I think that he cut the ball rather than spun it.

Bill O’Reilly – Down At Third Man

Posts about Bill O’Reilly written by downatthirdman

downatthirdman.wordpress.com

Barnes was much faster than O'Reilly, almost all descriptions indicate that, footage indicates that, comparisons to other bowlers indicate that.

I don't understand your willingness to continue on this line of ignorance.

 

[bagapath]

the term leg break used in the article doesn't define him to be a leg spinner. Dennis Lillee bowled a kickass leg break, only it was called leg cutter. The name evolved over 60 years of cricket writing in between Barnes and Lillee, thats all.

Barnes was medium pace. He did not break skulls like express pacemen but he was not o'reilley either; he was more bedser and Tate. thats why I used the Steve Waugh analogy.

 

[HookShot]

You are aware there is footage of Barnes. Yes it's a not very clear, but there's also plenty of footage of Tate and Bedser, who were widely considered similar in pace. And there's plenty of O'Reiily and Underwood.

None of what is in that article contradicts the fact that Barnes was considerably faster than O'Reilly or Underwood.

The newspaper article describes Barnes as....

....the best right-handed medium paced bowler in England.

I guess we’ll never quite know the actual speed of ‘medium paced’ because trying to second guess a definition from > 100 years ago is always going to be difficult.

 

[Starfighter]

The newspaper article describes Barnes as....



I guess we’ll never quite know the actual speed of ‘medium paced’ because trying to second guess a definition from > 100 years ago is always going to be difficult.

Ot you can look up the wonderful resources of film footage available, thanks to the internet, at no cost, think a little about about how descriptions match with what you see, and come to an informed decision.