Imran Khan vs Keith Miller

[Richard]

Because Keith Fletcher sadly didn't have enough players of true resolve to force him out of the team. Same true with Mike Denness.

 

[neville cardus]

Statistically, Imran's not a blackhead on Miller.

 

[shortpitched713]

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.

Welcome to the forums mate! Hope you stick around.

 

[subshakerz]

Welcome to the forums mate! Hope you stick around.

Thanks! Cricketweb is the most insightful forum on cricket I've come across, so hopefully I should be around.

 

[Sanz]

...Imran's bowling equals Sobers batting.....but Sobers bowling cannot be considered equal to ....Imran's batting

And how do you come to that conclusion ? Isn't scoring at the rate of 58 tougher(esp if you bat @ no. 6/7) than having a bowling averge of 23 or so ?

 

[subshakerz]

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.

Well, a few things...

First, Lindwall and Miller were neck to neck? This is news to me, especially since almost every major player from that time I have read rated about Lindwall as far and away the best fast bowler of the time. Lindwall was distinctly ahead of Miller, there's a reason you never hear Miller's name come up when you discuss the greatest bowlers. Imran and Lindwall are consistently compared with Lillee, Marshall and McGrath, who I'm sure you agree are a league ahead of Miller. Some differences can't be told fully by stats (though Imran is still better off there). You can use averages to prove that Kallis is a better bowler than Sobers, but nobody would believe you.

Second, you make it seem as if Imran never scored runs while his bowling was still potent. In that period you talk about where he averaged over 50 with the bat, he also averaged 20 with the ball! Imran was such that if his bowling occasionally wouldn't click, he would deliver the goods with the bat instead, to the extent that throughout the 80s, he never collectively failed in a test series (you can check the stats on that). That, my friend, is phenomenal and underscores what made Imran special, he would always rise to the occasion and deliver somehow. Sure, he may not have batted as successfully with the same consistency as Miller during his early bowling days, but this point alone doesn't mean Miller ranks ahead of him.

Let me put it this way. Imran would be considered an all-time great even if he had never scored a run. The fact that he did so successfully, much before his bowling began to fade, and was the country's greatest ever captain (a fact one has to definitely give him credit for), elevates him ahead of Miller, who was very fine but not great in both categories, was a bit better at performing with both simultaneously, and never captained.

 

[Matt79]

Miller's bowling would be much more commonly discussed, and he would be more frequently mentioned as an all time great with the ball, if he hadn't also been a brilliant batsman. Its similar to how Sobers' batting is frequently, relatively, underrated because of the regard he's held in as an allrounder. People mentally pigeon hole them.

I voted Miller, but honestly, its a toss of the coin for me and would change from day to day. Miller was clearly a better batsman for mine, whereas Imran was all-up a better bowler, but its really really close.

 

[pasag]

this contest should have stopped long ago

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

WWII, for one.

 

[subshakerz]

Miller's bowling would be much more commonly discussed, and he would be more frequently mentioned as an all time great with the ball, if he hadn't also been a brilliant batsman. Its similar to how Sobers' batting is frequently, relatively, underrated because of the regard he's held in as an allrounder. People mentally pigeon hole them.

I'm not so sure, I think its pretty commonly accepted in cricketing circles that Sobers was an all-time great batsman, and Imran and Hadlee were all-time great bowlers, though they were all all-rounders. That's not the case with Miller. If he was an all-time great bowler, you'd expect that opinion to be heard from some corner since he retired decades ago. The most I've heard is that he was very good, but not up there with Trueman, Lindwall and the others.

I do agree though that they are all generally recognized as all-rounders first before their stronger disciplines are discussed.

 

[funnygirl]

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

.Also why didn't Imran play as many matches as Glenn mcgrath

 

[BhupinderSingh]

And how do you come to that conclusion ? Isn't scoring at the rate of 58 tougher(esp if you bat @ no. 6/7) than having a bowling averge of 23 or so ?

Sobers played just 13 innings out of 160 at # 7 & Imran's bowling average was 22,not 23.Having average of 22 is much difficult to achieve( especially when you have just mediocore bowlers to support you at the other end) as compared to having a good top/middle order batsmen to support you at the other end.Also,Imran had to play on wickets for most of his career which are known as Graveyard of fast bowlers.

 

[Perm]

Statistically, Imran's not a blackhead on Miller.

Actually their statistics are remarkably similar.

 

[Perm]

this contest should have stopped long ago

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

That is quite possibly the worst, most un-informed and poorly reasoned comment anybody has ever made on CW.

 

[archie mac]

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

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

Have I missed something??

Miller was a great bowler every bit as good as Imran, his average is 22 which is pretty good. What did Khan do that was so much better with the ball?

 

[Ikki]

Well, a few things...

First, Lindwall and Miller were neck to neck? This is news to me, especially since almost every major player from that time I have read rated about Lindwall as far and away the best fast bowler of the time. Lindwall was distinctly ahead of Miller, there's a reason you never hear Miller's name come up when you discuss the greatest bowlers. Imran and Lindwall are consistently compared with Lillee, Marshall and McGrath, who I'm sure you agree are a league ahead of Miller. Some differences can't be told fully by stats (though Imran is still better off there). You can use averages to prove that Kallis is a better bowler than Sobers, but nobody would believe you.

No, Lindwall wasn't distinctly better, not by his legend nor by stats. I've rarely heard of Miller and Lindwall not being talked of as equals. Whatever the difference, distinct it wasn't. And I've, personally, having gone through so many records of bowlers of the time I can say that Miller/Lindwall were so ahead of the pack that I can easily consider both with the greatest era of bowlers now.

And what would be so insane about rating Kallis a better bowl than Sobers?

I guess in your books a Wasim Akram couldn't be considered as good, if not better, than a Miller? You seem to follow the crowd, I'm sorry to say.

Second, you make it seem as if Imran never scored runs while his bowling was still potent. In that period you talk about where he averaged over 50 with the bat, he also averaged 20 with the ball! Imran was such that if his bowling occasionally wouldn't click, he would deliver the goods with the bat instead, to the extent that throughout the 80s, he never collectively failed in a test series (you can check the stats on that). That, my friend, is phenomenal and underscores what made Imran special, he would always rise to the occasion and deliver somehow. Sure, he may not have batted as successfully with the same consistency as Miller during his early bowling days, but this point alone doesn't mean Miller ranks ahead of him.

No, he did, just not consistently. Imran and Botham are the only 2 all-rounders to score a century and take 10 wickets in a match, but you're not going to tell me that Imran performed at both very well at the same time like Botham did - and in this case Miller.

And please explain why that alone shouldn't put him ahead? I put the stats and everything up there for you to see, it's clearly evident. You can't say Imran wasn't a man for the moments any less than Miller was or visa-versa, but you can definitely say Miller was more useful most times with both forms.

Let me put it this way. Imran would be considered an all-time great even if he had never scored a run. The fact that he did so successfully, much before his bowling began to fade, and was the country's greatest ever captain (a fact one has to definitely give him credit for), elevates him ahead of Miller, who was very fine but not great in both categories, was a bit better at performing with both simultaneously, and never captained.

Sobers would be considered an all-time great even if he had not bowled a ball, what is that supposed to prove? If you consider successful being dependable and at times scoring important runs, sure he was. But he wasn't a consistent run scorer. Let me put it to you this way, the not-outs inflate his batting feats. For a team that is wanting to win, 40 runs in the middle of the match is more important than knocking off 20* by finishing the team off at the end. The not-out is only something used as assessment of the batsman in question throughout his career, but when you only score, let's say 27 runs on average - whilst you're bowling well - it gives a better indication at what you actually did for your team. An extreme example is someone batting at the tail and getting 20 runs each innings in the end staying not-out for almost all his games. Whilst that is a feat in itself, that person could border on a Bradman average but in reality he's only contributing 20 runs per innings for his team.

I've said what I think about his captaincy, so I won't rehash that. I just replied because you undermine Miller with the ball and seem to not understand why he was better with the bat - not just a little bit either.

 

[Ikki]

Have I missed something??

Miller was a great bowler every bit as good as Imran, his average is 22 which is pretty good. What did Khan do that was so much better with the ball?

Me too Archie? I'd say the difference is very little between them but to say it's laughable or to say that they can't even be compared as bowlers is really stretching it.

Also - considering Sobers is being dicussed too - through this bit of research I've come to understand Sobers' legacy better and whilst before this I'd hold Imran as the better all-rounder I consider Sobers higher again for 2 reasons:

1) his figures look terrible when you compare across eras and only when you look more to the bowlers around him you understand they were pretty decent.

2) in performing with bat and ball at the same time he does it more consistently than Imran

 

[archie mac]

Me too Archie? I'd say the difference is very little between them but to say it's laughable or to say that they can't even be compared as bowlers is really stretching it.

Also - considering Sobers is being dicussed too - through this bit of research I've come to understand Sobers' legacy better and whilst before this I'd hold Imran as the better all-rounder I consider Sobers higher again for 2 reasons:

1) his figures look terrible when you compare across eras and only when you look more to the bowlers around him you understand they were pretty decent.

2) in performing with bat and ball at the same time he does it more consistently than Imran

You must understand that stats are all that matter to many on this site


How anyone who ever read about Test cricket, or had the pleasure of watching Sobers, could come to the conclusion that he is not the greatest AR in the history of the game is beyond me

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Have I missed something??

Miller was a great bowler every bit as good as Imran, his average is 22 which is pretty good. What did Khan do that was so much better with the ball?

For me,Miller's 3.1 wickets per match,,just one 10WM & much much less 5 wicket hauls as well.All these things count as much against him as abowler as Imran's not outs against him.Imran is in the same tier as Marshal,Barnes,Hadlee etc when it comes to bowlers while Miller is nowhere near that.

Is Imran one of the top 10 bowlers ever? Yes

Is Miller one of the top 10 bowlers ever? Not even top 20(would be somewhere around 25 to 30 for me).

Tell me number of those players or writers/journalists who consider Imran as one of the best & also those consider Miller in the top 10 or atleast as good as Imran.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Comparing Miller to Imran as a bowler is just like comparing Rohan Kanhai to Garry Sobers as a batsman.

 

[archie mac]

For me,Miller's 3.1 wickets per match,,just one 10WM & much much less wicket hauls as well.All these things count as much against him as abowler as Imran's not outs against him.Imran is in the same tier as Marshal,Barnes,Hadlee etc when it comes to bowlers while Miller is nowhere near that.

Is Imran one of the top 10 bowlers ever? Yes

Is Miller one of the top 10 bowlers ever? Not even top 20(would be somewhere around 25 to 30 for me).

Tell me number of those players or writers/journalists who consider Imran as one of the best & also those consider Miller in the top 10 or atleast as good as Imran.

Since they have been playing Test cricket for over 130 years, I would think I could name 30 fast bowlers with very little between them, Miller and Imran being two of those bowlers. Both were very different, but one of the all time greats (Hutton)said 'you could hit Miller for a single or even three, but never for a boundary, because the next would be an unplayable ball'

Top ten lists are a waste of time, how many bowlers from the 1920s or 30s ever make these lists?