Originally Posted by playmaker
But i need to know the quality of the bowlers he faced.
There is a difference between scoring a century against the likes of abuls and rajibs, and the steyns and morkels
Why are you picking on his batting when bowling was clearly his main role?
The quality of opposition couldn't have been as bad as the Abuls and Rajibs - FC cricket in England back in those days would have had some of the best players in the world at the time. If you had gone to his Cricinfo profile and clicked on the only article that the site has on him, you'd know how good he was:
Bart King 10 for 53, Philadelphia v Ireland, 1909
The only American among the 79. King is generally regarded as the greatest of the pre-war cricketers in the USA and he undertook three successful tours of England. With cricket in Philadelphia before the Great War accorded first-class status, a number of overseas sides toured there and in 1909 he opened a two-match series against Ireland with a ten-for. In Ireland's four innings he took 25 for 151. In 1912 he was still good enough to take 12 wickets in a drawn two-match series against the full Australian side.
See the part in bold. That line up would have had some of the best batsmen in the world at the time.
And if Pelham Warner though he was one of the best, it's highly likely that's what he was.