How would the likes of Wilfred Rhodes and Tich Freeman fare in first-class cricket today?

Question

Would Wilfred Rhodes be able to take 4204 wickets in 1110 games? Even if he played half as many matches (555), would he be able to take half as many wickets (2102)? Or would Tich Freeman be able to take 3776 wickets in 592 matches? What about taking 250 wickets or more in six consecutive seasons (which he did from 1928 to 1933, including 304 wickets in 1928) and 1673 wickets in the six seasons on total? Even granted that pitches are far more batting-friendly these days, does it not point to the fact that the standards of many "first-class" teams were much lower then? Is it fair, then, to assume every season from 1772 onwards to be "first-class" and compare records accordingly? Doesn't this make the term "first-class" misleading? Should it be re-defined to include only post-WWII cricket records, and not simply the English county season going back 237 years?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tich_Freeman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilfred_Rhodes

Answer 1

Two words, just two words: covered pitches.

If you let Paul Collingwood loose on a 1960s or earlier uncovered pitch after there had been overnight rain, he'd be one of the most dangerous bowlers in world cricket today. Batting conditions are much easier these days. Although I'm very much a believer in the best players from any generation being able to adapt their talents to a different time, you also need to take into account that statistics can be misleading when comparing players from different eras - they are only really useful in comparing what contemporaries did.

They say that today, a batsman has to average 45 in tests to be considered a good test batsman; twenty years ago they needed to average 40; fifty years ago they needed to average 35. If you look back to the inter-war batsmen, there are few who averaged over 30 for any considerable period of time in international cricket, and several early "greats" have averages in the 20s.

Answer 2

I think the fact less County Championship matches due to one day and T20 has put pay to anyone ever playing 500 first class matches again, let alone 1000

Answer 3

simply put, the best players in history would always succeed in any era, great players would always be successful simply because they were great

would bradman been as good a batsman if he was playing now? yes, of course he would because was one of the greatest to play the game, so yes i believe rhodes and freeman both would have been great players, no matter what the era

Answer 4

Wilfred Rhodes would do Alright i guess not 4000 wkts cause players simply just dont last that long now but he wud be ok Wilfred  perhaps benefited more from the bowlers friendly conditions in his era but he was an all rounder so his batting would definitely benefit in this batsman's friendly era.