Imran Khan vs Keith Miller

[R_D]

No,Its not because of that reason at all.I consider only those players as true allrounders who average 30+ with the bat & 30- with the ball.Others are either batting or bowling allrounders & have to be placed below true allrounders.Thats the actual reason why Sobers doesn't find a place in my top 5,not for the one you mentioned.

fair play to you than.

 

[Pratters]

No,Its not because of that reason at all.I consider only those players as true allrounders who average 30+ with the bat & 30- with the ball.Others are either batting or bowling allrounders & have to be placed below true allrounders.Thats the actual reason why Sobers doesn't find a place in my top 5,not for the one you mentioned.

If you eliminate batting all rounders by eliminating any one averaging above 30 with the ball, surely you have to keep the batting average higher for the batsmen? A person averaging 30 with the bat and 24 with the ball for instance might be more of a bowling all rounder same as a person with a higher batting average might be more of a batting all rounder.

For me, either some one has to keep the criteria steep in both fields or leaner in both fields, ie if some one needs to keep a criteria at all. I wouldn't really bother with criterias on the basis of stats though. For instance, Vinoo Mankad and Kapil Dev average the same with the bat but Mankad averages 33 with the ball while Kapil Dev averages 29. So I would be cutting some one like Mankad out if I followed stats criterias when in fact he might well be deserving a spot in list of all rounders.

 

[Richard]

For me, Sobers was a batting-all-rounder and while his bowling was better than some sometimes make-out there's still a patently obvious chasm between his batting and bowling. If I'm looking for a list of "pure" all-rounders he'll not make it. Miller, Imran etc. all head that up.

HOWEVER, Sobers' bowling is very much, to me, good enough to call him enough of an all-rounder (rather than just a "batsman who bowls to a semi-decent standard" like, for instance, Andrew Symonds) to fit into a list of all-time all-rounders. And his batting is so sensational, and his bowling good enough, to put him at the top of such a list.

 

[The Sean]

For me, Sobers was a batting-all-rounder and while his bowling was better than some sometimes make-out there's still a patently obvious chasm between his batting and bowling. If I'm looking for a list of "pure" all-rounders he'll not make it. Miller, Imran etc. all head that up.

HOWEVER, Sobers' bowling is very much, to me, good enough to call him enough of an all-rounder (rather than just a "batsman who bowls to a semi-decent standard" like, for instance, Andrew Symonds) to fit into a list of all-time all-rounders. And his batting is so sensational, and his bowling good enough, to put him at the top of such a list.

Agree with all of that.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

If you eliminate batting all rounders by eliminating any one averaging above 30 with the ball, surely you have to keep the batting average higher for the batsmen? A person averaging 30 with the bat and 24 with the ball for instance might be more of a bowling all rounder same as a person with a higher batting average might be more of a batting all rounder.

For me, either some one has to keep the criteria too steep in both fields or leaner in both fields, ie if some one needs to keep a criteria at all.

I think the criteria of 30+ with the bat & 30- with the ball is already more strict than those of many other persons(most have 25 with the bat & 35 with the ball) & taking the criteria to 35 would leave me with only 2 true allrounders which would be Imran & Miller.Although,I think there is not much wrong with my current criteria but if I make it 35 with the bat,then I think Sobers would definitely find a place in my top 5.

 

[silentstriker]

If you use 25 average to consider who is a bowler, then India have never produced a single bowler in their Test history (the lowest average for an Indian bowler with a minimum amount of wickets is Kumble at 28.xx).

Which, when you think about it, sounds accurate. But I still find it amusing. Therefore, that will be my criteria. So with 25 with the criteria being ball and 60 with the bat, there have been no all rounders in the game.

 

[Engle]

Reason # 5 Imran > Miller

He had to set an example for his minions, whereas Miller could afford to play with carefree abandon

 

[silentstriker]

Reason # 5 Imran > Miller

He had to set an example for his minions, whereas Miller could afford to play with carefree abandon

Weakest one yet IMO.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Yeah holds no water really, very weak.

 

[JerseyGuy]

I rate the AR's in the following order:

(1) Sobers
(2) Imran
(3) Miller
(4) Botham
(5) Dev

I agree but for the order. My order would be

Imran
Sobers
Botham
Miller
Kapil

 

[funnygirl]

I voted Imran for his leadership quality . Captaining such an indisciplined side with full of egoes was a difficult task and he did that successfully by leading from the front .

 

[Richard]

Purely about batting and bowling though.

And TBH I simply cannot fathom how one could rate Wasim a better bowler than Imran but Imran a better all-rounder than Miller.

 

[Richard]

If you use 25 average to consider who is a bowler, then India have never produced a single bowler in their Test history (the lowest average for an Indian bowler with a minimum amount of wickets is Kumble at 28.xx).

Which, when you think about it, sounds accurate. But I still find it amusing. Therefore, that will be my criteria. So with 25 with the criteria being ball and 60 with the bat, there have been no all rounders in the game.

How about just "somewhere near equal in batting and bowling" (impossible to put a peak and a sky or a lowest-possible-value on that) to define what is an all-rounder, then just pick the best one of those?

 

[Sanz]

Reason # 5 Imran > Miller

He had to set an example for his minions, whereas Miller could afford to play with carefree abandon

And he really did a great job of it by leaving a love child in every city he played.

 

[Sanz]

I've read a bit about Keith Miller certainly agree that he probaly could've had much better record if he had put his mind to it but obvious ally after being to war and all. He just took it as game. Who knows maybe the fact that he didn't take it that seriously is what made him this successful in the first place.
I rate Keith Miller > Imran Khan.

Same can be said about Kapil Dev. He was a much better batsman than his stats suggest.

 

[subshakerz]

Some posters are seriously underestimating Imran's worth as a bowler, he was a genuine all-time great up there with Lillee and Marshall in the highest pedigree. Imran was a pioneer of reverse swing, bowled mostly on pancake wickets, and had a better record against the mighty West Indies line up than any other pacer of the era. Miller had only 170wickets in 55 matches and you seriously suggest he was better than Imran in this category? A comparison with Ray Lindwall is more suitable.

Miller was arguably the better batsman, but not by the wide gap some people are suggesting. Imran had a slow start career-wise, but managed to average over 50 is his last 50 tests, no small feat when you consider he batted so low down the order. He could adjust his strokeplay to almost any situation, and played purely as a batsman when he was injured as a bowler.

Finally, he wasn't just a captain, he was a leader. Landmark victories in England and India, never losing to the West Indies, winning the World Cup, etc. All this with the most fractious side in world cricket.

Don't get me wrong, Keith Miller was fantastic, a man capable of captivating audiences with the ball and bat. But come on, he played in the Invincibles alongside Bradman, Barnes, Lindwall, etc., you can't tell me he experienced the same pressures as Imran did to transform his side to a cricketing force.

For his status as a bowling legend, fantastic stats against the best, shouldering the lion's share of his team's responsibility and a proven track track record as captain, Imran simply rates higher. Don't just take my word for it, ask Richie Benaud, who adored Keith Miller but had to concede that Imran was the better all-rounder.

 

[JBH001]

Ask Richie Benaud? Why would I want to do that?

 

[JBH001]

Botham, I really find it so difficult to rate. Because for part of his career he was sensational beyond sensation, and for another part he was little more than extremely poor (though many refused to recognise this due to what he once had been). It's almost like the two parts of his career have to have different ratings to me - few have been two so totally different players over the course of a career.

You know, I would really break that up into 4 parts or maybe 3 (the last two parts sort of meld one into the other). Certainly the first part of his career as you so nicely expressed it was sensational beyond sensation (even more so if you take his captaincy stats out of the picture). However, even after his first set of injuries and his return as a lesser player, he was still a very good all-rounder right upto about, what? 84/85 was it? Then you really had a steep and sharp decline, apart from the occassional good performance, and then the intermittent returns to test cricket where he looked steadily worse and worse. I really think he ought to have retired around 86/87 when he was nobbled again by injuries. But, meh.Thats how it goes, sometimes I guess.

 

[silentstriker]

I agree with subshakerz that people are very seriously underestimating Imran's bowling, and I've no idea why. On the other hand, his batting was overrated.

 

[silentstriker]

And I am highly saddened at the polarization of votes. Virtually every Imran poster is a subcontinent guy and virtually every Miller is a non subcontinent guy. I have a feeling that if Miller and Imran switched countries, the results would be equally switched, and that's pretty unfortunate.

I, on the other hand, will continue to not vote and instead judge everyone else.