-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
I has been drinking...
- Thread starter Days of Grace
- Start date
Matt79
Hall of Fame Member
at Cairns being a better allrounder, rather than merely a better bowler, than Sobers. A 5 run difference in bowling averages obliterates a 24 run difference in batting averages? 
BhupinderSingh
Banned
My criteria for allrounders is different than yours.I define allrounder as "Anyone with batting average of 30+ & bowling average of 30-".Others are either batting allrounders or bowling allrounders & should be placed below true allrounders irrespective of how good they are at one particular discipline.
BhupinderSingh
Banned
Imran Khan was a very fine fielder.
Matt79
Hall of Fame Member
Fair enough. In almost every case, there's one discipline that a player is better at, or else they're equally mediocre in both. Miller would be as close to 'true' allrounder, who was also very good, as there has been IMO. I don't get too hung up on batting vs bowling allrounders vs true allrounders, if both their batting and bowling is at least 'decent' at test level, then they're in the game for me, and from there the player's total contribution as a package is the determining factor for me.
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
He was an Average Fielder compared to the likes of Sobers and Kapil.
pasag
RTDAS
Agree with this, I've seen Richard post this a few times about "if the bowler wants he can..." but don't agree at all really.Actually its a batsmen who controls the game, a bowler can only do so much, as in no matter where a bowler buts the ball, if the batsmen is good enough he can still hit it for 6 (the best a batsmen can acive off a single ball).
The batsmen has to make a mistake before a bowler can get him out, the best a bowler can do is to make it very hard for a batsmen to read the situation, therefore hopefully inducing a mistake
pasag
RTDAS
Was looking everywhere for something of him playing footy for St Kilda, couldn't find anything so went with this.Loving the av pasag.
BhupinderSingh
Banned
Sobers & Kapil were beter fielders than Imran but you argue in a way as if Imran is the worst fielder ever.
Last edited:
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Nah, there are deliveries batsmen can only hit for six with a fair amount of luck involved. And bowlers can get batsmen out without them making any error at all - happens plenty.Actually its a batsmen who controls the game, a bowler can only do so much, as in no matter where a bowler buts the ball, if the batsmen is good enough he can still hit it for 6 (the best a batsmen can acive off a single ball).
The batsmen has to make a mistake before a bowler can get him out, the best a bowler can do is to make it very hard for a batsmen to read the situation, therefore hopefully inducing a mistake
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Imran... it'd debatable IMO. But I'd put Miller ahead of Botham anyday; he achieved for far longer than Botham did.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Why not?
How can the batsman control what the bowler sends down? He can't. The batsman is at the mercy of the bowler.
Days of Grace
International Captain
Some bowlers can't even control what they send down...I know I can't anyway.
And sometimes the bowler can be at the mercy of a batsman, rare, but it happens. Some were at the mercy of Ponting, Lara, Tendulkar, etc. when they were in prime form. Meaning they didn't know where to bowl to in the end.
And sometimes the bowler can be at the mercy of a batsman, rare, but it happens. Some were at the mercy of Ponting, Lara, Tendulkar, etc. when they were in prime form. Meaning they didn't know where to bowl to in the end.
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
Its amazing, for the better part of half a century the entire world of cricket has been convinced that a man was the best all rounder of all time and here we declare that he can hardly be called one.
Wonder whether that tells us something about the former cricketers, cricket writers etc or about ourselves.
Wonder whether that tells us something about the former cricketers, cricket writers etc or about ourselves.
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
I think Miller is a very strong contender for the best all rounder of all time.
Its very difficult to nail these things. How can one ever say one player out of so many playing over different eras, different conditions, different opponents is better than others but whatever criteria one employs, Miller will always be close to the top of that ladder.
Unfortunately, not many people actually appear to think so from any poll on that.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
I guess it is unfortunate. A great bat; could bat anywhere from 3-5 and had the habit of scoring well when his team needed it. He doesn't have all the not-outs like Imran but his average is still very healthy with his bowling being one part of the best duo in the world. They say his side needed him more as a bowler hence his bowling took the fore.
When I read about Miller I get the idea that if he had more focus or, should I say, if he cared more and took cricket more seriously he would have been irrefutable when considering the top 3 players of all time. One comment which encapsulates him, I think:
"pressure is a Messerschmitt up your arse, playing cricket is not"
