It's often said that the best English all-rounder was a Yorkshireman who batted with his right hand, and bowler with his left. That's as specific as it gets, as there is almost nothing to split Messrs Rhodes and Hirst.
Rhodes played 1110 county games; Hirst 826. They both averaged above 30 with the bat (Hirst slightly higher, at 34), and under 20 with the ball (Rhodes significantly so, at 14 runs per wicket). Both had strong Test careers, however neither have the statistics to represent their respective talents. Statistics do not do these men justice.
Rhodes was, contrary to the figures, never really a true all rounder - his batting statistics are brought down by time spend focusing solely on bowling, while his bowling figures suffer slightly by the time spent as a pure batsman. And yet he still only fell fractionally short of a 40 000 run, 4 000 wicket double - a feat that surely will never be matched. And yet he still did the 1 000/100 double on sixteen separate occasions.
Hirst achieved this feat 14 times, and was plainly the better batsman than Rhodes. He was more naturally talented, whereas Rhodes worked extremely hard to mould himself into a batsman. His score of 341, made in 1905, is still a Yorkshire county record. He bowled slightly above medium pace, swinging the ball to dramatic effect - he is known as the father of modern seam and swing bowling - while compiling runs for fun with a strong back-foot game. Rumour has it that only a yorker would not be hooked or cut.
They are romantic characters from a romantic era, Rhodes, the left arm orthodox spinner who always tossed it up, tempting the batsman or beating him, whilst never dropping short, and the opening batsman who partnered Jack Hobbs with huge success; Hirst, the left arm seamer with incredible skill, often partnering Rhodes with ball in hand to skittle opposition teams (including Australia for 36), one of the most popular cricketers of all time - not just his own era.
So how do I split these two to come up with a definitive selection? The short answer is that I can't - for every benefit Rhodes has, Hirst has one to cancel it out. Rhodes' flexibility is neutered by Hirst's superior fielding (one of the greatest ever at mid on, a crucial position in his times). In hindsight, I should have selected both - however when it comes down to picking one, it has to be
Wilfred Rhodes.
- C.B. Fry (6)
- Denis Compton (8)
- Charlie Macartney (7)
- Everton Weekes
- Keith Miller [c] (4)
- Neil Harvey
- Mike Procter (3)
- Don Tallon [+]
- Bart King (1)
- Wilfred Rhodes (5)
- Harold Larwood (2)
12th Man: Subhash Gupte
