Imran Khan vs Keith Miller

[neville cardus]

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

Guilty as charged. In fact, it's almost worthy of the sort of ban dished out to Fiery.

 

[neville cardus]

I spend too much time defending my heroes on this site

But not enough time regaling us with lovely anecdotes. Please, sir, I want some more.

 

[neville cardus]

Guilty as charged. In fact, it's almost worthy of the sort of ban dished out to Fiery.

Ah, what of it? I'll ban myself for a week.

Toodles!

 

[archie mac]

But not enough time regaling us with lovely anecdotes. Please, sir, I want some more.

There are plenty in the brain somewhere, but these days I need someone to 'jolt' them, so the mention of Benaud and Miller dragged that one to the fore

My last post on the subject since we are going around in circles

Two great players, both were considered in the very top shelf during their time in the game, Miller was considered the best AR during his time in the game, was a little laconic and did not always play at his best unless in the mood. He also missed six years of cricket due to the war.

Miller was clearly a better batsman and fielder than Imran, was rated a great captain by all of those who played with him, and was imo as good a bowler as Imran. but if we give the bowling nod to Imran (and lets give him the nod as captain, as Miller never captained in a Test), than surely Miller is the better AR? Although there is not much in it

 

[JBH001]

Sorry, if this reply is unduly short - have a 5,000 word essay due tomorrow.

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?

Well, seeing as I have not seen the man bowl in the flesh all I do have to go on are stats, history from that era, and the little footage that I have seen. All of which points in the direction of judgement that he is a great fast bowler. I think Kazo has already covered some of this, but if you do look at him in comparison to the other great fast bowlers of his era he more than holds his own. Just as a sample, I looked at the other great fast bowlers from the end of WW2 to about 1960 or so when that generation retired and cricket changed a little bit in the new decade. On a basic level of stats:

Miller avg/econ/sr: 22.97 2.24 61.5
Lindwall avg/econ/sr: 23.03 2.30 59.8
Statham avg/econ/sr: 24.84 2.33 63.7
Trueman avg/econ/sr: 21.57 2.61 49.4
Adcock avg/er/sr: 21.10 2.06 61.4
Heine avg/er/sr: 25.08 2.24 67.0

and finally a great medium fast bowler

Bedser avg/econ/sr: 24.89 2.21 67.4

As you can see there is very little difference (except for Trueman) between the top fast bowlers of that era. What makes you think that Miller is any less good than that lot? Especially those usually considered great, that is Lindwall, Trueman, Statham?
(and perhaps even the often under-rated and forgotten South African bowlers too?)

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.

I never call anyone great willy-nilly. I am usually quite sparing in awarding that accolade to any player, past or present - but it does seem to me that there is a degree of rosy hued tinted glasses judgement in a preference for a modern player over an older one.

Moreover, if you go over that criteria you have provided for being the best of the best, and then go over some of the posts in this thread, you would see enough evidence that Miller more than meets those requirements.

Note, I did not say that Miller was as good as Imran as a bowler. But I did say that he was comparable, as comparable as you can get when you rank top bowlers as there is often little difference between them. It may be that Imran would make my top 10 list of pace bowlers (I dont think he would make my top 5) but Miller would make my top 20.

And within those gradations I see no gaping chasms of difference.

 

[JBH001]

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.

Yep. I would say that Miller was a league (and possibly more) better than Imran with the bat. Purely, as I have repeatedly said, on the grounds that Miller was a natural and attacking batsman and Imran (to take nothing away from him) was a manufactured and defensive batsman. I guess at this point in time, stats aside, it comes down to subjective judgement - but in cricketing (indeed all sports) I prefer the natural and (preferably and indeed usually) attacking player over the gritty and (again usually) defensive player. This difference was also marked in their abilities in the field, something no-one seems to have made much mention of, but which is crucial if the term AR is to mean anything. But, of course. you are perfectly free to have your own subjective base of judgement and differentiation.

One final point. Miller, iirc, was selected to bat at #5 for the Invincibles. I think that (stats aside) is as telling as anything could be regarding his batting ability.

 

[Ikki]

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.

He is all that, and has achieved all that you've listed as criteria. He IS an all-time great bowler. I thought you underrated him, but I had no idea you didn't even consider him an all-time great bowler.

If in your time, you are much much better than your colleagues, then that is one of the best criteria you can fulfill. Not all eras have the same conditions - pitch, equipment, talent even - so you can only judge a player by their era and the players that played alongside and against them. Miller is one of, if not the, greatest bowler of his time. Pretty much the same praise goes to Imran.

One thing I'll also add as an observation: whilst Imran took advantage of every drop of talent he had, Miller was so carefree that you easily notice he played within himself and didn't take cricket serious at all.

 

[Ikki]

Sorry, if this reply is unduly short - have a 5,000 word essay due tomorrow.



Well, seeing as I have not seen the man bowl in the flesh all I do have to go on are stats, history from that era, and the little footage that I have seen. All of which points in the direction of judgement that he is a great fast bowler. I think Kazo has already covered some of this, but if you do look at him in comparison to the other great fast bowlers of his era he more than holds his own. Just as a sample, I looked at the other great fast bowlers from the end of WW2 to about 1960 or so when that generation retired and cricket changed a little bit in the new decade. On a basic level of stats:

Miller avg/econ/sr: 22.97 2.24 61.5
Lindwall avg/econ/sr: 23.03 2.30 59.8
Statham avg/econ/sr: 24.84 2.33 63.7
Trueman avg/econ/sr: 21.57 2.61 49.4
Adcock avg/er/sr: 21.10 2.06 61.4
Heine avg/er/sr: 25.08 2.24 67.0

and finally a great medium fast bowler

Bedser avg/econ/sr: 24.89 2.21 67.4

As you can see there is very little difference (except for Trueman) between the top fast bowlers of that era. What makes you think that Miller is any less good than that lot? Especially those usually considered great, that is Lindwall, Trueman, Statham?
(and perhaps even the often under-rated and forgotten South African bowlers too?)



I never call anyone great willy-nilly. I am usually quite sparing in awarding that accolade to any player, past or present - but it does seem to me that there is a degree of rosy hued tinted glasses judgement in a preference for a modern player over an older one.

Moreover, if you go over that criteria you have provided for being the best of the best, and then go over some of the posts in this thread, you would see enough evidence that Miller more than meets those requirements.

Note, I did not say that Miller was as good as Imran as a bowler. But I did say that he was comparable, as comparable as you can get when you rank top bowlers as there is often little difference between them. It may be that Imran would make my top 10 list of pace bowlers (I dont think he would make my top 5) but Miller would make my top 20.

And within those gradations I see no gaping chasms of difference.

Nice post JBH, one thing though: Trueman and Adcock aren't really in Miller's era. They started out as Miller finished.

 

[JBH001]

Thanks man, but I think there was a considerable degree of overlap between them.

Miller stopped playing in 1956, and Trueman started in 1952, and Adcock in 1953. But yes, Heine did start playing in 1955, so there is not much overlap there.

But I did mark the era out to about 1960-ish as I think cricket changed, again, at that time.

Still, I think they serve well enough as a means of comparison.

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

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.

That's absurd. You're saying he's not known as an all-time great bowler because you don't think he is? For me, anyone averaging under 23 in test cricket is great.

 

[Prince EWS]

Hence 'virtually.'



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

Wrong name on that second quote...

 

[archie mac]

Thanks man, but I think there was a considerable degree of overlap between them.

Miller stopped playing in 1956, and Trueman started in 1952, and Adcock in 1953. But yes, Heine did start playing in 1955, so there is not much overlap there.

But I did mark the era out to about 1960-ish as I think cricket changed, again, at that time.

Still, I think they serve well enough as a means of comparison.

Miller was asked what he thought of Trueman after facing him in a tour match and replied 'just another bowler'

After Trueman dismissed him in a Test match he quipped to the departing Miller 'Just another batsman it seems'. I thought this amusing but was a little sad to hear that Trueman felt the need to repeat the comment, when he dismissed Miller in the 2nd innings.

 

[silentstriker]

Wrong name on that second quote...

Oops .

 

[Sanz]

This thread has become a joke and it truly deserved to be. This thread is full of bias and ignorance and needless to say that it has devalued CW polls in a very big way. From now on I am not participating on any CW polls.

Also I am not going to take part in any discussion/poll about Imran Khan/Allrounders that is started by Bhupinder Singh or even if he participates in such a discussion, he is blatantly biased on this topic.

 

[subshakerz]

That's absurd. You're saying he's not known as an all-time great bowler because you don't think he is? For me, anyone averaging under 23 in test cricket is great.

No. I am saying that if he was an all-time great bowler as you purport, he would be recognized as such by the majority of cricket followers and players during his time and since. He is remember for his all-round prowess. I find it hard to believe that his skill with the ball was so very exceptional yet somehow by and large overlooked/not mentioned for decades. You tell me, do you know any player/cricket pundit who regards him as such? What does that tell you?

I highly respect Miller as a player, he was a cricketing gem, but its not a crime to suggest that he was not a legend with the ball alone. If he were a legend with the ball, and so very impressive with the bat, Gary Sobers wouldn't really be called the greatest, Miller would.

What is absurd is suggesting that any bowler averaging 23 or less is given an automatic free pass to be labelled a great. That's like suggesting that every batsman with a 50 plus average is great, which is patently untrue. It's blind following of stats.

 

[Ikki]

No. I am saying that if he was an all-time great bowler as you purport, he would be recognized as such by the majority of cricket followers and players during his time and since. He is remember for his all-round prowess. I find it hard to believe that his skill with the ball was so very exceptional yet somehow by and large overlooked/not mentioned for decades. You tell me, do you know any player/cricket pundit who regards him as such? What does that tell you?

I highly respect Miller as a player, he was a cricketing gem, but its not a crime to suggest that he was not a legend with the ball alone. If he were a legend with the ball, and so very impressive with the bat, Gary Sobers wouldn't really be called the greatest, Miller would.

What is absurd is suggesting that any bowler averaging 23 or less is given an automatic free pass to be labelled a great. That's like suggesting that every batsman with a 50 plus average is great, which is patently untrue. It's blind following of stats.

LOL, that's just nuts. Miller was regarded as the finest and is recognised by the majority of cricket followers for his bowling. You sound like you've barely heard of Miller.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

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!

Sobers & Kallis have similar averages so would you ever think of rating Kallis over Sobers?Similarly,Imran & Miller might have similar bowling averages but Imran was a much better bowler & hence their bowling is uncomparable.

 

[Ikki]

Sobers & Kallis have similar averages so would you ever think of rating Kallis over Sobers?Similarly,Imran & Miller might have similar bowling averages but Imran was a much better bowler & hence their bowling is uncomparable.

Likewise, you would think an SR of 60 is very average in Imran's time but in Miller's it was phenomenal.

 

[Engle]

Further elaboration on : Reason # 7 Imran > Miller
His batting style was more conducive to partnering the tail-enders.

My intuition seems correct. An expectation of late order batsmen is to form partnerships and shepherd the tail along.

From Howstats, Imran leads ground records (albeit admittedly he played more) as follows :

Imran
http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Grounds/GroundPartnerships.asp?GroundCode=001
http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Grounds/GroundPartnerships.asp?GroundCode=030
http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Grounds/GroundPartnerships.asp?GroundCode=012
http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Grounds/GroundPartnerships.asp?GroundCode=024
http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Grounds/GroundPartnerships.asp?GroundCode=054
http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Grounds/GroundPartnerships.asp?GroundCode=059


Miller
http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Grounds/GroundPartnerships.asp?GroundCode=020

 

[BhupinderSingh]

This thread has become a joke and it truly deserved to be. This thread is full of bias and ignorance and needless to say that it has devalued CW polls in a very big way. From now on I am not participating on any CW polls.

Also I am not going to take part in any discussion/poll about Imran Khan/Allrounders that is started by Bhupinder Singh or even if he participates in such a discussion, he is blatantly biased on this topic.

Yes,saying that Imran & Miller were pretty close as allrounders but Imran was just better makes me blatantly biased.