Greatest all-rounder pre-Sobers

[Fuller Pilch]

Should my namesake be included? Bowling av of 1.35 and greatest batsman pre-Grace

Anyway, Miller or young WG to win it

 

[S.Kennedy]

Isn't every all-rounder either a batting all-rounder or a bowling all-rounder though, unless you're Miller or Botham. Sobers himself was certainly a batting all-rounder.

 

[vitalogy83]

I want to see Faulkner ranked high up too....but can't look past Miller.

List looks good to me. When does the voting/ranking begin?

 

[jimmy101]

I want to see Faulkner ranked high up too....but can't look past Miller.

List looks good to me. When does the voting/ranking begin?

Sooner rather than later. I'll give more people a chance to see the thread, and once the list is sorted we'll be off & running.

As of now if anyone wants to weigh in on Ulyett/McCabe please let your thoughts be known.

 

[jimmy101]

I think CB Fry should be included

Hard to see why Fry can be justifiably included. He bowled two full overs in Tests & that's it. His FC wickets to matches ratio isn't great either.

Should my namesake be included? Bowling av of 1.35 and greatest batsman pre-Grace

It'd be fun, but I don't think batsmen from the underarm/roundarm era are comparable to batsmen who face overarm.

 

[weldone]

Ulyett: 2
McCabe: 0

 

[Red]

Might as well get straight to the final:

Miller vs Faulkner

 

[the big bambino]

Might as well get straight to the prize then.

 

[Midwinter]

George Hirst was pretty handy

as was Monty Noble

 

[vitalogy83]

Might as well get straight to the prize then.

 

[vitalogy83]

Sooner rather than later. I'll give more people a chance to see the thread, and once the list is sorted we'll be off & running.

As of now if anyone wants to weigh in on Ulyett/McCabe please let your thoughts be known.

I didn't know too much about Ulyett before this..but having had a look at his record and reading some articles I think it's fair to say he's ahead of McCabe given that this is a discussion about all-rounders.

Out of curiosity - how do you pronounce his name?

 

[AndrewB]

You could argue that (for example) Fred Titmus, Ray Illingworth, Trevor Goddard and Ken Mackay all graced the cricket field before Gary Sobers (being several years older), just not in Test cricket.

 

[jimmy101]

You could argue that (for example) Fred Titmus, Ray Illingworth, Trevor Goddard and Ken Mackay all graced the cricket field before Gary Sobers (being several years older), just not in Test cricket.

That's a very valid point. Although, one could also argue that they were contemporaries of Garfield Sobers, rather than all-rounders who preceded him.

However I'd like to hear some other people thoughts on this & whether or not they should get in.

 

[jimmy101]

I didn't know too much about Ulyett before this..but having had a look at his record and reading some articles I think it's fair to say he's ahead of McCabe given that this is a discussion about all-rounders.

Out of curiosity - how do you pronounce his name?

[American] U-lyett
[British] Uly-ett

^ Taken from some website.

I personally think it'd be You-lee-et.

 

[jimmy101]

I feel we can move along now and start with the first pot of players. McCabe > Ulyett is the only change to the shortlist.

Please rank the following list twice. Once for batting and once for bowling. This is a similar premise to the thread MM started a while ago. Points will be allocated to each player by their ranking:

1st = 7 points
2nd = 6 points
3rd = 5 points
4th = 4 points
5th = 3 points
6th = 2 points
7th = 1 point
8th = 0 points

The two players with the most combined batting & bowling points will progress to the Golden Pot.

 

[jimmy101]

POT A

Len Braund
Alan Davidson
Vijay Hazare
Gilbert Jessop
Dattu Phadkar
Wilfred Rhodes
Frank Woolley
Frank Worrell

 

[Starfighter]

Batting:

Woolley
Worrell
Hazare
Rhodes
Jessop
Phadkar
Braund
Davidson

Bowling:

Davidson
Rhodes
Woolley
Braund
Worrell
Phadkar
Jessop
Hazare

 

[a massive zebra]

Should my namesake be included? Bowling av of 1.35 and greatest batsman pre-Grace

Anyway, Miller or young WG to win it

I can categorically state that Fuller Pilch did NOT have a first class bowling average of 1.35 or a strike rate of 4.7.

Very early scorecards generally only credited bowlers with bowled dismissals, and did not record the number of balls bowled or runs conceded by the bowler. This issue gradually improved around the middle of the 19th century with the introduction of Lillywhite's Guides and Wisden's Almanack, but even as late as the 1870s some scorecards, while giving full credit to bowlers for their dismissals, didn't record the balls bowled or runs conceded. There are also a handful of first class matches where the runs conceded are recorded but bowlers aren't given credit for wickets taken with the aid of fielders (i.e catches, stumpings).

Full bowling analysis are only available for innings covering 9 of the 142 wickets Pilch is known to have taken in his first class career. Where full bowling analysis are available, Pilch is known to have taken his wickets at an average of 21.33, a strike rate of 44.66 and an economy rate of 2.44.

In their historical ignorance or complete disregard for statistical accuracy, Cricinfo have simply taken all the balls bowled and runs conceded by Pilch in the few instances where full information is available, and divided these by the total number of wickets taken in his entire career to arrive at hugely misleading averages and strike rates. The Cricketarchive figures are accurate, but admittedly confusing for people with an ability to do basic maths but no detailed knowledge of early cricket scorecards.

This issue affects nearly all pre 1870 bowlers to some extent. The best average of any bowler with (virtually) complete career figures is George Freeman, who took 284 wickets at an average of 9.84, strike rate of 35.47 and economy rate of 1.66. He also took four more wickets in match(es) where full bowling analysis were not kept. The highest wicket taker in first class cricket prior to the introduction of Test cricket (based on all available information, given the limitations identified in paragraph 2) is William Lillywhite. Where full bowling analysis are available, Lillywhite is known to have taken 235 wickets at an average of 10.36, a strike rate of 28.21 and an economy rate of 2.20. He also took a further 1,341 wickets in matches where full bowling analysis were not kept, giving a total haul of 1,576.

I hope this clarifies things.

 

[Daemon]

Fuller sending an email to James about a name change aws

 

[cnerd123]

I can categorically state that Fuller Pilch did NOT have a first class bowling average of 1.35 or a strike rate of 4.7.

Very early scorecards generally only credited bowlers with bowled dismissals, and did not record the number of balls bowled or runs conceded by the bowler. This issue gradually improved around the middle of the 19th century with the introduction of Lillywhite's Guides and Wisden's Almanack, but even as late as the 1870s some scorecards, while giving full credit to bowlers for their dismissals, didn't record the balls bowled or runs conceded. There are also a handful of first class matches where the runs conceded are recorded but bowlers aren't given credit for wickets taken with the aid of fielders (i.e catches, stumpings).

Full bowling analysis are only available for innings covering 9 of the 142 wickets Pilch is known to have taken in his first class career. Where full bowling analysis are available, Pilch is known to have taken his wickets at an average of 21.33, a strike rate of 44.66 and an economy rate of 2.44.

In their historical ignorance or complete disregard for statistical accuracy, Cricinfo have simply taken all the balls bowled and runs conceded by Pilch in the few instances where full information is available, and divided these by the total number of wickets taken in his entire career to arrive at hugely misleading averages and strike rates. The Cricketarchive figures are accurate, but admittedly confusing for people with an ability to do basic maths but no detailed knowledge of early cricket scorecards.

This issue affects nearly all pre 1870 bowlers to some extent. The best average of any bowler with (virtually) complete career figures is George Freeman, who took 284 wickets at an average of 9.84, strike rate of 35.47 and economy rate of 1.66. He also took four more wickets in match(es) where full bowling analysis were not kept. The highest wicket taker in first class cricket prior to the introduction of Test cricket (based on all available information, given the limitations identified in paragraph 2) is William Lillywhite. Where full bowling analysis are available, Lillywhite is known to have taken 235 wickets at an average of 10.36, a strike rate of 28.21 and an economy rate of 2.20. He also took a further 1,341 wickets in matches where full bowling analysis were not kept, giving a total haul of 1,576.

I hope this clarifies things.

Where are these people who analyse historical cricket scorecards for a living and how do I become one of them