Wilfred Rhodes vs Monte Noble

[stephen]

Who was actually the better player? Both players have very similar stats. Who was regarded as the better player?

 

[Himannv]

Rhodes.

 

[Line and Length]

Rhodes.

I agree.

 

[trundler]

Rhodes was more of a bowler, Noble was more of a batsman. The difficulty with this comparison is that Rhodes's career was split into 2 halves, each dominated by one discipline. Rhodes's bowling stats suffer partly because of that and partly because despite having such a ridiculously long career, his prime years were spent in the shadow of one SF Barnes and the war halted his career too. Noble appears to be a Miller-esque figure. Regarding his batting, it is said that it suffered when he was forced to captain in addition to bowling and batting, which brings down his overall average. So really it's an apples and oranges comparison.

 

[stephen]

Rhodes.

Why?

 

[Himannv]

Why?

Because

 

[stephen]

Because

Ok then </Ryan George>

 

[Himannv]

Ok, apologies for trolling.

Wilfred Rhodes because I feel at different times during his career he was truly world class in either batting or bowling. He started off his career as a great bowler and an ok batsmen, but by the time the war came around his batting had improved so much that he was opening the batting with Hobbs and considered one of the best batsmen in the side.

It is also my belief that as an SLA, he is also a bit more comparable with a modern bowler as that discipline doesn't change as much as some others. I see medium pace and I always wonder if medium pacers are actually much slower than what we'd classify nowadays. I know Noble also bowled right arm spin sometimes, but it's clear to me that pace was his primary form of bowling and hence I rate that discipline of his slightly less.

I think Noble was a better captain and arguably a better batsman, but I don't count captaincy in this kind of comparison.

 

[trundler]

Noble was the more rounded all rounder. Rhodes would've obviously dominated public perception because far more FC cricket was played in England in those days. Still is. For example, somebody with over 300 mtches under his belt might, like Billy Barnes or Albert Trott, was labelled an unfulfilled talent on account of having a short career. Yet this is still more than Noble or Hill managed in their decorated careers. All the top players country cricket would've played twice as many. Rhodes, of course, played the most of all and the exceptional length of his career is unmatched anyhow. Another thing to consider is the different nature of FC cricket in England and Australia with the vastly different conditions and number of teams in each competition. You wouldn't find many sub-20 bowlers in Shield cricket regardless of era. I would say Noble was more of a rounded all rounder whereas Rhodes was the greater cricketer. Each was better in one discipline.

 

[stephen]

It amazes me that both countries produced exceptional all rounders who ended up having statistically very similar careers. I wanted to find out a bit more about them and how they compared to each other.

From what I understand, Noble really was an all rounder in the Kallis mould while Rhodes was an all rounder more in the Shakib mould. Both played a large number of tests for their eras (though Rhodes had ridiculous longevity). Overall Noble's output looks slightly better when averaged over the tests they played, but then we all know that longevity usually reduces average output. So I am interested to find out what the feeling was about their careers and how they compared to each other.

 

[trundler]

Rhodes is going to win any popularity contest by virtue of hailing from the motherland. His FC feats would doubtless have received far more limelight.

 

[Line and Length]

Rhodes is going to win any popularity contest by virtue of hailing from the motherland. His FC feats would doubtless have received far more limelight.

This isn't a "popularity contest". It should be an analysis of two fine all-rounders' careers.

 

[trundler]

This isn't a "popularity contest". It should be an analysis of two fine all-rounders' careers.

Averaging 16 is legendary on its own but to do so over 30+ years is scarcely believable. It means that there would be many, many summers averaging much less than that under the surface as overall averages sell players with such lengthy careers short imo. CBF digging yearly stats for both in FC cricket and those of their peers to make a BB meaningful comparison but someone else probably should. It's an interesting comparison.

 

[a massive zebra]

Averaging 16 is legendary on its own but to do so over 30+ years is scarcely believable. It means that there would be many, many summers averaging much less than that under the surface as overall averages sell players with such lengthy careers short imo. CBF digging yearly stats for both in FC cricket and those of their peers to make a BB meaningful comparison but someone else probably should. It's an interesting comparison.

Wilfred Rhodes bowling record, season by season:

 

[Magrat Garlick]

so that record suggests he really didn't like bowling in Australia, huh.

 

[weeman27bob]

so that record suggests he really didn't like bowling in Australia, huh.

Is Jimmy Anderson the new Wilfred Rhodes?

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Is Jimmy Anderson the new Wilfred Rhodes?

well apart from ol Wilf scoring as many runs in one season as Jimmy and her son in their entire career yes

 

[trundler]

**** me over 9000 balls in one season. It's baffling. Much higher over-rates, longer FC seasons and overall careers back when a cricketer's diet consisted of sandwiches, ale and cigarettes. Everything indicates sportspeople have gotten fitter and stuff so all that just doesn't compute.

 

[ataraxia]

My profile picture says Rhodes, but I say Noble.

Contrary to some above, I think in the view of critics Noble was the better player.

Also, Noble played almost all pre-WW2 (whereas Rhodes' career was split by the war), and Noble's FC batting career is very similar to the best of his time on the more bowler-friendly Australian pitches -- Trumper, Hill, Bardsley, Armstrong.

As much as I love Rhodes, he wasn't an elite batsman for much time compared to Noble. Noble is a better fit for an ATG team as a 6, whereas Rhodes will often slot in at 7, playing as sole spinner.

 

[fredfertang]

Rhodes the better cricketer, but Noble was a better scribe