Wilfred Rhodes vs Monte Noble

[a massive zebra]

Averaging 16 is legendary on its own but to do so over 30+ years is scarcely believable. It means that there would be many, many summers averaging much less than that under the surface as overall averages sell players with such lengthy careers short imo. CBF digging yearly stats for both in FC cricket and those of their peers to make a BB meaningful comparison but someone else probably should. It's an interesting comparison.

If you want to put Wilfred Rhodes seasonal bowling averages in context, here are the overall seasonal batting averages in the county championship in the years Wilfred Rhodes played.

 

[trundler]

My profile picture says Rhodes, but I say Noble.

Contrary to some above, I think in the view of critics Noble was the better player.

Also, Noble played almost all pre-WW2 (whereas Rhodes' career was split by the war), and Noble's FC batting career is very similar to the best of his time on the more bowler-friendly Australian pitches -- Trumper, Hill, Bardsley, Armstrong.

As much as I love Rhodes, he wasn't an elite batsman for much time compared to Noble. Noble is a better fit for an ATG team as a 6, whereas Rhodes will often slot in at 7, playing as sole spinner.

The Wisden article in Noble's cricinfo profile states he was the finest all-rounder up to that point.

Figures prove that there has not been a superior all-round Test player. In 39 matches against England, Noble scored 1,905 runs, average 30.72, and took 115 wickets, average 24.78; George Giffen in 31 matches scored 1,238 runs and took 103 wickets; Wilfred Rhodes in 41 matches scored 1,706 runs and took 109 wickets -- these are the only three performers of the double in Test cricket.

 

[a massive zebra]

**** me over 9000 balls in one season. It's baffling. Much higher over-rates, longer FC seasons and overall careers back when a cricketer's diet consisted of sandwiches, ale and cigarettes. Everything indicates sportspeople have gotten fitter and stuff so all that just doesn't compute.

Actually over 9,000 balls in two consecutive seasons - 1900 and 1901. Also, I'm fairly sure Tich Freeman bowled even more than this in a few seasons around 1930!

Here is a comparison of Test match over-rates over time, up to the end of the 20th century:

 

[trundler]

Right, I'm not fooling anyone and i'm exactly the kind of bloke to put in effort into something like this.

Noble averaged 68 in Shield Cricket, his tally being 4896 runs from 81 innings (9 not outs). His record in Australia reads 1057 runs in 34 innings with 4 not outs. Therefore, in FC cricket outside of Australia (predominantly in England with a couple of tours to SA and NZ being the exceptions), he scored 8040 runs in 262 innings (21 not outs). This gives him an average of 33.22 which is certainly very respectable for a touring batsman in those days, especially one who was also picking up 2-3 wickets every match. It is also higher than Rhodes's average with the bat so certainly Noble was the better batsman. He never took 100 wickets on a tour like Armstrong or Gregory but managed a superior record with the ball in test cricket anyhow.

This might just be my flawed perception but imo, players in that mold are rarer. One thing I had overlooked is the fact that Noble managed a 27 year career himself though he did retire from tests in 1912. His Shield bowling average is 22 so he looks to have been less effective away from home and this is reflected in his home/away averages with the ball which read 20 and 32 respectively.

 

[trundler]

Actually over 9,000 balls in two consecutive seasons - 1900 and 1901. Also, I'm fairly sure Tich Freeman bowled even more than this in a few seasons around 1930!

Here is a comparison of over-rates over time, up to the end of the 20th century:

View attachment 26001

I think Wardle bowled a ridiculous amount in one season too. IIRC it was a record, at least for that particular season.

Also, this is something i have often wondered (exactly when did test cricket transition from having 100+ overs bowled in a day to where we are now) having so thanks a lot for sharing this.

No wonder Richie wasn't a fan of the quartet.

 

[AndrewB]

so that record suggests he really didn't like bowling in Australia, huh.

He had contrasting results: in his first series there he took 31 wickets at 15.74. Admittedly that includes 15-124 on a sticky wicket, but he also took 5-94 in an Aus total of 485 in the previous match.
Conversely, in his second series his 7 wickets cost 60 each.
(In his third series he barely bowled - but to be fair, he did average 57 with the bat).

 

[AndrewB]

I think Wardle bowled a ridiculous amount in one season too. IIRC it was a record, at least for that particular season.

For balls bowled in FC cricket, Freeman has the top 3 seasons (12234 in 1933 at the top), followed by Wardle (11142 in 1952).
Shackleton (10303 in 1962) is the most for a pace bowler.

 

[Starfighter]

If you want to put Wilfred Rhodes seasonal bowling averages in context, here are the overall seasonal batting averages in the county championship in the years Wilfred Rhodes played.View attachment 25999View attachment 26000

When was the next season after 1928 to average over 30? I've read some articles mentioning that it was a record season when putting in perspective just how bad the West Indies batting was on their tour. It stands well clear of all the others listed there.

 

[Starfighter]

For balls bowled in FC cricket, Freeman has the top 3 seasons (12234 in 1933 at the top), followed by Wardle (11142 in 1952).
Shackleton (10303 in 1962) is the most for a pace bowler.

What's the most for an actual fast bowler, considering Shackleton was hardly of intimidating pace? And what was the most Richardson bowled?

Also where are you getting these stats from?

 

[Red]

Which one was the better dentist?

 

[stephen]

Even considering he was a slow left armer, that's a lot of bowling.

But I suspect that the higher over rates meant bowlers didn't put anywhere near as much effort into field placement and bowled off short run ups. Given the era had uncovered pitches, I'm betting that the most effective bowling was usually accurate, slower bowling that tended to hold up in the pitch.

 

[AndrewB]

What's the most for an actual fast bowler, considering Shackleton was hardly of intimidating pace? And what was the most Richardson bowled?

Also where are you getting these stats from?

Tate bowled 10167 balls in 1925, if he's fast enough for you. Richardson bowled 8451 in the season he took 290 wickets, which I would guess is the most he ever bowled. Turner bowled 9710 in 1888. (Wisden Book of Cricket Records).

 

[a massive zebra]

When was the next season after 1928 to average over 30? I've read some articles mentioning that it was a record season when putting in perspective just how bad the West Indies batting was on their tour. It stands well clear of all the others listed there.

1981, although several other years directly before it got close.

 

[Starfighter]

Tate bowled 10167 balls in 1925, if he's fast enough for you. Richardson bowled 8451 in the season he took 290 wickets, which I would guess is the most he ever bowled. Turner bowled 9710 in 1888. (Wisden Book of Cricket Records).

Tate isn't, bowled off a six step run up with the keeper up to the stumps.

 

[a massive zebra]

Shackleton (10303 in 1962) is the most for a pace bowler.

That's not correct. Alfred Shaw bowled 10,520 in 1878. Sure, he wasn't particularly quick, but neither was Shackleton.

 

[a massive zebra]

What's the most for an actual fast bowler, considering Shackleton was hardly of intimidating pace? And what was the most Richardson bowled?

Also where are you getting these stats from?

Tate bowled 10167 balls in 1925, if he's fast enough for you. Richardson bowled 8451 in the season he took 290 wickets, which I would guess is the most he ever bowled. Turner bowled 9710 in 1888. (Wisden Book of Cricket Records).

Richardson bowled 1691.1 five ball overs in 1895, which is 8,456 balls, not 8,451.

And Turner wasn't quick. In 1888, at the Woolwich Arsenal, his delivery speed was measured at 55mph.

Trueman bowled 7,081 in 1961.

Among super express bowlers, Larwood bowled 5,846 in 1926.

 

[Starfighter]

Amongst bowlers who were considered genuinely quick I suspect it's probably Richardson.

Richardson bowled 1691.1 five ball overs in 1895, which is 8,456 balls, not 8,451.

That's nitpicky even by the standards of this forum.

 

[AndrewB]

Richardson bowled 1691.1 five ball overs in 1895, which is 8,456 balls, not 8,451.

1690.1 according to Wisden book of Cricket Records.

 

[a massive zebra]

Amongst bowlers who were considered genuinely quick I suspect it's probably Richardson.


That's nitpicky even by the standards of this forum.

Richardson bowled over 8,000 balls in three consecutive seasons between 1895 and 1897. That is definitely the largest sustained workload among all fast bowlers.

 

[a massive zebra]

1690.1 according to Wisden book of Cricket Records.

Well multiple editions of Wisden itself and Keith Booth's biography all say 1691.1. I suspect a typo in Wisden book of Cricket Records, but as Starfighter said, there isn't a lot of point arguing over 5 balls.