Lets end it: Sydney Barnes

[JBH001]

Yes, his figures against India are absolutely outstanding. Proves (or at least goes some way to suggest) that Indian batsmen are not necessarily great against spin, and said Indian efficacy against spin is more about the quality of the batsmen, than just about being Indian.

 

[social]

Yes, his figures against India are absolutely outstanding. Proves (or at least goes some way to suggest) that Indian batsmen are not necessarily great against spin, and said Indian efficacy against spin is more about the quality of the batsmen, than just about being Indian.

Agreed

These were pretty early days for Indian cricket and as no-one in their right mind could suggest that Benaud was in the same class as Warne, it would indicate that the Indian batsmen werent all that flash

 

[SJS]

I am doing a study of performances at home and away of all bowlers with 100 or more test wickets, it presents a very interesting picture and some even more interesting 'inferences'

Okay. Here we are.

I took all the bowlers who have taken 100 or more test wickets and divided them between spinners and pacers. I omitted Sobers and Greig since they defy such classification.

I also omitted those like Panesar, Stein etc who still have a long way to go for their careers.

Basic Observations

1. More bowlers prefer home conditions to away conditions than the other way around. Those above the line (perform better at home) are about two thirds of the total.
2. There is no difference in this between spinners and pacers. In both cases, those above the line is twice those below it.
3. About a third of the total spinners fall in the category of "minor variance" i.e a change in bowling average of +/- under ten percent. That means a bowler having an average of 22 percent abroad and 20 at home. Amazingly the figue of pacers in this category is also one third !!
4. This is where the similarity ends. Those who 'benefit greatly' from home conditions (30% or more) are one in three amongst all spinners and just 1 in 12 amongst pacers !!​

There are some other very interesting things that stand out.

PACERS
1. Some countries follow the 1 to three ration of those below and above the home and away advantage line. Thus we have

• SAF : 5 (better at home) against 2
• AUS : 10 against 5
• IND : 2 against 1

2. Australian and Newzealander pacers make more use of home advantage

3. Pakistanis by and large bowl better at home.

4. The great West Indian bowlers of the 70's and 80's needed no virtually no help from home conditions and performed either equaly well away or bette. Croft being the only exception. This is remarkable and shows, perhaps, that sheer pace (particularly if in quantity as well as quality) does not necessarily require a specific type of surface or environment. Is that a fair conclusion.

Here are the remarkable averages of these great West Indians at home and away.

[B]Bowler	Home	Away	Difference[/B]

Garner	22.34	19.74	-2.6
Holder	33.94	32.96	-0.98
Bishop	24.59	24.06	-0.53
Ambrose	21.2	20.79	-0.41
Holding	23.76	23.65	-0.11
Hall	25.82	26.74	0.92
Dillon	32.67	34.41	1.74
Walsh	23.69	25.03	1.34
Marshal	20.06	21.58	1.52
Croft	19.71	27.32	7.61

SPINNERS

1. Amongst the spinners, the English spinners (most are finger spinners anyway, are by and large the greatest beneficiaries of home conditions). I dont think this, necessarily, means they are great at home but that they are poor away.This must have something to do with their refusal to fligh and a general negative approach,

2. Of the 15 spinners in all whose averages improve by a third or more when bowlig at home, as many as nine are Englishmen. The only Englishman who does a bit better in away games is Giles but then that has to be so with a home average of 43.1 !!

3. Australian spinners of recent times are clearly better away than at home and for the leg spinners this is revealing. Only Noble amongst the six Aussie leg spinners has significantly better figures at home. Clearly even if Australian conditions or whatever else encourages this great art, they still do well in other environs. This is a lesson for me too.

4. The Indian spinners almost without exception bowl do much better at home. Gupte is the only exception. Same with Pakistanis - again an orthodox leg spinner, Mushtaq, is the only exception. Nothing new here.

By the way, both the Sri Lankans (one in either list), Murali and Vaas are real tigers at home.

 

[SJS]

The complete picture

 

[Richard]

Which, as it turns out, is still better than Rhodes' 24.7.

No matter how you twist it, it seems like Blythe was a better performer in test match cricket for England, as a spin bowler, than Rhodes was.

EDIT: this is before seeing SJS' post. Excellent research, that. Maybe Richard would have a bit more credit with me if he produced some research instead of just coming out with bold, brash, Hayden-like statements of 'Blythe was a bit-part player that got lucky. Give me a ****ing break!!

Yes, and between February 1998 and March 2001, Stuart MacGill was a better performer in Test match cricket for Australia than Shane Warne was. Does that make MacGill a better bowler? No, of course it doesn't.

Blythe's contributions when he was brought in were excellent ones. But he wasn't picked very often. Why? Because Rhodes (and Barnes) were both superior bowlers, Barnes' entire Test career showed this, and so did Rhodes' early Test career. And their performances at domestic level.

Blythe was not a completely useless bowler, far from it. But his Test match average flatters him, greatly. So he did get lucky. And he was a bit-part player. Never between their debuts and WWI was Blythe a superior left-arm fingerspinner to Rhodes.

 

[Ikki]

Which, as it turns out, is still better than Rhodes' 24.7.

No matter how you twist it, it seems like Blythe was a better performer in test match cricket for England, as a spin bowler, than Rhodes was.

EDIT: this is before seeing SJS' post. Excellent research, that. Maybe Richard would have a bit more credit with me if he produced some research instead of just coming out with bold, brash, Hayden-like statements of 'Blythe was a bit-part player that got lucky. Give me a ****ing break!!

Rhodes at the start rivalled Blythe but fell off the longer he bowled. He was inferior to Blythe in the bowling department but Rhodes' aptitude with the bat more than made up for it.

I was looking at the line-ups of these guys. There were more all-rounders than specialist bowlers. That should tell you something.

 

[Days of Grace]

Never between their debuts and WWI was Blythe a superior left-arm fingerspinner to Rhodes.

Again, another big, brash statement. I almost want to spend an hour on statsguru to prove you wrong, but why bother, cause we all know on here that once you take a side you never relent and you always want the last say. Waste of time, really.

 

[Richard]

No amount of StatsGuruing will change that, because StatsGuru does not contain happenings of domestic cricket. Which is the only form in which they were comparable, because Rhodes was always considered a superior bowler to Blythe when Tests were under consideration.

 

[Ikki]

No amount of StatsGuruing will change that, because StatsGuru does not contain happenings of domestic cricket. Which is the only form in which they were comparable, because Rhodes was always considered a superior bowler to Blythe when Tests were under consideration.

Dire.

Blythe also had the better FC record:

Blythe played less than half the matches that Rhodes did yet took more than half wickets and more than half balls bowled. Despite playing 671 less matches Blythe only has 69 less 5fers and actually has MORE 10 fers - 3 more, in fact. Rhodes bowled about 28 overs per match whilst Blythe bowled 39. Blythe even till his last days led the domestic competition in wicket-taking. He was simply a front-line bowler and superior to Rhodes. Rhodes' selection is clearly based on his fantastic all-round ability.

As DOG said, you won't concede this. Even if Rhodes himself rose from his grave and told you Blythe was better.

Anyway, gotta get back and do some work.

 

[Richard]

Yes indeed, without even looking at circumstances, it can be deduced that 5-fors and 10-fors are so meaningful.

(Just FTR - no, it can't. Have you any idea how much more powerful Yorkshire's attack was than Kent's in the 1900s?)

 

[Ikki]

Yes indeed, without even looking at circumstances, it can be deduced that 5-fors and 10-fors are so meaningful.

(Just FTR - no, it can't. Have you any idea how much more powerful Yorkshire's attack was than Kent's in the 1900s?)

I'm sure it was, though I doubt the difference was that much. Within both their playing days Kent took honours 4 times and Yorkshire took it 6.

We are talking about 671 matches Richard. Yet Blythe is only 60 or so away in 5fers AND has more 10fers.

 

[Richard]

Check-out the calibre of the other bowlers.

I could not care less about five-fors and ten-fors when assessing the two of them. An utterly meaningless method, due to the disparity in calibre of the rest of the attack. Average is far, far, far more important.

 

[Days of Grace]

And Blythe has almost the same average as Rhodes. Yet, as you point out, Rhodes was considered the far superior bowler. Why?

 

[SJS]

Yes, his figures against India are absolutely outstanding. Proves (or at least goes some way to suggest) that Indian batsmen are not necessarily great against spin, and said Indian efficacy against spin is more about the quality of the batsmen, than just about being Indian.

Sure, in fact till about the end of the 1970's you could only defeat India in India with at least one spinner as your lead bowler. The exceptions being West Indies who won in the early series with sheer strength of their pace and the huge totals their batsmen put up. Its an interesting study.

Here are the sides that won a series in India from the very first in 1932-33 till 1975.

[B]YEAR	TEAM    BOWLER     	RESULT[/B]
1932-33	England	Verity H     	Won
[COLOR="DarkRed"]1948-49	Windies	Jones        	Won[/COLOR]
1951-52	England	Tattersall	Won
1956-57	Aussies	Benaud     	Won
[COLOR="DarkRed"]1958-59	Windies	Hall            Won[/COLOR]
1959-60	Aussies	Benaud*    	Won
1966-67	Windies	Gibbs        	Won
1970-71	Aussies	Mallett       	Won
[COLOR="DarkRed"]1974-75	Windies	Roberts     	Won[/COLOR]
1976-77	England	Underwood	Won

In 42 years, West Indies were the only side to win a series in India without the epinner being the main wicket taker.

Here are the sides that lost a series in India during this 42 year period. Only one of them : England of 1961-62, had an attack headed by a spinner.

[B]YEAR	TOURISTS	BOWLER	RESULT[/B]
1952-53	Pakistan	Fazal	Lost
1955-56	Nzland      	Hayes	Lost
[COLOR="DarkRed"]1961-62	England     	Lock	Lost[/COLOR]
1964-65	Nzland      	Taylor	Lost
1972-73	England     	Arnold	Lost
1976-77	Nzland      	Hadlee	Lost

• Clearly either India's ability to play spin better came later,
• or the Indian wickets stopped helping spinners as much as they used to,
• or, yet again, maybe the quality of spin around the world declined

 

[Richard]

And Blythe has almost the same average as Rhodes. Yet, as you point out, Rhodes was considered the far superior bowler. Why?

Because Rhodes was a Yorkshireman. Yorkshire is automatically > anything from any other county.

In all seriousness - Rhodes was simply a more complete bowler, had more in his armoury and was reckoned to be far harder to get after. As I say - Blythe certainly wasn't useless, but was reckoned to be mentally weak, and struggled if batsmen went after him. Rhodes never did. Your best chance against Rhodes was always to try and sit on him.

 

[Richard]

• Clearly either India's ability to play spin better came later,
• or the Indian wickets stopped helping spinners as much as they used to,
• or, yet again, maybe the quality of spin around the world declined

I thought the second was taken as read?

 

[social]

Because Rhodes was a Yorkshireman. Yorkshire is automatically > anything from any other county.

In all seriousness - Rhodes was simply a more complete bowler, had more in his armoury and was reckoned to be far harder to get after. As I say - Blythe certainly wasn't useless, but was reckoned to be mentally weak, and struggled if batsmen went after him. Rhodes never did. Your best chance against Rhodes was always to try and sit on him.

Sounds like the standard of cricket was pretty poor if a guy with all these weaknesses could have such an unbelievable record

 

[Richard]

"All these"?

So how didn't hundreds of players have such records then?

 

[Migara]

SJS>>

Could you restructure your study to look at differences of perfomances in sub continent and other countries? Since sub-continet offers totally difefrent set of playing conditions for both spinners and pacers I would love to see howit would be like.