How Good Was Sydney F Barnes?

[Starfighter]

I have been reading a few newspaper articles for descriptions of Barnes. Note there are a lot of articles, so I've only read ones from early on the tours, and nothing so far from 1907.

From early November 1901 - this at the start of the tour while he was still shaking off the rust from the sea voyage:
- Something along of the lines of 'fast' or 'a fast bowler' 'but not so fast as' or 'not equal to' Jones or Richardson (or either one by themselves) is by far the most common description and appears in a lot of articles
- 'Much below Richardson and Jones'.
- 'A very fair pace', but again nothing like Jones, 'a fair pace' and 'nothing exceptional'
- MacLaren describes him as 'a bit fast' and 'an easy fast bowler'.
- One describes him as 'fast-medium', the term was not quite in vogue at this time.
- One as 'barely above medium pace', but this was the first day of match bowling, when he wouldn't have been expected to be at his fastest
- One derives him as not being first class in pace

Those in early November 1911 describe him as being medium to fast-medium, some noting opposing batsmen felt he was slower than in 1907. In comparison Foster is medium, fast medium or even fast, and Douglas fast-medium to fast. I haven't yet read a good description of Hitch. It is notable the bowler compared to Foster when he toured was Voce, they were described as being nearly identical in style.

In 1903 Digby Jephson briefly mentions him in his section discussing fast bowlers - not fast medium like FS Jackson - to note him and Wass having a 'distinct break from the leg in favourable conditions', compared to most other fast bowlers 'getting up off the pitch straight as a die'. CB Fry described him as fast-medium, and at his fastest 'distinctly fast'.

Strudwick's estimate is definitely on the low end, and there is nothing at all that leads one to believe he was similar to O'Reilly.

 

[HookShot]

You may enjoy this article Starfighter written by Charlie Macartney. Apparently, he found Frank Foster’s short pitched bowling difficult to hook because of Foster’s ‘pace from the pitch’.

BOWLERS.
THE WORLD'S BEST.
S. F. Barnes Chosen.
MACARTNEY'S OPINION.

In this specially-commissioned article C G Macartney, the famous Australian batsman now retired names the best bowlers against whom he played. He classes S F Barnes as outstanding and among others he names Walter Brearley, George Hirst and Harold
Larwood, of the Englishmen, and Albert Cotter (‘the fastest of all'), M A Noble (‘complete master of his art'), and Dr H V Hordern (‘best googly bowler’) of the Australians.
(By C G Macartney)

In a cricket career of more than 30 years I have naturally met numerous bowlers of all classes but in this review I Intend only to touch on some of those who have been most prominent In first class cricket. The outstanding bowler of my class In the
world during my time vas undoubtedly Sydney Barnes who originally played with Staffordshire among the minor counties, represented England and then after being with Lancashire for a time returned to second class cricket which he preferred. There was nothing that Barnes could not do with the ball. He was superior to other bowlers because he could operate on good wickets as well as bad and was equally effective in Australia, South Africa and England. His flight and variation in pace could trick the best batsmen in the world….

Another distinguished English speed bowler whose star did not shine very long in the cricket firmament was Frank Foster of Warwickshire. Foster also adopted the leg
theory and the placed leg side field. This placement he pursued in Australia. In 1911-12 to the discomfort of our batsmen of the time. Many of them can remember leg bruises received from Foster during the test series of that season. Foster’s chief asset was pace from the pitch and unless a delivery was particularly short it was a difficult task to play the hook stroke with safety. England won the Ashes that season in Australia and Barnes and Foster were the destructive bowlers….

Two post-war english bowlers of special merit were Harold Larwood and Maurice Tate. The former Is well known to present followers of cricket especially for his participation in the bodyline controversy. Larwood is a magnificent exponent of the art of fast bowling for a small man even though stockily built he worked up and maintained remarkable speed. Maurice Tate was one of the finest bowlers on good Australian wickets that I have seen but he cannot claim equality with Barnes on all wickets. Tate specialised in swing and variation in pace. Barnes in addition to these attributes possessed spin of both varieties which Tate could not command to any large extent…..

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/17332699

 

[Johan]

I found another source that supports @peterhrt's description of Barnes, Len Hutton played a 55-60 year old Barnes and deemed that Barnes relied on cut and swing, he does not mention spin, the same descriptions used for Maurice Tate and Alec Bedser type bowlers, he was likely just them but taller and much better.

 

[thierry henry]

All I know is he was Sydney F. Baby and the F is for phenomenal

 

[Prince EWS]

I found another source that supports @peterhrt's description of Barnes, Len Hutton played a 55-60 year old Barnes and deemed that Barnes relied on cut and swing, he does not mention spin, the same descriptions used for Maurice Tate and Alec Bedser type bowlers, he was likely just them but taller and much better.

View attachment 47508

I reckon he was a medium-fast bowler who rolled his fingers over the ball sometimes when the conditions suited. In style (but not quality obviously) I imagine something like a right arm version of Nathan Bracken or pre-injury Mustafizur Rahman. The fact that he and others called this spin sometimes totally tracks with all the semi-serious posts calling Fizz a spinner for a while on here.

We don't entirely know, but that's my best guess based on all the sometimes contradictory reports.

 

[thierry henry]

Sydney F. Baby and the F is for Fizzing cutters

 

[Johan]

I reckon he was a medium-fast bowler who rolled his fingers over the ball sometimes when the conditions suited. In style (but not quality obviously) I imagine something like a right arm version of Nathan Bracken or pre-injury Mustafizur Rahman. The fact that he and others called this spin sometimes totally tracks with all the semi-serious posts calling Fizz a spinner for a while on here.

We don't entirely know, but that's my best guess based on all the sometimes contradictory reports.

I agree, I'd have a similar opinion on Maurice Tate, Alec Bedser (who Fred claimed you can hear the fingers of) and Fazal Mahmood.

 

[Blenkinsop]

At 5'50 in the documentary that was linked earlier there's a photo from the 1901-2 Australian tour. Assuming it does in fact show SF Barnes, he appears to be delivering a bouncer, and the keeper is stood a reasonable distance back from the stumps, perhaps 15 yards or so. That would suggest he was at least medium pace by today's standards.

 

[chris.hinton]

He was very good and in his time was very lethal. Would he have got any real success in today's cricket

Yes he would, but the batsman would have worked him out a bit more

 

[Johan]

Barnes actually returned in the interwar period, when he returned after the war he managed to take 60 first class wickets at the average of 16.68, exceptional for someone who was at the bare minimum 54 year old.

But he also faced some international teams at the time, when he faced the West Indies in 1928 at the age of 55, he managed to take 12 wickets for 118 runs in a single game, while Barnes took 12 wickets against that West Indies side in 2 innings, Larwood took 6 wickets but in 3 games and I think most agree Larwood was the greatest fast bowler of the interwar period, Maurice Tate is another in that argument and he did take 13 wickets...but in 6 innings, neither coming close to Barnes. One can argue Windies batting was weak, but the South African batting line-up that visited England in 1929 certainly was not, as they were extremely competitive with England and were ahead in multiple games, the lineup having the likes of Herbert Taylor, Robert Catterall and Bruce Mitchell and so forth, Barnes against that lineup at the age of 56 managed to take 19 wickets at just 7.89 a piece, massively outperforming Tate and Larwood once again. Including the game he played with New Zealand, against the four games Barnes played after 1927 against country level sides, he took 35 wickets at 9.85.

I don't know if anyone else has dominated international lineups at such an age, or outperformed the best pacers in the world at that age either, I think Learie Constantine and Len Hutton deemed old Barnes the best bowlers they ever had the displeasure of facing, with the entire West Indies agreeing Barnes was the best even at that age, might be the one Barnes feat that can never be matched.

 

[Starfighter]

At 5'50 in the documentary that was linked earlier there's a photo from the 1901-2 Australian tour. Assuming it does in fact show SF Barnes, he appears to be delivering a bouncer, and the keeper is stood a reasonable distance back from the stumps, perhaps 15 yards or so. That would suggest he was at least medium pace by today's standards.

I saw that picture in a book somewhere and it was recorded as Bill Hitch bowling to Fred Huish at The Oval in August 1909.

Though ironically I didn't note what book it was.