Trevor P: Great Bowlers of All Time (1928)

As in great batsmen, Trevor clearly states his criteria. "I am going to ruthlessly rule out of consideration all the bowlers who performed prior to the `eighties [1880`s!]" He does this on the basis of the quality of wicketstoo easy to bowl out a side on those poor wickets. "The passport for the entrance of a bowler into the land of the great must bear on its visa the words, `perennially fit and always available`. He also lays great store on temperament and performance over a protracted period at the highest level.

The first bowler to whom he gives serious consideration is Sidney Barnes. `He brought no new factor to the art of bowling. He did practically everything that a bowler should do just a shade better than any bowler had done it before". However, after extolling Barnes greatness, he eventually rejects him. "But Barnes needed nursingvery careful nursing. also by temperament he was largely dependent upon initial success". So despite admitting Barnes would not fail him on the big occasion, Barnes is not considered as "truly" great.

His other two candidates are Rhodes and Richardson. Both clearly were durable players of superb temperament. "You could not break Tom`s heart even if you stone-walled him, while if you went for him he could not.... control the smile that spread over his face" He emphasized that Richardson was usually the only fast bowler in the side, and recalls his bowling for three hours and ten minutes unchanged (no tea interval) against the Australians at Manchester in 1896.

"The most perfect labour saving device I have ever seen is the bowling action of Wilfred Rhodes". "Rhodes `puts put".

"Tom was the more constant, and consequently the greater, bowling force. Swells as well as rabbits were by him discomfited on good wickets, and slaughtered by him on bad ones". Honourable mentions to Vogler, Faulkner, Hirst, Foster, Peel, Lockwood, and others, but none of these are given serious consideration.

Interesting choice- Rhodes and Barnes make many of our XI greatest bowler lists, and I`m not sure that Richardson made any, but Trevor saw these people play. He also paid more attention to character and less to statistics than most of us do today. Myself- I would venture that the "greatest" bowlers were those who could get out the greatest batsmen on a good wicket, and would not be so quick to discount Barnes. Is it possible that Trevor in part disliked Barnes` anti-establishment attitudea professional who did not know his place?