Best Spinner ever

[PhoenixFire]

There is something special because he managed it with an average of 16 and a strike rate of 44.

 

[adharcric]

To be fair he hardly played any Test cricket between 1898 and 1902 during which time he must have been one of the best bowlers ever, most of his Tests were played in a later period when his bowling had lost some of its zip.

On second thought, so what? Deal with it. I can use excuses for Merchant like the Indian Independence movement, untimely injuries, etc ... but that's just too bad for him. Rhodes isn't going to get any slack just because he's from England.

 

[silentstriker]

There is something special because he managed it with an average of 16 and a strike rate of 44.

And averaging 71 is somehow less special? Only one man has more.

 

[PhoenixFire]

If you don't include not outs, then it drops from 71 to 57.

 

[adharcric]

There is something special because he managed it with an average of 16 and a strike rate of 44.

This part is special, but the number of wickets alone isn't.
You're not going to convince anyone by throwing around useless statistics like that (# of wickets) and then acting as if someone like Merchant was insignificant in comparison.

Tell you what, I'd take an average of 70 with the bat over an average of 17 with the ball. I can name at least one guy from England in that time who averaged 17: Colin Blythe.
Now you name me another guy who averaged 70+ (excluding Bradman) over a long period.

 

[adharcric]

If you don't include not outs, then it drops from 71 to 57.

Now you're just making a fool of yourself.

 

[silentstriker]

If you don't include not outs, then it drops from 71 to 57.

If you don't include not outs for Bradman, it drops to 83. What's your point?

 

[PhoenixFire]

Now you're just making a fool of yourself.

Why? It's not freakish to average around 60.

I'm not having a go at Merchant, I just believe his average should be taken with a pinch of salt.

19.65% of Merchant's innings were Nos, thats an average of 57.56 without Nos.
9% of AK Sharma's innings were Nos, that's an average of 60.96

Do we ever hear of Sharma's amazing average, thought not.

 

[a massive zebra]

Wait a minute.

How exactly is it possible to justify a lowly opinion of the mightly Rhodes by comparing him with Vijay Merchant.

Where exactly have I said anything against this great Indian batsmen?

 

[a massive zebra]

On second thought, so what? Deal with it. I can use excuses for Merchant like the Indian Independence movement, untimely injuries, etc ... but that's just too bad for him. Rhodes isn't going to get any slack just because he's from England.

Why exactly does a great player like Merchant need excuses?

 

[PhoenixFire]

Wait a minute.

How exactly is it possible to justify a lowly opinion of the mightly Rhodes by a comparison with Vijay Merchant.

Where exactly have I said anything against this great Indian batsmen?

I was arguing that even though Rhodes has a below average Test record, and an unbelievable FC one, that he can still be great. They argued that Vijay Merchant has an amazing FC record too, but nobody ever mentions him.

 

[adharcric]

Why exactly does a great player like Merchant need excuses?

I just said that if Merchant takes so much crap for not proving himself at the international level for various reasons out of his control, then so should Rhodes.

 

[PhoenixFire]

I just said that if Merchant takes so much crap for not proving himself at the international level for various reasons out of his control, then so should Rhodes.

But have you ever though of the reason why people don't give give so much stick?

 

[adharcric]

Why? It's not freakish to average around 60.

I'm not having a go at Merchant, I just believe his average should be taken with a pinch of salt.

19.65% of Merchant's innings were Nos, thats an average of 57.56 without Nos.
9% of AK Sharma's innings were Nos, that's an average of 60.96

Do we ever hear of Sharma's amazing average, thought not.

Uhh no, he should not be getting punished for getting not outs in first-class matches - that's quite a feat.
I've never claimed that Merchant should be an all-time great on the merit of his statistics alone. He was rated quite highly by contemporaries from India, England and Australia.

 

[adharcric]

But have you ever though of the reason why people don't give give so much stick?

Actually, they do. We just saw it in the Ranking the Bowlers thread.

 

[PhoenixFire]

What positions did he tend to bat in FC matches?

 

[adharcric]

He's the second-greatest opening batsman that India has ever produced.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Well I have more respect for him now, realising that he must have carried his bat a fair few times.

 

[a massive zebra]

I was arguing that even though Rhodes has a below average Test record, and an unbelievable FC one, that he can still be great. They argued that Vijay Merchant has an amazing FC record too, but nobody ever mentions him.

Firstly, Rhodes does not have a below average Test record. Secondly, as I have already explained, Rhodes' Test bowling figures do quite match up with the very best as he hardly played any Test cricket during his pomp (and in the few matches he did play the great man was nothing short of a revelation), and also because he played on the the very advanced age of 52. Thirdly, the fact that hardly any people mention Merchant is more a sign that very few people study the history of the game than any slight on Rhodes.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Hey I'm on your side here, but looking only at his wickets/match ratio, it doesn't make good reading, however as he rarley played in his prime, they have to be accepted.