Rhodes' Test career when he was the stock-standard age for Test cricketers was every bit as good as anyone has ever been.
Rhodes played many more Tests post-war when he barely bowled, playing mostly as an opening batsman (and performing the role with distinction in the pre-Sutcliffe days).
The start of his career, when he was the "normal" age you'd expect a Test cricketer to be, count far more for me than anything which happened after he changed his roles.
And not many people (if any) would be capable of returning to Tests at 49 and 52 years of age and still performing very well indeed, despite being cast into a role they had not performed for over a decade.
EDIT: in the first decade of Rhodes' Test career, he
played 26 matches, all against Australia, taking 94 wickets at 22.78.
In his
next 27 games he bowled just 288 overs for 17 wickets. He averaged
34.13 with the bat in that time.
Then
he excelled on his dramatic recall in 1926, and performed admirably in 4 games (not considered Tests at the time) in West Indies, going for 0.86-an-over in 45 overs in his final game. No-one else has ever even looked like doing that. Few have been given the chance, of course, but few would be good enough for anyone to even consider it.
