King Tendulkar Posted April 26, 2010 Posted April 26, 2010 We have endless threads on who is the best batsman ever. eg Tendulkar or Bradman etc etc But who do people think is the greatest bowler ever? Come on no sitting on the fence name a bowler as greatest ever!
mhr123 Posted April 26, 2010 Posted April 26, 2010 Just few days before some told us about : Lohmann from 1890s is the greatest bowler ever http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=215345 Now do u want to bump the previous thread...:giggle:
King Tendulkar Posted April 26, 2010 Author Posted April 26, 2010 Well following the Bradman theory on using purely stats to judge players then statistically no doubt Lohmann is number 1. Strange how the Bradman stat fans could not accept Lohmann as the best:haha: Anyway back to bowlers and not Bradman/Tendulkar blah blah Come on chicken name the greatest bowler ever? Stop using smoke screen diversions and sitting on the fence:--D
Alam_dar Posted April 26, 2010 Posted April 26, 2010 The one I have seen, it is Wasim Akram. Tendulkar also said he found Wasim to be the most difficult bowler to bat against.
SJS50 Posted April 26, 2010 Posted April 26, 2010 S F Barnes Before anyone asks why him or stuff like that, let me try and post here what I have posted elsewhere. Here is what I had posted on that thread in November 2005. It doesn't seem like so long ago. ORIGINAL QUERY : What type of bowler was Sydney Barnes? SJS : I was always thought to my self that Sydney Barnes was a seam bowler. But reading through his profile on cricinfo, its seems he was similar to Gary Sobers. It looks like used to bowl seamers with the new ball, in a attempt to swing the ball and then bowled leg breaks with the older ball. Also he apparently develop a off break as he got older. So what do we classifly him as a fast bowler or a spin bowler, or just a slow bowler? Also does anyone else have more information on the type of bowler he was. He bowled leg breaks at medium pace. He also swung them in at the same pace and worse of all he swung them in, very sharply from oustside the off stump, they pitched on the leg stump, broke away like leg breaks and knocked off stumps out of the ground !! Barnes had..... in the eyes of most mature batsmen of the day - an aloof 'lone wolf' appearance, six feet tall, a hatchet jaw, piercing, unsmiling eyes, and a lean hungry look, hungry for wickets.... He remained a man apart, a 'mercenary', so to say. I remember him as a p[layer who most times seemed to isolate himself on the field; he wasn't given to chatter at the fall of a wicket. He sent a wind of antagonism blowing over cricket fields everywhere. ...Orielly was supposed to announce in his every motion...that he hated the sight of all batsmen. Compared with Barnes, O'rielly was a font of beneficence and geniality.Yet A.C. Maclaren vowed that no bowler ...was so easy to manage as Barnes. ' I would toss him the ball, let him set his own field - and that was that....' On a certain historical occasion, an England captain did not toss the ball to Barnes...Douglas (captaining in the absence of Warner) ran ahead and cammandeered the new ball. Barnes said to a colleague, ' What's he taking the new ball for - is he opening with Mr Foster' Douglas did open the England attack that day at Sydney, December 15th 191. Australia compiled 411....and won by 146 runs. Barnes : 35 overs; 5 maidens: 107 runs: 3 wickets and 30 overs: 8 maidens: 72 runs: 1 wicket. In the next match...Douglas tossed the new ball to Barnes....It is as wel known in cricket history, as in history proper the batles of Hastings and Waterloo are known... Barnes demolished the strong first line of Australian batsmanship by overthrowing Bardsley, Kelleway, Hill and Armstrong in five overs for one run only. At lunch Australia had somehow acquired 34 for 4; after an hour and ten minutes of ruthless, smooth, rythmic action, Barnes had bowled 9 overs: 6 maidens: 11runs: for 4 wickets. The astounding fact of this renowned piece of bowling is that Barnes was suffering from some dizziness, actually saying to his captain that he'll have to 'chuck it - I can hardly see the other end' In this Australian first innings his final figures were 23 - 9 - 44 - 5 In the series , which England won eventually, Barnes had 32 wickets at 21.6 runs each. He was 38 years old then. There is a popular misconception that Barnes took most of his wickets against South Africa. This is not true. While he did demolish South Africa in the 7 games he p[layed against them, his performance against Australia was not to be scoffed at. In 20 Ashes games, Barnes took 106 test wickets at 21.6 each getting a five wicket haul 12 times. England played Australia 43 times between 1901 (when Barnes made his debut) and 1914 (when he played his last game) of these Barnes played less than half. This, inspite of the fact that he was by fasr the most devastating bowler IN TESTS during this period with 189 wickets in 27 tests(87 against SAF in 7 games besides those against Australia. He was easily the most successful bowler in the Ashes in this period (with his 102 in 20 games) which included great bowlers on both the sides, England used, besides Barnes... - Rhodes 81 in 33 - Braund 46 in 20 - Hirst 46 in 19 - Blythe 41 in 9 games - Foster 34 in 8 (32 in one series mentioned above) And its not as if he had bad form because of which he was dropped. There is also a fallacy about easy wickets against South Africa. Well England disnt include him in all games. They plated three series against South Africa during this period without Barnes and here are the results. - 1905-06 (In SAfrica) England lost 1-4 !! - 1907 (In England) England won 1-0 ( 2 games drawn) - 1909-10 (In S Africa) England lost 2-3 !! A grand score of 4 to 7 (with 2 draws - Clearly if any team looked like being the minows. it wasnt S Africa Then, with Barnes ending his career, at the age of 39 he was played in the series in England in 1912 (also involving Australia). - England won 3-0 Barnes doing it single handedly with 34 wickets in 3 games at 8.3 runs each !!! - Then they took him to S Africa at the ripe old age of 40 and in the four tests that he played, he took a record (most likely never to be equalled) 49 wickets (in 4 tests mind you) at 10.9 each. England won the series 4-0. Surely it was only Barnes who made S Africa look like they couldnt tell which end of the bat to hold not anyone else in England. This was more a commentary on the ever improving genius of Barnes rather than South Africa being such no-hopers. England during this period were not a very strong side. They could ill afford to keep a bowler like Barnes out, yet they did. It is anybody's guess what his tally (189 in 27 tests) would have been had he played those additional 20 games against Australia and the 15 juicy ones (for Barnes alone) against the Proteas !! Coming back to what he bowled, this is what Clem Hill, one of the greatest left handers produced by Australia had to say after being dismissed by Barnes I was in first wicket down, after Bardsley had gone for 0. I got four, probably from Foster...I wanted to get away from Barnes. I played three different balls. Three balls to play in a split second - a staight 'un, an in swinger and a break back ! Then along came one which was staright half way, not more than medium pace. (Then) It swerved to my legs, perfect for tickling round the corner for a single. But the ruddy thing (again) broke across after pitching, quick off the ground and took my off stump !' - Clem Hill Consider that he could do the same thing exactly in reverse (Its mirror copy) for right handers and you can now start thinking what he bowled. Those who will never be convinced there ever was a better bowler are not toptally stupid it would appear. Charled Macartney (Australian skipper and great batsman) maintains that at Leeds in July 1909, Barnes bowled the legendry Victor Trunper .....'with a sort of ball that a batsman sees only when he is tight (drunk). I was at the other end, I should know !' More on what he bowled ... It is ...at any rate clear that Barnes executed his leg break without turning the wrist, an action which gives some notice to the batsman. Appartently Barnes manipulated the leg turn mainly by leverage of the third finger - as most leg spinners do, though most of them need to twist over the wrist." This probably explains his maintaing the seam position as would an inswing bowler so that the ball would swing inwards in the air and still break away on pitching. ....Mentally mingle the best of Tate and Bedser; length, pace, swing, then add a tincture of Orielly, then maybe some adumbration will emerge or loom of Barnes in full spate. (Cardus) Boy, did he last !! In his sixtieth year he was fit and able enough to hold his own in the tight and technically and tempramentally challenging air of Lancashire league contests; for Rawtenstall, in 1932 (he was born in 1873) his bowling figures were 440 overs, 819 runs, 113 wickets at 7.25 ! In 1929, he took 114 at 6.62 ! It was in 1929 that Patsy Hendren journeyed to Lancashire to play as professional in place of an injured pro. It was allowed in those days for leagues to call up Lords for replacements. As Middlesex weren't playing Hendren packed his bags and left, Here is how he puts it. ' A lovely day and the groundsman was putting the finishing touches to the pitch. I pressed the turf ' " Plenty of runs in it?" I said ' " Yes Sir, a beauty for a one day match, though I say it myself"' Patsy fondled the turf ' " Yes it IS a beauty.... By the way, its a good game this afternoon?" ' " Oh ay, Sir - a local Derby; Castleton Moore against Rochedale. There'll be a full house" ' " I am told if the Pro does pretty well they send the collection round the crowd?" ' "Oh ay Sir - and there will be a good 'un this match believe you me" " Once more Patsy admired the pitch. ' " Yes its a beauty. And a good collection(from the crowd) for fifty runs ? By the way, who's the pro for the other side today" ' " Sydney Barnes, Sir" ' " Oh gawd" .... ' We won the toss and I managed to hang on. They didnt put up a batsman's score on the board - just fall of wickets and last man out; you know, 120-7-13. 'When a new batsman came in, he called down the pitch "You are forty-nine" 'If I'd had any sense I'd have said to Barney, 50/50 shares in the collection. But I didnt and next ball from him pitched on my leg stump and tok the off, a brute of a ball !' Jack Hobbs on Barnes Most of the quotes so far have been from Cardus's book. Here is what the greatest opening batsman of all time had to say of Barnes.' "Syd Barnes, SF, I've always put at the very top. He was the best bowler ever. I dont think even now there was anyone better, although, I admit, there are others almost his equals, like Bill ORielly. Syd hated batsmen. He had the leg break, the off-break and he was FAST...tall and made the ball get up unpleasant heights" - Hobbs Some more on what he bowled !! My trump card in the Spofforth-Barnes-Trumble dispute is this - Spofforth's most dangerous ball, as everybody agreed, who saw him, was the off break. As everybody knows ....... the "Barnes ball" spun the other way - from the leg to the off. Now there is a counter, an answer, to the off-break, which comes into the bat. There is a stroke for the off break - and on a good wicket even the 'modern' leg-cluster of fieldsmen is no guaranteed answer..... The spinning away ball, at Barnes' pace, only subtely short of length that impels a forward push, is nine times out of ten.....certain to find the bat's edge. There is another point in favour of the claim for ascendency of Barnes: his velocity off the pitch off the beautifully-prepared wickets laid down in Australia in the 1900's onward......The most marvellous fact of all the marvellous bowling conquests of Barnes is that it was in Australia, in the days of Australia's prolific run harvest, that the greatest of them were witnessed. - Cardus The Don on Barnes "Barnes and O'Rielly were the two greatest bowlers who ever lived. Each was undoubtedly the greatest of his time... From all accounts, they were similar in style. Barnes was faster, but he didn't have the googly. They were both aggressive and could deliver perhaps the hardest of all deliveries to keep out - the very quick leg-break. O'Rielly was reletless and unforgiving if you managed to strike him to the boundary. Reports suggest that Barnes was in some ways similar in character. He may have had more variety in his deliveries than O'Rielly. Barnes bowled fast off-breaks (besides the leg-breaks), out swingers and in swingers. Like O'Rielly he would have been a handful for the best batsman of any era" - Don Bradman COMMENT : ... well is seems that he bowled leg breaks at similar pace to Afridi, but a lot more accurate. But with his extra pace he was capable of doing more with the ball then the average leggie and could bowl in swingers and out swingers at similar pace to his leg breaks. Well all in all he seems to be a freck of a bowler that could do about anything with the ball. SJS : He was much much faster than Afridi. He is compared to Orielly who was pretty quick though a spinner and with Bedser and Tate who were medium pacers. COMMENT : I become quite confused with these old players, I always thought Hugh Trumble to be an off-spinner but Peter Sharpman (writer) claims that he was in fact a lot faster. Also 'Terror Turner' was once clocked at 55 miles an hour? And we have the 'Demon' Spofforth credited with a stumping by Jack Blackham off his bowling, and this when he was quite young? SJS : 1. Cardus was talking of who was the greatest bowler, till then, ever. It seems he had a difference of opinion with Hugh Trumble who favoured Spofforth over Barnes. So Cardus calls it the "Spofforth-Barnes-Trumble dispute" 2. Re Turner draw your own conclusion from this... He stands about 5 ft. 9 in., and bowls right hand, above medium pace, with a beautifully easy delivery, his hand not being very high at the moment the ball quits it. He has a fine break from the off, and bowls a wonderful yorker, but the great thing about him is that he makes the ball rise from the pitch faster perhaps than any bowler we have seen. Turner in his rather long rhythmic run and beautiful right-arm action without any effort to make the most of his medium height--five feet nine inches. He delivered the ball almost facing square down the pitch, and, added to his off-break with slightly varied pace about fast-medium, was ability to turn the ball from leg, send down a fast yorker, and, above all, to get quick lift from the turf. As sufficient evidence of Turner's skill, Sir Stanley Jackson said in last year's Wisden, I always regarded Charles Turner as the best medium-paced bowler I ever played against....- - Wisden 1889 3. As for the stumping, yesterday the England keeper was standing right on the stumps to Hoggard when Afridi was batting and cooly collected the deliveries outside the off stump !! I am sure he wanted to stump Afridi if he went out of the crease and missed. It is possible if the bowler has control and both he and keeper know what he is going to bowl. Here are some more cases of stumpings of medium to real fast bowlers that you may find interesting. Bowler......Stumpings in test match bowling Barnes......4 Turner.......6 Davidson...1 Bedser......3 Tate..........1 Constantine...2 I am sure there are many more COMMENT : All this talk about pace bowlers bowling off breaks and leg breaks still happens now. Kaspa bowls a off break (off cutter) these days and guys like Stryis and Kluesener bowl a lot of fast off breaks, but all these guys would still be classifed as pace bowlers. SJS : And off-cutter was a later terminology. As was a tendency to equate off-break with off-spin with slow bowling. Originally, with over arm bowling almost all bowlers tried to move the ball in from the off. This was called an off-break. Whether it was slow off-break or fast offf-break was an appendage to the description. Almost all the early fast bowlers bowled off-breaks. Later when bowlers like Barnes started bowling leg-breaks(purely called so due to the movement from leg to off from the pitch) and did it at high pace and did it with consistent line and length (not associated then with leg break), it became clear that a new weapon had been discovered and more and more bowlers started learning to master the control of this type of bowling. Another fact to remember is that in the earlies times mid 19th century, the grounds were horrendous (not that the wickets were great) so that the ball got roughened up quick time. Thus swerve wasnt available to the bowlers and breaking off the wicket was the best bet. The wicket conditions encouraged that too. I'll try and add to this.
gaurav92 Posted April 26, 2010 Posted April 26, 2010 The one I have seen, it is Wasim Akram. Tendulkar also said he found Wasim to be the most difficult bowler to bat against. 2003 WC *cough*
SJS50 Posted April 26, 2010 Posted April 26, 2010 Frank Woolley in his book, 'King of The Game' writes thumbnail sketches of players he has seen. Woolley played his first Test match in 1909 and his last in 1930. He played first class cricket right upto 1938, so he had seen almost all the great players of almost two generations and played as an England colleague of Barnes watching from the best possible place to see a master bowler at work - the slips. He covers players from Trumper to Bradman. At the very end of the thumbnails he writes of SF Barnes. Here is what he writes. S F BARNES On the principal of the finest plums being kept to the last, the reader finds the greatest bowler of them all at the end of my little thumbnail gallery. Syd Barnes must be tired of hearing and reading of himself being described as the greatest of all bowlers. To be sure that is a tall order. But I expect he has got over the monotony! From the time he was discovered by Mr AC Maclaren, who took him, a quite unknown bowler to Australia in 1901-02 on the last tour that was run before the management of our International cricket devolved on the Board of Control. Barnes never looked back. As showing the strength of Australian cricket at that time, England won only one Test, Australia four, although Barnes had 19 wickets for 17.00 each..... The correct pitching of the fast leg break by Barnes was perhaps the factor that first attracted Mr MacLaren. But that one was far from being the only shot in Syd's well-filled locker. He had a beautiful enduring action, one of the most graceful I saw in a bowler so hostile and so capable. His almost natural leg spin caused the ball to swerve in towards the batsman; that itself inducing "playing inside," which to any good length ball pitching on middle and leg is fatal when that ball is as likely as not to straighten, if not turn towards the off, on pitching. Add to this deadly characteristic the attacking temprament of the bowler, who, as I saw frequently from the slips, hid his intentions from the batsman, and the devastation which Barnes could, and did, spread in the ranks of thoroughly accomplished batsmen stands explained. Barnes had more perfect control of the ball than any other bowler of my time. Bowling both leg and off breaks, both in and out swerves, maintaining length and pitching a yorker almost at will, Barnes was a modest estimate of four or five bowlers in one. If a slip fielder stays awake he can tell better than anyone on the field how and why the batsman was out. From my vantage point I have never noticed in the case of any other bowler, so many batsmen so utterly lost as were many who were bowled, as Clem Hill used to say, "base over turkey" by Barnes. With my doughty partner in several tight corners for Kent, Arthur Fielder, Barnes helped to win the second Test of the 1907-08 tour, under Mr AO Jones, at Melbourne, by one wicket, Barnes 38 and Fielder 18 not out; but Syd goes down to posterity as the greatest of all bowlers. It is said that the third pays for all. Barnes visited Australia three times. On each of the first two visits Australia won 4-1, but on his third visit England won 4, Australia 1. His Test bowling figures in Australia and the total result of 15 Tests on his three tours there are, in my opinion, a monument to the strength of Australian batting in 1901-12*. His figures were :- [B]YEAR OVERS MAIDENS RUNS WKTS AVG[/B] 1901-02 138.2 23 323 19 17 1907-08 273.2 74 626 24 26.08 1911-12 297 64 778 34 22.88 [B]OVERALL 708.4 171 1727 77 21.98[/B] *Note : When mentioning Barnes's remarkable figures against Australia, Woolley does not praise Barnes but the Australian batting for not letting Barnes have far more striking figures as he would have had against most oppositions. English cricket, now in sore straits for the lack of Barnes class bowling, would revive like magic if a bowler of anything like his ability was to arrive on the scene*. We can only hope for the best ..... Note * :- Written in 1936.
gaurav92 Posted April 26, 2010 Posted April 26, 2010 Before anyone asks why him or stuff like that, let me try and post here what I have posted elsewhere. Here is what I had posted on that thread in November 2005. It doesn't seem like so long ago. ORIGINAL QUERY : What type of bowler was Sydney Barnes? SJS : I was always thought to my self that Sydney Barnes was a seam bowler. But reading through his profile on cricinfo, its seems he was similar to Gary Sobers. It looks like used to bowl seamers with the new ball, in a attempt to swing the ball and then bowled leg breaks with the older ball. Also he apparently develop a off break as he got older. So what do we classifly him as a fast bowler or a spin bowler, or just a slow bowler? Also does anyone else have more information on the type of bowler he was. He bowled leg breaks at medium pace. He also swung them in at the same pace and worse of all he swung them in, very sharply from oustside the off stump, they pitched on the leg stump, broke away like leg breaks and knocked off stumps out of the ground !! Barnes had..... in the eyes of most mature batsmen of the day - an aloof 'lone wolf' appearance, six feet tall, a hatchet jaw, piercing, unsmiling eyes, and a lean hungry look, hungry for wickets.... He remained a man apart, a 'mercenary', so to say. I remember him as a p[layer who most times seemed to isolate himself on the field; he wasn't given to chatter at the fall of a wicket. He sent a wind of antagonism blowing over cricket fields everywhere. ...Orielly was supposed to announce in his every motion...that he hated the sight of all batsmen. Compared with Barnes, O'rielly was a font of beneficence and geniality.Yet A.C. Maclaren vowed that no bowler ...was so easy to manage as Barnes. ' I would toss him the ball, let him set his own field - and that was that....' On a certain historical occasion, an England captain did not toss the ball to Barnes...Douglas (captaining in the absence of Warner) ran ahead and cammandeered the new ball. Barnes said to a colleague, ' What's he taking the new ball for - is he opening with Mr Foster' Douglas did open the England attack that day at Sydney, December 15th 191. Australia compiled 411....and won by 146 runs. Barnes : 35 overs; 5 maidens: 107 runs: 3 wickets and 30 overs: 8 maidens: 72 runs: 1 wicket. In the next match...Douglas tossed the new ball to Barnes....It is as wel known in cricket history, as in history proper the batles of Hastings and Waterloo are known... Barnes demolished the strong first line of Australian batsmanship by overthrowing Bardsley, Kelleway, Hill and Armstrong in five overs for one run only. At lunch Australia had somehow acquired 34 for 4; after an hour and ten minutes of ruthless, smooth, rythmic action, Barnes had bowled 9 overs: 6 maidens: 11runs: for 4 wickets. The astounding fact of this renowned piece of bowling is that Barnes was suffering from some dizziness, actually saying to his captain that he'll have to 'chuck it - I can hardly see the other end' In this Australian first innings his final figures were 23 - 9 - 44 - 5 In the series , which England won eventually, Barnes had 32 wickets at 21.6 runs each. He was 38 years old then. There is a popular misconception that Barnes took most of his wickets against South Africa. This is not true. While he did demolish South Africa in the 7 games he p[layed against them, his performance against Australia was not to be scoffed at. In 20 Ashes games, Barnes took 106 test wickets at 21.6 each getting a five wicket haul 12 times. England played Australia 43 times between 1901 (when Barnes made his debut) and 1914 (when he played his last game) of these Barnes played less than half. This, inspite of the fact that he was by fasr the most devastating bowler IN TESTS during this period with 189 wickets in 27 tests(87 against SAF in 7 games besides those against Australia. He was easily the most successful bowler in the Ashes in this period (with his 102 in 20 games) which included great bowlers on both the sides, England used, besides Barnes... - Rhodes 81 in 33 - Braund 46 in 20 - Hirst 46 in 19 - Blythe 41 in 9 games - Foster 34 in 8 (32 in one series mentioned above) And its not as if he had bad form because of which he was dropped. There is also a fallacy about easy wickets against South Africa. Well England disnt include him in all games. They plated three series against South Africa during this period without Barnes and here are the results. - 1905-06 (In SAfrica) England lost 1-4 !! - 1907 (In England) England won 1-0 ( 2 games drawn) - 1909-10 (In S Africa) England lost 2-3 !! A grand score of 4 to 7 (with 2 draws - Clearly if any team looked like being the minows. it wasnt S Africa Then, with Barnes ending his career, at the age of 39 he was played in the series in England in 1912 (also involving Australia). - England won 3-0 Barnes doing it single handedly with 34 wickets in 3 games at 8.3 runs each !!! - Then they took him to S Africa at the ripe old age of 40 and in the four tests that he played, he took a record (most likely never to be equalled) 49 wickets (in 4 tests mind you) at 10.9 each. England won the series 4-0. Surely it was only Barnes who made S Africa look like they couldnt tell which end of the bat to hold not anyone else in England. This was more a commentary on the ever improving genius of Barnes rather than South Africa being such no-hopers. England during this period were not a very strong side. They could ill afford to keep a bowler like Barnes out, yet they did. It is anybody's guess what his tally (189 in 27 tests) would have been had he played those additional 20 games against Australia and the 15 juicy ones (for Barnes alone) against the Proteas !! Coming back to what he bowled, this is what Clem Hill, one of the greatest left handers produced by Australia had to say after being dismissed by Barnes I was in first wicket down, after Bardsley had gone for 0. I got four, probably from Foster...I wanted to get away from Barnes. I played three different balls. Three balls to play in a split second - a staight 'un, an in swinger and a break back ! Then along came one which was staright half way, not more than medium pace. (Then) It swerved to my legs, perfect for tickling round the corner for a single. But the ruddy thing (again) broke across after pitching, quick off the ground and took my off stump !' - Clem Hill Consider that he could do the same thing exactly in reverse (Its mirror copy) for right handers and you can now start thinking what he bowled. Those who will never be convinced there ever was a better bowler are not toptally stupid it would appear. Charled Macartney (Australian skipper and great batsman) maintains that at Leeds in July 1909, Barnes bowled the legendry Victor Trunper .....'with a sort of ball that a batsman sees only when he is tight (drunk). I was at the other end, I should know !' More on what he bowled ... It is ...at any rate clear that Barnes executed his leg break without turning the wrist, an action which gives some notice to the batsman. Appartently Barnes manipulated the leg turn mainly by leverage of the third finger - as most leg spinners do, though most of them need to twist over the wrist." This probably explains his maintaing the seam position as would an inswing bowler so that the ball would swing inwards in the air and still break away on pitching. ....Mentally mingle the best of Tate and Bedser; length, pace, swing, then add a tincture of Orielly, then maybe some adumbration will emerge or loom of Barnes in full spate. (Cardus) Boy, did he last !! In his sixtieth year he was fit and able enough to hold his own in the tight and technically and tempramentally challenging air of Lancashire league contests; for Rawtenstall, in 1932 (he was born in 1873) his bowling figures were 440 overs, 819 runs, 113 wickets at 7.25 ! In 1929, he took 114 at 6.62 ! It was in 1929 that Patsy Hendren journeyed to Lancashire to play as professional in place of an injured pro. It was allowed in those days for leagues to call up Lords for replacements. As Middlesex weren't playing Hendren packed his bags and left, Here is how he puts it. ' A lovely day and the groundsman was putting the finishing touches to the pitch. I pressed the turf ' " Plenty of runs in it?" I said ' " Yes Sir, a beauty for a one day match, though I say it myself"' Patsy fondled the turf ' " Yes it IS a beauty.... By the way, its a good game this afternoon?" ' " Oh ay, Sir - a local Derby; Castleton Moore against Rochedale. There'll be a full house" ' " I am told if the Pro does pretty well they send the collection round the crowd?" ' "Oh ay Sir - and there will be a good 'un this match believe you me" " Once more Patsy admired the pitch. ' " Yes its a beauty. And a good collection(from the crowd) for fifty runs ? By the way, who's the pro for the other side today" ' " Sydney Barnes, Sir" ' " Oh gawd" .... ' We won the toss and I managed to hang on. They didnt put up a batsman's score on the board - just fall of wickets and last man out; you know, 120-7-13. 'When a new batsman came in, he called down the pitch "You are forty-nine" 'If I'd had any sense I'd have said to Barney, 50/50 shares in the collection. But I didnt and next ball from him pitched on my leg stump and tok the off, a brute of a ball !' Jack Hobbs on Barnes Most of the quotes so far have been from Cardus's book. Here is what the greatest opening batsman of all time had to say of Barnes.' "Syd Barnes, SF, I've always put at the very top. He was the best bowler ever. I dont think even now there was anyone better, although, I admit, there are others almost his equals, like Bill ORielly. Syd hated batsmen. He had the leg break, the off-break and he was FAST...tall and made the ball get up unpleasant heights" - Hobbs Some more on what he bowled !! My trump card in the Spofforth-Barnes-Trumble dispute is this - Spofforth's most dangerous ball, as everybody agreed, who saw him, was the off break. As everybody knows ....... the "Barnes ball" spun the other way - from the leg to the off. Now there is a counter, an answer, to the off-break, which comes into the bat. There is a stroke for the off break - and on a good wicket even the 'modern' leg-cluster of fieldsmen is no guaranteed answer..... The spinning away ball, at Barnes' pace, only subtely short of length that impels a forward push, is nine times out of ten.....certain to find the bat's edge. There is another point in favour of the claim for ascendency of Barnes: his velocity off the pitch off the beautifully-prepared wickets laid down in Australia in the 1900's onward......The most marvellous fact of all the marvellous bowling conquests of Barnes is that it was in Australia, in the days of Australia's prolific run harvest, that the greatest of them were witnessed. - Cardus The Don on Barnes "Barnes and O'Rielly were the two greatest bowlers who ever lived. Each was undoubtedly the greatest of his time... From all accounts, they were similar in style. Barnes was faster, but he didn't have the googly. They were both aggressive and could deliver perhaps the hardest of all deliveries to keep out - the very quick leg-break. O'Rielly was reletless and unforgiving if you managed to strike him to the boundary. Reports suggest that Barnes was in some ways similar in character. He may have had more variety in his deliveries than O'Rielly. Barnes bowled fast off-breaks (besides the leg-breaks), out swingers and in swingers. Like O'Rielly he would have been a handful for the best batsman of any era" - Don Bradman COMMENT : ... well is seems that he bowled leg breaks at similar pace to Afridi, but a lot more accurate. But with his extra pace he was capable of doing more with the ball then the average leggie and could bowl in swingers and out swingers at similar pace to his leg breaks. Well all in all he seems to be a freck of a bowler that could do about anything with the ball. SJS : He was much much faster than Afridi. He is compared to Orielly who was pretty quick though a spinner and with Bedser and Tate who were medium pacers. COMMENT : I become quite confused with these old players, I always thought Hugh Trumble to be an off-spinner but Peter Sharpman (writer) claims that he was in fact a lot faster. Also 'Terror Turner' was once clocked at 55 miles an hour? And we have the 'Demon' Spofforth credited with a stumping by Jack Blackham off his bowling, and this when he was quite young? SJS : 1. Cardus was talking of who was the greatest bowler, till then, ever. It seems he had a difference of opinion with Hugh Trumble who favoured Spofforth over Barnes. So Cardus calls it the "Spofforth-Barnes-Trumble dispute" 2. Re Turner draw your own conclusion from this... He stands about 5 ft. 9 in., and bowls right hand, above medium pace, with a beautifully easy delivery, his hand not being very high at the moment the ball quits it. He has a fine break from the off, and bowls a wonderful yorker, but the great thing about him is that he makes the ball rise from the pitch faster perhaps than any bowler we have seen. Turner in his rather long rhythmic run and beautiful right-arm action without any effort to make the most of his medium height--five feet nine inches. He delivered the ball almost facing square down the pitch, and, added to his off-break with slightly varied pace about fast-medium, was ability to turn the ball from leg, send down a fast yorker, and, above all, to get quick lift from the turf. As sufficient evidence of Turner's skill, Sir Stanley Jackson said in last year's Wisden, I always regarded Charles Turner as the best medium-paced bowler I ever played against....- - Wisden 1889 3. As for the stumping, yesterday the England keeper was standing right on the stumps to Hoggard when Afridi was batting and cooly collected the deliveries outside the off stump !! I am sure he wanted to stump Afridi if he went out of the crease and missed. It is possible if the bowler has control and both he and keeper know what he is going to bowl. Here are some more cases of stumpings of medium to real fast bowlers that you may find interesting. Bowler......Stumpings in test match bowling Barnes......4 Turner.......6 Davidson...1 Bedser......3 Tate..........1 Constantine...2 I am sure there are many more COMMENT : All this talk about pace bowlers bowling off breaks and leg breaks still happens now. Kaspa bowls a off break (off cutter) these days and guys like Stryis and Kluesener bowl a lot of fast off breaks, but all these guys would still be classifed as pace bowlers. SJS : And off-cutter was a later terminology. As was a tendency to equate off-break with off-spin with slow bowling. Originally, with over arm bowling almost all bowlers tried to move the ball in from the off. This was called an off-break. Whether it was slow off-break or fast offf-break was an appendage to the description. Almost all the early fast bowlers bowled off-breaks. Later when bowlers like Barnes started bowling leg-breaks(purely called so due to the movement from leg to off from the pitch) and did it at high pace and did it with consistent line and length (not associated then with leg break), it became clear that a new weapon had been discovered and more and more bowlers started learning to master the control of this type of bowling. Another fact to remember is that in the earlies times mid 19th century, the grounds were horrendous (not that the wickets were great) so that the ball got roughened up quick time. Thus swerve wasnt available to the bowlers and breaking off the wicket was the best bet. The wicket conditions encouraged that too. I'll try and add to this. :vroam: Nahi aisa paap mat karna
SJS50 Posted April 26, 2010 Posted April 26, 2010 Its true he used his fingers to impart leg spin and not really the wrist as is done by leg spinners but that does not mean he bowled like Iverson. Ralph Barker's account is slightly misleading in this regard. A regular leg spinner uses the wrist to get most of the turn. In fact the wrist turned at 45 to 60 degrees to the arm as you can see in these pictures of Warne and Grimmett below below So they get most of the effort on the ball from the wrist movement at the time of release. Hence the term wrist spinner. Barnes was different from these leg spinners in that he did not bend his wrist at all. His wrist was firm in line with his bowling arm as would be for a medium pacer, He just used his very long fingers to snap almost violently at the time of release. The fact that he did not turn his wrist at all is what made the ball spin viciously in the air "without losing the integrity of the seam position". The seam continued in the direction in which it was pointing as it would do for a seamer. This is why his deliveries could first swing in the air, and then after pitching, break away like a leg break making him near impossible to play. He could control the swing and extent of break off the wicket by merely adjusting the direction in which the seam was poniting. Thats why he was not a wrist spinner but a swerve and break bowler and he bowled at fairly high speeds and released the ball from a very high point - again something regular leg spinners dont do. His arm was very erect during delivery and the wrist was not bent. There arent many pictures of Barnes available but you can get an idea from this sequence.
SJS50 Posted April 26, 2010 Posted April 26, 2010 :vroam: Nahi aisa paap mat karna It was too late because I did not see your post by the tie I had done my cut and paste job. I will keep that in mind for the future. You can be sure. :)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now