I'm sincerely very sorry that the online forum format doesn't turn out to be the best way to convey what I thought must have been very obvious sarcasm. The thread was started half for a laugh as anything, with the other half being an interesting way to consider a contrast between the radical changes of cricket from old to modern times.
Perhaps try make it more obvious. Anyone who has done a bit of research knows they aren't comparable in bowling styes, but you have complete idiots like the one above who think they are.
On a more serious note, I'm highly skeptical of this specific turn of phrase to describe bowler pace, especially from eras where we have scant footage of play, let alone stopwatch/speedgun measurement of pace. Like literally, what the hell does that even mean?? (and yes I get the vague sort of definitional meaning of in between fast and medium, I'm talking about some sort of scientific rigor or even just a bit of precision)
Most of the people who could tell you who the closest relatives to Barnes are in bowling style are long dead. Some wrote about it, but not nearly enough, especially those that were professional cricketers themselves. Bradman for instance is 20 years gone, and aside from a quick quote likening him to some leg spin bowlers of his era, didn't offer much.
Bradman, as far as I know, never saw Barnes bowl either
However, we know that Barnes was Homo sapiens sapiens and as a result there are things such a species can do, and cannot. Then we know the five and half ounce red ball keeps with laws of physics, so once again we know what it can and cannot do. Once we cut the crap out in the form of glorifying from the accounts of the past, we can get a good idea what Barnes could have bowled.
Think technically fast-medium are supposed to be quicker but it doesn't mean much and they tend to be applied arbitrarily.
I was going to say it was pretty bloody obvious but you make a good point here
Dunno about the older days but at least in the TV era since mid 90s, fast medium is 130-140 while medium fast is 120-130 in kph. And I guess just about anything below 120 and not spin is just "medium".
It can make linguistic sense if you consider it to mean like, medium level of the fast category compared to fast level of the medium category, which is what I thought as a kid
Fuller Pilch, and it's not even close.
The depth of the slips is a measure you can use and I've seen Barnes' slips stand quite deep especially in Australia. Barnes knew his money earning potential and conserved his resources to extend his career. I think this adds to the confusion over his category. When he was bowling in conditions or against opposition that didn't warrant it he cut his pace. However he would often make demands conditional on touring Australia because he would have to apply his skills at top pace which he, not unreasonably thought, could curtail or end his career. In fact his first tour here was ended at the start of the 3rd test with a knee injury.
