Glen McGrath vs Sydney Barnes

[subshakerz]

No maybe not.

But what is the evidence of him chucking?

Burden of proof is on the accuser.

Unless you have any proof, he ain’t no chucker

I never said he was a chucker my friend. That was tongue in cheek.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Given Barnes character and personality of the man if there was even slight fault in his action, there would be some scrub complaining about it.

 

[jwolf]

I think there should be a way to put an end to the chucking discussion cause it is still happening at international level. Maybe there is a way to use tech to filter it out not talking about the biomechanics labs may be a widely useable sort of tech.

 

[sayon basak]

I think there should be a way to put an end to the chucking discussion cause it is still happening at international level. Maybe there is a way to use tech to filter it out not talking about the biomechanics labs may be a widely useable sort of tech.

I wonder where chucking came from.

 

[Coronis]

I wonder where chucking came from.

Four score and 7 years ago

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Barnes averaged 21 vs Australia in a bowling era.

He averaged 9 vs SA.

We're just ignoring the disparity there?

9???!!!

 

[Johan]

Yeah

Barnes vs Australia: 106 wickets @ 21 in 20 games, nearly 3-wickets-per inning. 12 fifers and 1 tenfer in 36 innings.
Barnes vs South Africa: 83 wickets @ 9 in 7 games, nearly 6-wickets-per-inning. 12 fifers and 6 tenfers in 14 innings.

In Australia: 77 wickets @ 22 in 13 games, 3.1 wickets-per-inning. 8 fifers and 1 tenfer in 25 innings
In South Africa: 49 wickets @ 11 in 4 games, 6.1 wickets-per-inning. 7 fifers and 3 tenfers in 8 innings.
In England: 63 wickets @ 13 in 10 games, 3.7 wickets-per-inning. 9 fifers and 3 tenfers in 17 innings.

 

[DrWolverine]

This is easier

 

[kyear2]

9???!!!

Yes

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Yeah

Barnes vs Australia: 106 wickets @ 21 in 20 games, nearly 3-wickets-per inning. 12 fifers and 1 tenfer in 36 innings.
Barnes vs South Africa: 83 wickets @ 9 in 7 games, nearly 6-wickets-per-inning. 12 fifers and 6 tenfers in 14 innings.

In Australia: 77 wickets @ 22 in 13 games, 3.1 wickets-per-inning. 8 fifers and 1 tenfer in 25 innings
In South Africa: 49 wickets @ 11 in 4 games, 6.1 wickets-per-inning. 7 fifers and 3 tenfers in 8 innings.
In England: 63 wickets @ 13 in 10 games, 3.7 wickets-per-inning. 9 fifers and 3 tenfers in 17 innings.

72 percent of those Australian wickets came in Australia’s flat decks which didn’t have much for bowlers at the time. 12 fifers against Australia in 36 innings is insane considering the bowling attack he was playing with and mostly on Australian pitches.

No wonder Barnes was unanimously thought of as the greatest bowler the world had ever seen for 100 years of cricket. Only O’Reilly would have even any arguments. A feat that probably will never be matched.

 

[kyear2]

72 percent of those Australian wickets came in Australia’s flat decks which didn’t have much for bowlers at the time. 12 fifers against Australia in 36 innings is insane considering the bowling attack he was playing with and mostly on Australian pitches.

No wonder Barnes was unanimously thought of as the greatest bowler the world had ever seen for 100 years of cricket. Only O’Reilly would have even any arguments. A feat that probably will never be matched.

But that's objectively and definitively not true.

O'Reilly
Lindwall
Lillee
Marshall

All have at least had arguments for the title of not outright usurped him for it.

 

[Johan]

But that's objectively and definitively not true.

O'Reilly
Lindwall
Lillee
Marshall

All have at least had arguments for the title of not outright usurped him for it.

Marshall usurped him, O Reilly presented somewhat of a challenge, other two were never put in his league.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

But that's objectively and definitively not true.

O'Reilly
Lindwall
Lillee
Marshall

All have at least had arguments for the title of not outright usurped him for it.

Lindwall was never in the league of Barnes, ever. Lillee’s only argument his peer rating which easily surpasses every fast bowler including Marshall but yet still doesn’t compare to Barnes. Stats and everything, Barnes folds Lillee very easily.

O’Reilly definitely was close. The only guy for whom you could make argument. Marshall didn’t even play international match in the first 100 year of international cricket.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Marshall usurped him, O Reilly presented somewhat of a challenge, other two were never put in his league.

Marshall arguably, very arguably surpassed Barnes. But he didn’t play a single international match in first 100 years of cricket. Unless, Bumrah pulls something exceptional there has never been anything close to consensus on who the best bowler ever is. The only time there was a consensus was when Barnes and everyone who saw him were alive. This would be well into late 70s.

 

[Gob]

Only Sydney that I would vote ahead of McGrath is Sweeney. But it would be my penis doing most of the voting cos he gets very excited

 

[Coronis]

Only Sydney that I would vote ahead of McGrath is Sweeney. But it would be my penis doing most of the voting cos he gets very excited

I still haven’t seen any Sydney Sweeney film/TV series. I keep hearing her name pop up on the internet though. Doesn’t look like anything special from random photos I’ve seen tbh.

 

[kyear2]

Marshall arguably, very arguably surpassed Barnes. But he didn’t play a single international match in first 100 years of cricket. Unless, Bumrah pulls something exceptional there has never been anything close to consensus on who the best bowler ever is. The only time there was a consensus was when Barnes and everyone who saw him were alive. This would be well into late 70s.

Think I'm misunderstood the 100 years but, thought you meant the 100 years after Barnes career, understood.

But you believe that basically it's Barnes, Marshall, O'Reilly or potentially Bumrah, that's quite the interesting bowling attack.

My personal take on it is that it's harder to rate someone whom we've never even seen in action, and what I've seen is very underwhelming. The stories told about him being the best bowler anyone would have faced while being 62 years old really takes away from his legitimacy rather than adds tbh, because it turns it into a joke tbqh.

And at the base of it all, his primary claim to the throne is an average that's greatly influenced by beating up on a substandard SA team prior to WWI.

I don't question his greatness, I just think he's best compared with players of that era and before. No disrespect, but that's my take in it.

And he's it's true that up to WWII that his only competition would have been O'Reilly, but at least I've seen Tiger and know of the challenged posed by tracks he bowled on.

That why I rate Hobbs and Tiger so highly, they were the outliers in eras that favored the opposite of what they did. The crazy low average bowling era for Hobbs and the ridiculously flat mid wars era for Tiger.

Just my opinion.

 

[Johan]

Only Sydney that I would vote ahead of McGrath is Sweeney. But it would be my penis doing most of the voting cos he gets very excited

I like how you think.