Imran Khan vs Keith Miller

[funnygirl]

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.

If some one asks me who do u want in ur team Imran or Miller ? I would choose Imran not by such a huge margin .

 

[subshakerz]

For one, it's strange you say Miller took x wickets per x matches disregarding the fact that Miller only bowled 30 overs a game, on average. Imran even bowls more than this. An SR of 61 is hardly poor. What makes that strange is when you talk about Imran's batting and saying he averaged 50. In playing 39 more innings he has 1 less 100 and 5 more 50s. So his average lends a lot to his not-outs. Now, I've gone on to say that you should give credit to him for doing so, but the last thing you should let that do is fool you into thinking Imran was that kind of batsman.

As you said Miller played for the Invincibles...batting at #5 for the Invincibles says a whole lot IMO.

I am by no means suggesting Miller was a poor bowler, in fact he was a very fine one. But he is hardly a fit comparison to Imran in the bowling stakes, Imran was a bonafide all-time great who lead his sides' attack throughout his career, while Miller wasn't even the best bowler in his team (Lindwall was).

And again, I'm not suggesting that Imran was a better batsman than Miller, but even on the stats you gave on their batting, the comparison is quite closer. Not outs or no not outs, you can't fluke averaging 50 plus over 50 matches without some quality involved. I would say that Miller was also a very fine batsman, while Imran was simply a good and dependable one.

Regarding being on the Invincibles, I was trying to imply that Miller never had the thrust of the batting and bowling responsibilites on his shoulders, what with Bradman, Lindwall and a host of others on his team. Of course, that doesn't cheapen his achievements, but if I were to compare him a player of quite comparable stats and abilities, who handled the lion's share of these duties for a much weaker side, and captained that side to boot, I would objectively say the latter is a better cricketer. Which is why I give Imran the edge.

 

[Fusion]

Well obviously you rate him higher. I am not accusing people that they rate one higher than the other, but vote the opposite. My problem is that there seems to be a very strong (maybe unconscious, maybe not) bias between the subcontinent/non-subcontinent ratings by virtually everyone involved and it irks me to no end. So much so that I am pretty much no longer going to participate in any 'who is better discussions' on CW.

Err, I am not implying racism of any kind. Just a bias, which I am sure is unavoidable. The only unfortunate thing is the extent that it seems to occur, and how it manifests itself in every damn thread in CC. It's completely tedious. I am not surprised that it's close - it should be. What I am consistently disappointed at is the distribution of votes by nationality - if 60% of a group of people voted for a specific player vs. another (and vice versa), its one thing, but its constantly like a 90-10 split.

Whatever, I'm just tired of this crap. I wish there was a 'subject ignore' feature.

SS, you're over-reacting. When people are comparing two players that are close (in this case, Imran and Miller are close as AR's IMO), they will tend to go with the player they know more about. It's natural that people from the subcontinent, who are very familiar with Imran's legendary exploits, would vote for him. And vice versa for Keith Miller and people from Aus/Eng. Now let's say we were doing a comparison which isn't that close. Say Imran vs Sobers as all-rounders. I would bet you a pretty penny that most people from the sub-continent would vote for Sobers ahead of Imran, myself included (sorry Bhupinder!). Anyway, your choice if you want to avoid these type of threads, though I would say you're missing out on good debate!

 

[Ikki]

I am by no means suggesting Miller was a poor bowler, in fact he was a very fine one. But he is hardly a fit comparison to Imran in the bowling stakes, Imran was a bonafide all-time great who lead his sides' attack throughout his career, while Miller wasn't even the best bowler in his team (Lindwall was).

Miller is only 6 balls slower than Imran. Whilst that is a gap, it isn't the one you espouse it to be. Miller was at times even better than Lindwall. And his performances against the best, like Imran's prove they're of the same quality.

What you suggest in the latter part...that's like arguing Warne/McGrath wasn't even the best bowler in his team, therefore he can't be compared favourably. Maybe you have a point, but this is a poor one IMO.

And again, I'm not suggesting that Imran was a better batsman than Miller, but even on the stats you gave on their batting, the comparison is quite closer. Not outs or no not outs, you can't fluke averaging 50 plus over 50 matches without some quality involved. I would say that Miller was also a very fine batsman, while Imran was simply a good and dependable one.

But he only averaged 50 because of not-outs. Not the fact that he got 50 runs so many times. In fact, his scores of 50 in comparison to the innings he plays is inferior to Miller. Simple stats actually make Imran look good in comparison to Miller, he was definitely inferior - dare I suggest more so than the difference in their bowling. Actually, looking at their 100s, and their innings, Miller is also almost twice as likely to score a tonne too. So I agree with your (bolded) judgment.

Miller actually got into the side as a Test batsman I believe.

Regarding being on the Invincibles, I was trying to imply that Miller never had the thrust of the batting and bowling responsibilites on his shoulders, what with Bradman, Lindwall and a host of others on his team. Of course, that doesn't cheapen his achievements, but if I were to compare him a player of quite comparable stats and abilities, who handled the lion's share of these duties for a much weaker side, and captained that side to boot, I would objectively say the latter is a better cricketer. Which is why I give Imran the edge.

He was there as an all-rounder. One that was originally better at batting but was needed more as a bowler. The fact that he converted himself in such a way, and almost instantly - compared with Imran who is much more polar in his efforts with both bat and ball - shows his immense talent.

But to say Imran was the key often or not is fine, and that's your opinion. I just think the criteria that Miller ought to have been more central to his team's efforts - as he was at times, let's not kid ourselves - as Imran was is basing the comparison on something Imran is clearly going to win.

 

[funnygirl]

SS, you're over-reacting. When people are comparing two players that are close (in this case, Imran and Miller are close as AR's IMO), they will tend to go with the player they know more about. It's natural that people from the subcontinent, who are very familiar with Imran's legendary exploits, would vote for him. And vice versa for Keith Miller and people from Aus/Eng. Now let's say we were doing a comparison which isn't that close. Say Imran vs Sobers as all-rounders. I would bet you a pretty penny that most people from the sub-continent would vote for Sobers ahead of Imran, myself included (sorry Bhupinder!). Anyway, your choice if you want to avoid these type of threads, though I would say you're missing out on good debate!

This is exactly what i wanted to say . Well put .

 

[silentstriker]

Don't want to derail this thread any further, but it wasn't just this thread. It's every thread that ever appears on here.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

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.

Someone even said that Miller was a better bowler than Imran which is highly laughable.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

And that criteria basically goes against everything that I have seen, read and heard about the great Man (Sir Gary - if you were wondering who I was talking about). I have no problem if you think of Imran as the best AR of all time, many do but to not consider Sir Gary Sobers among top 5 of all time is basically goes against your credibility.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=u-Uuon0CWk0 - Watch the man bat and bowl.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0_RTODqOTGI - Watch him field. He was one of the best fielders of all time.

He aslo dated a Bollywood actress before Imran did, just incase it was one of the criteria for not picking him.

I have nothing against Gary Sobers,he made my alltime XI when based on eras on this site.He would definitely be one of my three selections as a middle order batsman,I just rate V.Richards & Lara as better MO batsmen,only because I've seen more of them playing either live or recordings.I would be very happy to have him in my alltime XI but as a specialist batsman,not as an allrounder.

Those who pick him as an allrounder in their alltime don't understand that a mediocore bowler like him would hardly get a chance to bowl unless other 4 or 5 great bowlers in the team fail to take wicksts,which is very unlikely.And If I had to be biased against someone for being threatening to Imran's top position as an allrounder,it would have been Miller not Sobers.Sobers is one of the greatest batsmen of alltime but I don't understand how could he be considered to play in an alltime as an allrounder ahead of the likes of Imran & Miller(Imran's bowling equals Sobers batting,Miller is also not so much behind but Sobers bowling cannot be considered equal to Miller & Imran's batting) when he has a bowling average of around 35,strike rate of over 90 & just 2.5 wickets per match despite bowling 3 different styles.

So,I would love to have Sobers in my alltime XI as a specialist batsman but bot as an allrounder as his bowling is overated as he was just a mediocore bowler.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Yes, that was my reason tbh. I thought BhuS had promised not to do these polls any more? I'd of voted for an irrelevant third option ITBT, even Ian Austin. In fact if BhuS had put Imran against Austin in a "who was more svelte, handsome and ***y" poll, I'd of voted for the Lancastrian trundler.

I actually prefer Imran to Miller, but it's very close. Khan was brilliant with the ball, and either devastating or resolute, depending on the situation, with the bat.
.
Having said that it's created some interesting chat, so maybe I shouldn't be so judgmental

I had promised not to start alltime bowler threads only,not those related to allrounders.

 

[Engle]

Reason # 6 Imran > Miller
It would be far more difficult for the game to produce an Imran than it would to produce a Miller

 

[nightprowler10]

Reason # 6 Imran > Miller
It would be far more difficult for the game to produce an Imran than it would to produce a Miller

As much as I agree that Imran > Miller, you're being absolutely ridiculous with that post.

 

[subshakerz]

Reason # 6 Imran > Miller
It would be far more difficult for the game to produce an Imran than it would to produce a Miller

There might be a sliver of truth to that statement, but there's no way to prove it.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Sanz,how does my criteria for true allrounders goes against my credibility?Many of the people who believe that Sobers is the greatest allrounder ever consider him a batting allrounder,not a genuine or true allrounder! Even here on Cricket Web,when they were doing battles for true allrounders,the criteria they came up with similar to mine.Even when Days of Grace posted his true allrounders,there was no Sobers in it because there criteria was again similar to mine.And I know some forums/sites other than CW they have same criteria for true allrounders.Sobers was a batting allrounder & very good one too.

Sobers was a much much better cricketer than all of my top 5 allrounders with the exception of Imran Khan but he was not the better allrounder.

 

[subshakerz]

Miller is only 6 balls slower than Imran. Whilst that is a gap, it isn't the one you espouse it to be. Miller was at times even better than Lindwall. And his performances against the best, like Imran's prove they're of the same quality.

Sarfraz Nawaz was at times better than Imran. That doesn't mean much though, because overall you take their entire career into account. Stats are useful to a degree, but not everything can be based on them. Miller was only 1 ball slower than Ray Lindwall, but the vast majority of supporters/players would agree that Lindwall was in another league as far as bowling is concerned. The same is with Imran, the difference between Imran and Miller in bowling is that of an all-time great and simply a very fine bowler, which is appreciable.

What you suggest in the latter part...that's like arguing Warne/McGrath wasn't even the best bowler in his team, therefore he can't be compared favourably. Maybe you have a point, but this is a poor one IMO.

Actually, all I'm saying is that Imran had the status of the 'main man' for his team's bowling, and the burden that entailed, while Miller didn't. Nothing more, nothing less.

But he only averaged 50 because of not-outs. Not the fact that he got 50 runs so many times. In fact, his scores of 50 in comparison to the innings he plays is inferior to Miller. Simple stats actually make Imran look good in comparison to Miller, he was definitely inferior - dare I suggest more so than the difference in their bowling.

Yes, Imran wasn't as good a batsman, but the gap is not that huge. Even when he was injured and couldn't bowl, he could still justify his place in his team as a batsman successfully, just like Miller. It wasn't as if his batting was nothing but a useful novelty skill for his team, ala Richard Hadlee. The fact is, the debate for who the better batsman is is a bigger debate than who the better bowler is, where Imran is undeniably superior.

But to say Imran was the key often or not is fine, and that's your opinion. I just think the criteria that Miller ought to have been more central to his team's efforts - as he was at times, let's not kid ourselves - as Imran was is basing the comparison on something Imran is clearly going to win.

It definitely is a worthy criteria. You have to take the player's situation into account, not just look at numbers and make a judgement. If Imran experienced similar levels of success, while playing for a weaker and less recognized team, and carried a greater burden of usually being the first difference between victory and defeat, and captained the volatile side no less, why should he not be given credit for that? You can't deny that Miller had the advantage of being cushioned in a team littered with all-time greats, where the onus of the batting and bowling responsibilities were not on him.

 

[Ikki]

Sarfraz Nawaz was at times better than Imran. That doesn't mean much though, because overall you take their entire career into account. Stats are useful to a degree, but not everything can be based on them. Miller was only 1 ball slower than Ray Lindwall, but the vast majority of supporters/players would agree that Lindwall was in another league as far as bowling is concerned. The same is with Imran, the difference between Imran and Miller in bowling is that of an all-time great and simply a very fine bowler, which is appreciable.

Sorry, that's a ridiculous exaggeration. Even Brett Lee has better days than McGrath, but that's not the point. Miller and Lindwall were neck and neck in terms of bowling and performance. If anything, Miller may be said to exhibit a more sturdier option.

The difference, whatever way, is little, and not in the same league as 'in another league'.

Actually, all I'm saying is that Imran had the status of the 'main man' for his team's bowling, while Miller didn't. Nothing more, nothing less.

So? Reflects poorly on their teams but not the players.

Yes, Imran wasn't as good a batsman, but the gap is not that huge. Even when he was injured and couldn't bowl, he could still justify his place in his team as a batsman successfully, just like Miller. It wasn't as if his batting was nothing but a useful novelty skill for his team, ala Richard Hadlee. The fact is, the debate for who the better batsman is is a bigger debate than who the better bowler is, where Imran is undeniably superior.

You could quite clearly argue that the gap between their batting is bigger than their bowling. And second of all, Imran Khan did not perform with the the bat AND ball like Miller did. When you are talking about Imran's batting, you can't make a sweeping generalisation as if he was always that way. In the end of his career, where he bowled much less and concentrated on his batting, yes, they were comparable. Otherwise they're clearly not. It would be like trying to say Imran was as good as a batsman as Ian Botham - who is the only bowling all-rounder who truly compares to Miller as a batsman.

It definitely is a worthy criteria. You have to take the player's situation into account, not just look at numbers and make a judgement. If Imran experienced similar levels of success, while playing for a weaker and less recognized team, and carried a greater burden of usually being the first and last option between victory and defeat, and captained the volatile side no less, why should he not be given credit for that? You can't deny that Miller had the advantage of being cushioned in a team littered with all-time greats, where the onus of the batting and bowling responsibilities were not on him.

But the team in question was, what, the 2nd best team in the world at some stages?

It's not like we're talking about Murali here. Yes, Imran Khan was a great captain and was the most important player of his team...still doesn't give me a reason to compare that unfairly to Miller who was apart of the Invincibles and still carved out a rather large legacy for himself.

One can make the argument that being a big fish in a small pond is easier than being a big fish in a big pond. Still, really, it's not completely straight criteria, we're still talking about two big fish.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Reason # 5 Imran > Miller
He had to set an example for his minions, whereas Miller could afford to play with carefree abandon

Reason # 6 Imran > Miller
It would be far more difficult for the game to produce an Imran than it would to produce a Miller

Can't wait for Reason # 7, probably something to do with Norman Yardley and a packet of fried rice.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Kazo,Miller was clearly the better batsman but IMO the gap in their bowling is much more than in their batting.

 

[gunner]

this contest should have stopped long ago

if miller was so good then why didnt he play asmany matches as imran?tell you what,
i will compare them both,

Batting

                      Mat  Runs  HS   BatAv 100  50   W    BB  BowlAv 5w  Ct St

overall               88  3807 136   37.69   6  18 362  8/58   22.81 23  28  0
                      55  2958 147   36.97   7  13 170  7/60   22.97  7  38  0

v Australia           18   862 136   37.47   1   5  64  6/63   24.96  3   5  0
                       0     -   -     -     -   -   -   -       -    -   -  -
v England             12   500 118   35.71   1   2  47  7/40   24.63  4   6  0
                      29  1511 145*  33.57   3   6  87  7/60   22.40  3  20  0
v India               23  1091 135*  51.95   3   3  94  8/60   24.04  6   7  0
                       5   185  67   37.00   0   2   9  2/25   24.77  0   5  0
v New Zealand          7   308  71   51.33   0   3  31  5/106  28.19  1   1  0
                       1    30  30   30.00   0   0   2  2/6     3.00  0   1  0
v Pakistan             0     -   -     -     -   -   -   -       -    -   -  -
                       1    32  21   16.00   0   0   2  2/40   29.00  0   0  0
v South Africa         0     -   -     -     -   -   -   -       -    -   -  -
                       9   399  84   33.25   0   4  30  5/40   21.03  1   6  0
v Sri Lanka           10   271  93*  30.11   0   2  46  8/58   14.63  3   5  0
                       0     -   -     -     -   -   -   -       -    -   -  -
v West Indies         18   775 123   27.67   1   3  80  7/80   21.18  6   4  0
                      10   801 147   53.40   4   1  40  6/107  25.97  3   6  0

Bowling

                      Mat  Balls     R   W   BBI    BBM     Ave  Econ    SR  5 10

overall               88  19458  8258 362  8/58  14/116  22.81  2.54  53.7 23  6
                      55  10461  3906 170  7/60  10/152  22.97  2.24  61.5  7  1

v Australia           18   3994  1598  64  6/63  12/165  24.96  2.40  62.4  3  1
                       0      -     -   -   -      -       -     -      -   -  -
v England             12   2919  1158  47  7/40  10/77   24.63  2.38  62.1  4  1
                      29   5717  1949  87  7/60  10/152  22.40  2.04  65.7  3  1
v India               23   5078  2260  94  8/60  11/79   24.04  2.67  54.0  6  2
                       5    576   223   9  2/25   3/30   24.77  2.32  64.0  0  0
v New Zealand          7   2191   874  31  5/106  6/109  28.19  2.39  70.6  1  0
                       1     36     6   2  2/6    2/6     3.00  1.00  18.0  0  0
v Pakistan             0      -     -   -   -      -       -     -      -   -  -
                       1    174    58   2  2/40   2/58   29.00  2.00  87.0  0  0
v South Africa         0      -     -   -   -      -       -     -      -   -  -
                       9   1801   631  30  5/40   7/113  21.03  2.10  60.0  1  0
v Sri Lanka           10   1788   673  46  8/58  14/116  14.63  2.25  38.8  3  1
                       0      -     -   -   -      -       -     -      -   -  -
v West Indies         18   3488  1695  80  7/80  11/121  21.18  2.91  43.6  6  1
                      10   2157  1039  40  6/107  8/165  25.97  2.89  53.9  3  0

 

[Ikki]

Kazo,Miller was clearly the better batsman but IMO the gap in their bowling is much more than in their batting.

Your opinion, not mine though. And again, even in that belief, you should also note that Imran was not that good of a batsman whilst he was bowling - he did not perform the two disciplines together to the level that Keith Miller did. I am sure, if at the end of his career, Miller batted lower down the order and concentrated more on his bowling he'd improve his bowling figures to make that 6 ball difference even more negligible or if like Imran he stopped bowling altogether and concentrated on his batting his average would shoot past 40. Logically we can assume this knowing how great he was with the bat and the ball.

For Imran, it is either being great with the ball and being dependable with the bat or not bowling at all and being a much more reliable bat. For Miller it was being a really good bat and a great bowler for all his career.

Here's some food for thought, in matches where 5+ wickets are taken the figures are:

Miller: Batting - 786 runs @ 43.6 (1 not out); Bowling - 92 wickets @ 16.84. SR 46.
Khan: Batting - 1421 runs @ 33.04 (9 not outs); Bowling - 226 wickets @ 17.92, SR 40.5

As I said, the difference between them is much clearer now when you compare what they were achieving in both disciplines at the same time. For interest's sake, if you take away the not outs Miller's average is roughly the same whilst Imran's falls to about 27?

*** I just went through all the innings Miller ever played for Australia. Now I am not very knowledgeable about all the eras so I took my time looking at ANY player that looked decent against Australia. Their averages were rather crappy and their strike-rates, by today's standards were atrocious. 80-100 could be said a decent/good bowler; 70-80 could be said to be a very good bowler and guys in the 60s are very very few and none get as low as Lindwall and Miller. Only Laker really compares, Trueman definitely, but he comes towards the end where Miller is retiring. I guess I am now understanding how some said Sobers could have come into sides just on his bowling, because a SR in the 90s then was pretty good.

Let that just show how hard it is judging across eras and it puts in perspective that supposed 'gap' of 6 balls between Imran and Miller.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

if miller was so good then why didnt he play as many matches as imran?

And if Bradman was so good why didn't he play as many matches as Keith Fletcher.