Imran Khan vs Keith Miller

[Lillian Thomson]

Reason # 7 Imran > Miller

His batting style was more conducive to partnering the tail-enders.

That clinches it for me.

 

[PhoenixFire]

That clinches it for me.

Was the a serious post or was it in jest?

 

[nightprowler10]

Of all the arguments given in favor of Miller, this one seems the biggest stretch. In which possible way other than stats are Imran and Miller in the same league, it just beggers belief.

I mean, you say that we are basing our decision on stats, but suddenly decide that since Miller had an average of 23 and Imran 22 they are in the same tier of bowling? Tell me, are Lillee and Miller in the same bowling tier, after all their averages are around the same? Of course not.


You seem to over inflate Miller's bowling status and diminsh Imran's to suit your argument. Imran could and did run through any batting line up in the world with consistency over the span of a decade. He's won matches against every major country. He is recognized by the vast, vast majority of the cricket community as an all-time great bowler (Holding himself rated him and Lillee the best). This is not a matter of following opinion, its fact.

Miller is not hailed in the same way at all. And his overall bowling figures ,other than his average, no matter which way you try and cut them, pale in front of Imran's. The gap between bowling-wise is wider than you are making it out to be.

AWTA.

I am a huge fan of both and am disgusted by the way both players have been brought down from either side of the debate.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Was the a serious post or was it in jest?

I meant it clinches it that Engle's a nob.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

What exact time period did you use?

SJS splited Imran,Wasim & Waqar's career into three parts in some other thread & Imran's peak average was 16 better than Waqar's 18 & Wasim's 19 or 20.

 

[Ikki]

AWTA.

I am a huge fan of both and am disgusted by the way both players have been brought down from either side of the debate.

Imran is one of my favourite players ever. A whilst ago I regarded him the greatest all-rounder. I don't know what it is I have said to make you disgusted - I assume you refer to me as you respond to the post that responds to me.

 

[nightprowler10]

Imran is one of my favourite players ever. A whilst ago I regarded him the greatest all-rounder. I don't know what it is I have said to make you disgusted - I assume you refer to me as you respond to the post that responds to me.

I was agreeing with the quoted post and then went on to say the other part, wasn't pointing at you rather at the person who said Imran isn't even a black head on Miller or along those lines. Not to mention other people who are degrading Miller in this thread as well. I have great respect for both and this thread is starting to irk me.

 

[PhoenixFire]

I meant it clinches it that Engle's a nob.

OK, try not to use the insult though

 

[Ikki]

I was agreeing with the quoted post and then went on to say the other part, wasn't pointing at you rather at the person who said Imran isn't even a black head on Miller or along those lines. Not to mention other people who are degrading Miller in this thread as well. I have great respect for both and this thread is starting to irk me.

Oh, alright, then I'd echo those sentiments.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

OK, try not to use the insult though

I didn't use any insults until the question was asked..........a question which I answered truthfully.

 

[JBH001]

Statistically, Imran's not a blackhead on Miller.

Neville, I usually respect your opinion - but statistically or otherwise, that was just dire.

 

[JBH001]

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?

Agreed, within reason. Miller seems to be highly under-rated as a bowler, he was not merely a good or even a very good one, but an out and out great bowler.

Let me be clear on this, he was not the equal of Imran, but he was within comparable distance of the man. I think the only reason Miller rarely figures in top 10/top 20 bowlers lists is because he is seen more as an all-rounder first and as a bowler second. While with Imran it maybe tends to be the other way around - which while undeserved (Imran is a great all-rounder) is probably a good indication of why Miller should be ranked as the superior all-rounder.

Furthermore, as I said earlier, Miller's batting was a league and more superior to Imran. Miller was a natural and proper batsman while Imran (with all due credit to the work he put into his batting) was not. It also ignores the fact that Miller was a much better fielder too.

Edit/ Seen this thread has gone on a bit since I was last here!

Edit 2/ Whats with the radically different vote spread?

 

[JBH001]

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

This is so LOL!!!

Methinks you need to learn a little bit about cricket history, BS.

Edit/ Seen AM has beaten me to it...again!

 

[silentstriker]

I didn't use any insults until the question was asked..........a question which I answered truthfully.

Don't be truthful if it involves insulting another member.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Don't be truthful if it involves insulting another member.

That clinches it for me.

 

[silentstriker]

Just saw this post. Explain my vote then.

Hence 'virtually.'

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?

You know, if you talk about averages, then you'll have to admit Nasser Hussain and Victor Trumer are roughly equivalent.

 

[subshakerz]

Agreed, within reason. Miller seems to be highly under-rated as a bowler, he was not merely a good or even a very good one, but an out and out great bowler.

Let me be clear on this, he was not the equal of Imran, but he was within comparable distance of the man. I think the only reason Miller rarely figures in top 10/top 20 bowlers lists is because he is seen more as an all-rounder first and as a bowler second. While with Imran it maybe tends to be the other way around - which while undeserved (Imran is a great all-rounder) is probably a good indication of why Miller should be ranked as the superior all-rounder.

Furthermore, as I said earlier, Miller's batting was a league and more superior to Imran. Miller was a natural and proper batsman while Imran (with all due credit to the work he put into his batting) was not. It also ignores the fact that Miller was a much better fielder too.

Edit/ Seen this thread has gone on a bit since I was last here!

Edit 2/ Whats with the radically different vote spread?

What reason to do have to believe that he was an out and out great bowler besides stats, which are impressive but not amazing? Yes, he was one underrated and one of the best of his time, but his time didn't really have many great fast bowlers, did it?

Calling someone an all-time great shouldnt just be a label that you can hand out to every player willy-nilly. It's a combination of an oustanding record, the highest regard by fellow players for this skill and a reputation earned in cricketing circles during and after you play of being the best of the best. Miller had an good record, but come on, how many players or commentators can you name have hailed him as an all-time great bowler, not allrouder, since he retired. My guess is you would struggle to find one or two. Not the case with Imran. Do you think Imran, Lillee and Marshall will be forgotten as all-time greats 30 years on? Odds are no.

The bottomline, if he were an all-time great bowler, he would be known as such by now, especially given his popularity. He's not. You can't declare him to be one now for the convenience of the argument.

 

[subshakerz]

Also, you seem to be widening the gap between their batting. Was Miller really a league or more above Imran? You make it out seem as if Miller had an average of 50!

The fact is he had an average of 36, Imran had one of 37. If Miller were so vastly superior, you would have thought the difference would be more. Again, I am aware that Imran had the advantage of many not-outs, but towards the end of his career, he probably was more than equal to Miller.

Overall, yes, Miller was better, most would agree, but even stats would indicate that Miller had the edge but they were certainly comparable. Miller was a very fine batsman, but no batting genius to render such comparison moot.

 

[archie mac]

Priceless. I wish that you'd pull those sparklers out of the jewellery box a touch more frequently.

I spend too much time defending my heroes on this site

 

[neville cardus]

I was agreeing with the quoted post and then went on to say the other part, wasn't pointing at you rather at the person who said Imran isn't even a black head on Miller or along those lines.

Yeah. What a jerk.