Aubrey Faulkner vs Dudley Nourse

[sayon basak]

Two great South African cricketers. Heavily underrated and understated by cricket writers imo. So, who was the greater South African cricketer?

 

[Coronis]

Faulkner by some margin.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Faulkner better, but Nourse deserves a pity vote.

 

[ma1978]

Nourse and it isn’t even close

see point on overrating of all rounders

 

[Coronis]

Nourse and it isn’t even close

see point on overrating of all rounders

Pathetic. Faulkner was one of the best bats of his era and a quality bowler. Averaged 41.87/25.52 when the average wicket cost 5 runs less than the last decade.

Equivalent to averaging ~45/29 today with 3 wpm.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Pathetic. Faulkner was one of the best bats of his era and a quality bowler. Averaged 41.87/25.52 when the average wicket cost 5 runs less than the last decade.

Equivalent to averaging ~45/29 today with 3 wpm.

*In Tests only though. As far as I read, Faulkner was a bowling all-rounder in FC, Averaged 37/17. Monty Noble, on the other hand after averaging 30 in Tests, did 40 in FC, and was generally considered a better batsman but worse bowler (though averaged less with the ball in Tests). Also, I remembering reading that Faulkner relatively struggled in England, but worked on his batting in batting friendlier Australian pitches, and that reflects both on his batting and bowling records in Australia.Great nonetheless, as I believe him having the same numbers in Tests as FC wouldn't be anything but better.

 

[Coronis]

*In Tests only though. As far as I read, Faulkner was a bowling all-rounder in FC, Averaged 37/17. Monty Noble, on the other hand after averaging 30 in Tests, did 40 in FC, and was generally considered a better batsman but worse bowler (though averaged less with the ball in Tests). Also, I remembering reading that Faulkner relatively struggled in England, but worked on his batting in batting friendlier Australian pitches, and that reflects both on his batting and bowling records in Australia.Great nonetheless, as I believe him having the same numbers in Tests as FC wouldn't be anything but better.

You could argue the same about Miller in reverse tbh.

 

[ma1978]

You could argue the same about Miller in reverse tbh.

and that’s one of the many reasons both Miller and Faulkner are overrated

Miller was only briefly a frontline a bowler and a bog standard average bat

Faulkner not a frontline bat and played at a time of considerably lower standards that Nourse’s

 

[ataraxia]

and that’s one of the many reasons both Miller and Faulkner are overrated

Miller was only briefly a frontline a bowler and a bog standard average bat

Faulkner not a frontline bat and played at a time of considerably lower standards that Nourse’s

Pray explain the bolded

 

[capt_Luffy]

You could argue the same about Miller in reverse tbh.

True. But you also have to consider that Sheffield Shield is much more batting friendly, many batsmen like Ponsford, Woodfull, Kippax, Bevan, etc. put out massive numbers there but failed to convert in Tests to the extent, as did bowlers like Grimmett struggled; and Miller was somewhat a reluctant bowler who loved to bat much more to begin with.
Tbf to Faulkner, an average of 37 with bat pre War was quite good, especially given he batted top 5. Think he should be considered a balanced all-rounder, as people either overrated his bowling and underrate his batting based on modern stats or vice versa by paying over importance to Tests.