I has been drinking...

[The Sean]

Oh, of course, beyond a doubt. But I'll give you two case-scenarios, and you tell me which you prefer:
a) top-order does its job, and Miller then comes in and adds a quick 40*.
b) top-order does its job, and Miller then comes in and hits one straight up from his 3rd ball.
I know which I'd prefer...

Bradman certainly thought like you did with regard to how you'd perceive those scenarios. I've probably told this story before but I love the incident at Essex in 1948 when Australians racked up 721 in a single day - Miller, who never took any pleasure in that kind of one-sided spanking, came in a 364/2. He took guard to his first ball, made a hugely expansive stroke to deliberately miss and was out bowled. As he walked off he turned to the keeper and simply said "thank God that's over".

Bradman was at the other end on his way to 187. After Miller had walked off he turned to the umpire and said, "He'll learn."

But he never did.

 

[SJS]

Its a fruitless excercise arguing over which of the two - Sobers or Miller - was a better all rounder.

In any all time side I choose, Sobers with Bradman and Hobbs would come in automatically - as a cricketer and not just as batsman. Then when I started selecting the rest of the side, I may already find that I have Sobers in the side making it difficult for Miller to come in as an allrounder.

If I was choosing the batsmen only, Sobers would still come in. Then I would take Miller as my all rounder.

If I was chosing the top bowlers of all time, Miller would rate much above Sobers in that list.

This is the dillemma of comparing all rounders.

Most of us would call Sobers the best all rounder of all time because he is a cert in the all time side as a cricketer - a batsman as good as any who could bowl very well and was probably the greatest all round fielder off all time too. That makes it difficult to take another all rounder in the side because of the wealth of bowling talent available.

This may not be the best way to compare two all rounders but this is what we do.

Who is to say whether the best all rounder is the one who scores more points in batting than in bowling, or the one who scores more in bowling than in batting or the one who scores the same in both - assuming the total marks scored by all three are exactly the same.

This is not an argument that can be settled because this criteria cant be established.

It should be enough to say that in a touring side of alltime greats, Sobers would get into the final eleven before Miller. Whether that makes him a better allrounder is a moot point.

 

[Ikki]

SJS, I think you've just touched what the issue is all about. Yes, Sobers would get the tip ahead of Miller, but not as an all-rounder but as a specialist bat. When you are picking Sobers in an all-time team you actually negate the effect the other bowlers may have because Sobers takes too many balls to make anything happen. And four bowlers by themselves can shoulder the load without need for Sobers to fill in some overs. By picking Sobers you are in effect not having an all-rounder, because Sobers with the ball is economical and not much else.

But if you were to pick Miller, you would truly have an all-rounder because not only will he be amongst the wickets, as much as your front-line bowlers, he'll give you at the least a decent bat and at the most a match saving/winning innings.

Therefore IMO, when you pick Sobers you are in effect not picking an all-rounder in a side that is of 'all-time' status but with Miller you are. I mean Sobers is classed as an all-rounder for the role he played for the West Indies where he bowled as many overs as a McGrath - yet was largely average. He wouldn't get that many overs in an all-time side, as it would really be a waste IMO, to give him 15 overs for him to knock off 1 wicket when one of the other bowlers will most probably knock off 2.

 

[SJS]

SJS, I think you've just touched what the issue is all about. Yes, Sobers would get the tip ahead of Miller, but not as an all-rounder but as a specialist bat. When you are picking Sobers in an all-time team you actually negate the effect the other bowlers may have because Sobers takes too many balls to make anything happen. And four bowlers by themselves can shoulder the load without need for Sobers to fill in some overs. By picking Sobers you are in effect not having an all-rounder, because Sobers with the ball is economical and not much else.

But if you were to pick Miller, you would truly have an all-rounder because not only will he be amongst the wickets, as much as your front-line bowlers, he'll give you at the least a decent bat and at the most a match saving/winning innings.

Therefore IMO, when you pick Sobers you are in effect not picking an all-rounder in a side that is of 'all-time' status but with Miller you are. I mean Sobers is classed as an all-rounder for the role he played for the West Indies where he bowled as many overs as a McGrath - yet was largely average. He wouldn't get that many overs in an all-time side, as it would really be a waste IMO, to give him 15 overs for him to knock off 1 wicket when one of the other bowlers will most probably knock off 2.

I understand what you are saying biut finaly it comes down to what you would prefer in your side.

Lets say for a moment that Bradman also had, besides all his batting records, a bowling record as good as Sobers. That would make it impossible for any other all rounder (chosen on account of a more balanced skill set) to be chosen in the side unless you were willing to take two all rounders.

So we come down to whats important, a partcular criteria or what will actually determine the place in the side , utility to the team. You could have Viv Richards with Sobers bowling skills or Muralitharan with, say, Imran's batting skills. Who would you chose?

You might say it will depend upon what the side needs. But in the case of Sobers, everyone agrees that his batting prowess added to his less than the greatest bowling skills will always ensure him a place in a side. Then the rest of the argument becomes merely academic.

I have amply expressed my admiration for Miller as an allrounder but the fact is that inspite of all that I would select Sobers because I think he brings more 'value' to the side.

 

[Ikki]

I understand what you are saying biut finaly it comes down to what you would prefer in your side

That's pretty much what I am saying. If you pick Sobers as an all-rounder, you're wasting your time because he won't perform as an all-rounder, but a specialist bat. But if you are picking an all-rounder, not just by name but by performance, then the stronger player, IMO at least, is Miller. Because essentially, even Bradman can be picked as an all-rounder, with even worse bowling stats than Sobers, and he will be picked ahead in 'value' but in terms of actually performing as an all-rounder, in an all-time squad, he is no more than a specialist bat.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

I've never denied that Miller was a better batsman that Imran but Imran was a much better bowler than Miller.Thats why I think Imran was a better allrounder than Miller byt there was not much difference between the two.Top 5:

1. Imran Khan
2. Keith Miller
3. Ian Botham
4. Shaun Pollock
5. Kapil Dev

 

[Richard]

I understand what you are saying biut finaly it comes down to what you would prefer in your side.

Lets say for a moment that Bradman also had, besides all his batting records, a bowling record as good as Sobers. That would make it impossible for any other all rounder (chosen on account of a more balanced skill set) to be chosen in the side unless you were willing to take two all rounders.

So we come down to whats important, a partcular criteria or what will actually determine the place in the side , utility to the team. You could have Viv Richards with Sobers bowling skills or Muralitharan with, say, Imran's batting skills. Who would you chose?

You might say it will depend upon what the side needs. But in the case of Sobers, everyone agrees that his batting prowess added to his less than the greatest bowling skills will always ensure him a place in a side. Then the rest of the argument becomes merely academic.

I have amply expressed my admiration for Miller as an allrounder but the fact is that inspite of all that I would select Sobers because I think he brings more 'value' to the side.

I simply don't understand why it's not possible to have Sobers and Miller in an all-time side. Why is there this fixation with only one all-rounder; pick one all-rounder for the all-time XI. Sobers makes any all-time side as a specialist bat IMO, and a fifth or sixth bowler. You can have him at five or six and Miller at seven - heck, even eight, then three more specialist bowlers.

I mean, if you've the choice between Miller and, let's say, Michael Holding, I feel it's a fair no-brainer, no? Why must all-time sides have rigid criteria; why can't you just have the best players.

I'd beyond doubt have Sobers, Miller and Imran Khan in any all-time team. The former is good enough to play as a batsman and both the latter two as bowlers, and when you consider they can both also bat pretty much to the standard of top-order batsmen, well... as I say, no-brainer to me.

 

[BoyBrumby]

If the amateurs were so poor they'd not have got into sides.

That's not the case at all though. England's (or, more accurately, the MCC's) early touring sides were littered with amateurs selected because they were "the right sort of chap". There are exceptions, obviously (DR Jardine being an obvious one), but if our test side was selected purely on merit quite few "gentlemen" would've joined the "players".

WRT Kallis he's a player who I feel most admire rather than genuinely love. I mean if one gets off on the absolute playing of each ball on its merits, then he's clearly the man for you. The perception is though that he is a selfish player (primarily through his batting, but also because of his apparent reluctance to bowl his share on occasions) and when one looks at his performances one must conclude the charge isn't entirely baseless.

I do think he's probably the most lavishly gifted cricketer of his generation though and, for all the quibbles, will be remembered as the all-rounder of the noughties.

 

[Athlai]

I simply don't understand why it's not possible to have Sobers and Miller in an all-time side. Why is there this fixation with only one all-rounder; pick one all-rounder for the all-time XI. Sobers makes any all-time side as a specialist bat IMO, and a fifth or sixth bowler. You can have him at five or six and Miller at seven - heck, even eight, then three more specialist bowlers.

I mean, if you've the choice between Miller and, let's say, Michael Holding, I feel it's a fair no-brainer, no? Why must all-time sides have rigid criteria; why can't you just have the best players.

I'd beyond doubt have Sobers, Miller and Imran Khan in any all-time team. The former is good enough to play as a batsman and both the latter two as bowlers, and when you consider they can both also bat pretty much to the standard of top-order batsmen, well... as I say, no-brainer to me.

AWTA

 

[NUFAN]

I don't get how you'd have all 3: Miller, Khan and Sobers in ANY all-time team..

 

[Richard]

Why not?

You think they'd weaken the side?

 

[Richard]

That's not the case at all though. England's (or, more accurately, the MCC's) early touring sides were littered with amateurs selected because they were "the right sort of chap". There are exceptions, obviously (DR Jardine being an obvious one), but if our test side was selected purely on merit quite few "gentlemen" would've joined the "players".

Eh? You've first said what I was saying wasn't true, then said it was.

From about 1930 onwards, whether you were gentleman or player really didn't matter at all. The best players got picked; some of those were amateurs, some were pros.

Even in the early 1900s and 1910s, there were still many powerful amateurs who were as good as and better than the pros, and selections "because he's the right sort of chap", at least at home, were moderately rare.

WRT Kallis he's a player who I feel most admire rather than genuinely love. I mean if one gets off on the absolute playing of each ball on its merits, then he's clearly the man for you. The perception is though that he is a selfish player (primarily through his batting, but also because of his apparent reluctance to bowl his share on occasions) and when one looks at his performances one must conclude the charge isn't entirely baseless.

Actually one must conclude it pretty much is, like just about every single other case of cricketers being accused of such.

Unless, that is, it's a charge one likes laying due to a fondness for conspiracy-theorism.

 

[Engle]

An AT XI must have variety, for obvious reasons.

The beauty of having a Sobers is that he provides the bowling variety.
You pick your best 2 pacers (lets say Marshall, Lillee)
You pick your best 2 spinners (lets say Warne, Murali)

Now, who complements that attack ? There's nothing that Miller can do that the pacers or the renowned batsmen cannot achieve.

But Sobers provides the variety (left-arm pace/spin)

FWIW, during the ROW XI vs Eng in the 70's 5-match series, Sobers topped the bowling aggregates over some very good names.

 

[SJS]

I simply don't understand why it's not possible to have Sobers and Miller in an all-time side.

Did I say you cant have both ?

 

[Richard]

An AT XI must have variety, for obvious reasons.

No, not obvious at all. An all-time XI should have the strongest combination you can think of. The strength of a combination is based not on its variety, but on the calibre of those making it up.

 

[Richard]

Did I say you cant have both ?

You basically seemed to be pitting one against the other in terms of all-time XI selection.

I wasn't, however, saying "WTF are you on about", just trying to make a general point.

 

[SJS]

You basically seemed to be pitting one against the other in terms of all-time XI selection.

I wasn't, however, saying "WTF are you on about", just trying to make a general point.

I said you cant have Miller in the side unless you had two all rounders and most people appear reluctant to do that because of the wealth of pure bowling talent around - words to that effect.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Eh? You've first said what I was saying wasn't true, then said it was.

That's not the case at all though. England's (or, more accurately, the MCC's) early touring sides were littered with amateurs selected because they were "the right sort of chap". There are exceptions, obviously (DR Jardine being an obvious one), but if our test side was selected purely on merit quite few "gentlemen" would've joined the "players".

Where? I though it was pretty obvious that I was saying not all of our amateurs were selected on merit. At no point did I say absolutely every one wasn't deserving.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Actually one must conclude it pretty much is, like just about every single other case of cricketers being accused of such.

Unless, that is, it's a charge one likes laying due to a fondness for conspiracy-theorism.

Humour a whacko conspriracy theorist then. What purpose, outside of stat-boosting, did his slowing adown after reaching his ton against us in the 5th test of our 04/05 tour serve?

I don't doubt he was playing each ball on its merits (which is a virtue in itself, on many occasions), but given that time was a factor it was contrary to his team's interests.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

I simply don't understand why it's not possible to have Sobers and Miller in an all-time side. Why is there this fixation with only one all-rounder; pick one all-rounder for the all-time XI. Sobers makes any all-time side as a specialist bat IMO, and a fifth or sixth bowler. You can have him at five or six and Miller at seven - heck, even eight, then three more specialist bowlers.

I mean, if you've the choice between Miller and, let's say, Michael Holding, I feel it's a fair no-brainer, no? Why must all-time sides have rigid criteria; why can't you just have the best players.

I'd beyond doubt have Sobers, Miller and Imran Khan in any all-time team. The former is good enough to play as a batsman and both the latter two as bowlers, and when you consider they can both also bat pretty much to the standard of top-order batsmen, well... as I say, no-brainer to me.

Miller is not capable of making an alltime XI as a specialist bowler because he took only 3.1 wickets per match despite having an average of 22,strike rate is pretty high too.