Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
Should my namesake be included? Bowling av of 1.35 and greatest batsman pre-Grace
Anyway, Miller or young WG to win it
Anyway, Miller or young WG to win it
Sooner rather than later. I'll give more people a chance to see the thread, and once the list is sorted we'll be off & running.I want to see Faulkner ranked high up too....but can't look past Miller.
List looks good to me. When does the voting/ranking begin?
Hard to see why Fry can be justifiably included. He bowled two full overs in Tests & that's it. His FC wickets to matches ratio isn't great either.I think CB Fry should be included
It'd be fun, but I don't think batsmen from the underarm/roundarm era are comparable to batsmen who face overarm.Should my namesake be included? Bowling av of 1.35 and greatest batsman pre-Grace
Might as well get straight to the prize then.
I didn't know too much about Ulyett before this..but having had a look at his record and reading some articles I think it's fair to say he's ahead of McCabe given that this is a discussion about all-rounders.Sooner rather than later. I'll give more people a chance to see the thread, and once the list is sorted we'll be off & running.
As of now if anyone wants to weigh in on Ulyett/McCabe please let your thoughts be known.
That's a very valid point. Although, one could also argue that they were contemporaries of Garfield Sobers, rather than all-rounders who preceded him.You could argue that (for example) Fred Titmus, Ray Illingworth, Trevor Goddard and Ken Mackay all graced the cricket field before Gary Sobers (being several years older), just not in Test cricket.
[American] U-lyettI didn't know too much about Ulyett before this..but having had a look at his record and reading some articles I think it's fair to say he's ahead of McCabe given that this is a discussion about all-rounders.
Out of curiosity - how do you pronounce his name?
I can categorically state that Fuller Pilch did NOT have a first class bowling average of 1.35 or a strike rate of 4.7.Should my namesake be included? Bowling av of 1.35 and greatest batsman pre-Grace
Anyway, Miller or young WG to win it
Where are these people who analyse historical cricket scorecards for a living and how do I become one of themI can categorically state that Fuller Pilch did NOT have a first class bowling average of 1.35 or a strike rate of 4.7.
Very early scorecards generally only credited bowlers with bowled dismissals, and did not record the number of balls bowled or runs conceded by the bowler. This issue gradually improved around the middle of the 19th century with the introduction of Lillywhite's Guides and Wisden's Almanack, but even as late as the 1870s some scorecards, while giving full credit to bowlers for their dismissals, didn't record the balls bowled or runs conceded. There are also a handful of first class matches where the runs conceded are recorded but bowlers aren't given credit for wickets taken with the aid of fielders (i.e catches, stumpings).
Full bowling analysis are only available for innings covering 9 of the 142 wickets Pilch is known to have taken in his first class career. Where full bowling analysis are available, Pilch is known to have taken his wickets at an average of 21.33, a strike rate of 44.66 and an economy rate of 2.44.
In their historical ignorance or complete disregard for statistical accuracy, Cricinfo have simply taken all the balls bowled and runs conceded by Pilch in the few instances where full information is available, and divided these by the total number of wickets taken in his entire career to arrive at hugely misleading averages and strike rates. The Cricketarchive figures are accurate, but admittedly confusing for people with an ability to do basic maths but no detailed knowledge of early cricket scorecards.
This issue affects nearly all pre 1870 bowlers to some extent. The best average of any bowler with (virtually) complete career figures is George Freeman, who took 284 wickets at an average of 9.84, strike rate of 35.47 and economy rate of 1.66. He also took four more wickets in match(es) where full bowling analysis were not kept. The highest wicket taker in first class cricket prior to the introduction of Test cricket (based on all available information, given the limitations identified in paragraph 2) is William Lillywhite. Where full bowling analysis are available, Lillywhite is known to have taken 235 wickets at an average of 10.36, a strike rate of 28.21 and an economy rate of 2.20. He also took a further 1,341 wickets in matches where full bowling analysis were not kept, giving a total haul of 1,576.
I hope this clarifies things.