Best Spinner ever

[PhoenixFire]

I quite agree. He might not be the best of all time, but he has to be up there.

 

[adharcric]

Are you perhaps laughing at the legend that is Jim Laker.

Ha, Wilfred Rhodes.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Ha, Wilfred Rhodes.

I pity a fool, and laugh at his ignorance.

 

[adharcric]

I pity a fool, and laugh at his ignorance.

Seriously though, everytime someone brings up his unimpressive test record (after plenty of opportunities) you don't really respond to the criticism.
Do you have a valid argument as to why you rate Rhodes so highly or what?

 

[silentstriker]

Nope, Im laughing because no-one else has mentioned him.

Ha.

When was the last time Warney or Muttiah took 19 in a game?

When was the last time Warney or Muttiah faced a team that barely knew what type of bowling they faced on a pitch custom made from that type of pitch?

I've seen the videos, they were literally falling all over themselves. Laker bowled brilliantly, but please.

 

[silentstriker]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FKqcXyh4Vis

Look at some of those shots. Look at that, I mean they literally had no idea on the proper way to play a spinner like him. Great spinner, but not best of all time. Not close to the top two.

 

[silentstriker]

Some of those backfoot shots just make me LOL. I wish they played spinners like that now - India would never lose a test match.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Seriously though, everytime someone brings up his unimpressive test record (after plenty of opportunities) you don't really respond to the criticism.
Do you have a valid argument as to why you rate Rhodes so highly or what?

Yes, I do do that an awful lot, partly through my outrage, and partly through my laziness.

It basically comes fromt the fact that I don't believe an impressive test record is paramount to greatness. In my opinion if you take 4000 @ 16, then you should be classed as great, because it defies so much head in my case. I can admit that his test record very average at the most, but I don't think that you need to have a good test record to be considered great, but that's just my opinion.

 

[silentstriker]

Yes, I do do that an awful lot, partly through my outrage, and partly through my laziness.

It basically comes fromt the fact that I don't believe an impressive test record is paramount to greatness. In my opinion if you take 4000 @ 16, then you should be classed as great, because it defies so much head in my case. I can admit that his test record very average at the most, but I don't think that you need to have a good test record to be considered great, but that's just my opinion.

Being a great is a whole lot different from being the best of all time. Or even close to it.

 

[PhoenixFire]

I have mentioned a countless number of times that he has this unique charm for me, and that it doesn't really follow logic, just a feeling of mine. It's a shame very few (if any) people agree with me, but that's just me. I don't expect many people to agree with me either.

 

[techno t]

Ian Salisbury

im reporting your post for that

*

 

[steds]

Disappointed at the turnout for tadpole.

 

[techno t]

When was the last time Warney or Muttiah faced a team that barely knew what type of bowling they faced on a pitch custom made from that type of pitch?

I've seen the videos, they were literally falling all over themselves.

The England team for the past 10 years have been like that

*

 

[a massive zebra]

Seriously though, everytime someone brings up his unimpressive test record (after plenty of opportunities) you don't really respond to the criticism.
Do you have a valid argument as to why you rate Rhodes so highly or what?

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.

 

[a massive zebra]

After 13 Tests he had 66 wickets at 17.65, and effectively won back the Ashes down under in 1903/04 with 31 wickets at 15.

 

[adharcric]

Alright, I'll consider him in the Ranking the Bowlers thread then ... even though nobody will consider the equally deserving Vijay Merchant.

 

[silentstriker]

If Rhodes is anywhere near the best spinner, then Merchant is the best opener. He has a good Test record on top of an amazing FC record.

In actuality, neither is true.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Alright, I'll consider him in the Ranking the Bowlers thread then ... even though nobody will consider the equally deserving Vijay Merchant.

There is a small difference between getting 4000 FC wickets and averagin 70 odd.

 

[silentstriker]

There is a small difference between getting 4000 FC wickets and averagin 70 odd.

Why? Its not like it was a fluke, he did it over 22 years (1929-1951).

 

[adharcric]

There is a small difference between getting 4000 FC wickets and averagin 70 odd.

Actually there's nothing special about getting that many first-class wickets. Rhodes scored 40,000 first-class runs at 30. He clearly wasn't special with the bat as the average suggests, but the aggregate run statistic would indicate that he is, by your standards.

Merchant scored his runs @ 71. That's second only to Bradman himself.