Aubrey Faulkner vs Ravindra Jadeja

[PlayerComparisons]

Jadeja

 

[peterhrt]

Was Noble considered better than Faulkner back then?

Ten leading all-rounders of the early 20th century. First-class batting and bowling averages from 1900 until the outbreak of war in 1914.

Batting
Armstrong 45.72, Noble 42.41, Macartney 40.17, Dave Nourse 39.49, Hirst 38.36, Faulkner 37.42, Tarrant 36.19, Woolley 34.84, Rhodes 31.27, Sydney Smith (WI) 30.00

Bowling
Sydney Smith 17.20, Faulkner 17.30, Rhodes 17.50, Tarrant 18.04, Hirst 18.04, Woolley 18.56, Armstrong 20.28, Macartney 22.07, Dave Nourse 22.86, Noble 22.89

All played a significant amount of cricket in England. The Australians, apart from Tarrant, often appeared on high-scoring grounds in their own country.

Armstrong, Faulkner, Hirst and Tarrant have batting averages that more than double their bowling averages.

Faulkner's stronger suit on this evidence appears to be bowling, in line with his reputation at the time. On the more challenging English pitches, where he played most of his cricket, his batting average falls to 28, the lowest of anyone here.

 

[capt_Luffy]

So @Prince EWS was wrong all along. Faulkner was, in fact a bowling allrounder who performed a bit better with bat in Tests and a bit worse with the ball.....

 

[peterhrt]

So @Prince EWS was wrong all along. Faulkner was, in fact a bowling allrounder who performed a bit better with bat in Tests and a bit worse with the ball.....

Wouldn't say he was wrong. Everyone's entitled to their opinion and there will be others who agree with it.

The outlier was Faulkner's series in Australia. He spent much of that tour batting in the nets getting used to the different surfaces. On one occasion he had to be called out to the middle to bat as he had been practising rather than watching the game. Handled Cotter's pace well while his teammates struggled at times. His bowling suffered there - perhaps a combination of lack of attention and because the wickets didn't offer him as much turn.

Also averaged 60 with the bat the year before in the home series against a weakened England attack (Hobbs opened the bowling in three Tests). Not everybody thought these matches should count as Tests. Earlier SA v E games had been retrospectively "upgraded" to help justify the Triangular Tournament of 1912, despite opposition from Wisden and others.

Faulkner's Test batting averages by host country: Australia 73, South Africa 42, England 20. In England he had a lot of trouble facing Barnes, who dismissed him five times in succession for scores of 15, 5, 0, 9 and 10.

First-class batting averages: in Australia 59, in South Africa 45, in England 28.

All matches in South Africa were staged on matting. Faulkner never faced Barnes there.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Thanks @peterhrt Your insights is one of the only pluses of these other wise pointless player comparisons (yeah I know, big coming from me). Another thing that grabbed my attention here is Rhodes FC average dropped post War!! Didn't expect that honestly.

 

[peterhrt]

Another thing that grabbed my attention here is Rhodes FC average dropped post War!! Didn't expect that honestly.

Rhodes had an unusual career. He was a great bowler up to and including the 1903-04 tour of Australia. That trip took something out of him, as Lord Hawke knew it would when refusing to release Hirst and himself to tour two years earlier. Rhodes took more interest in batting and his bowling gradually became less effective.

Standards after the war had declined. There was a shortage of bowling - Hobbs said he found batting much easier than before. Rhodes was in his forties with eyesight and reflexes not as sharp as they had been. He decided to concentrate on bowling again and was too crafty for inexperienced county batsmen, or those whose abilities had regressed with age and war. He wasn't the bowler of his younger days though.