Imran Khan vs Keith Miller

[Sanz]

Despite the fact that they're both statistical replicas of each other,Imran has to be placed just above Miller when comparing them as allrounders.As bowlers,I think its a no contest as Imran is miles ahead of Miller.Imran played just around 68 matches as a bowler & took 5.4 wickets/match while Miller took just 3.0 wickets/match.Imran not only has a much better strike rate but also many times more five fors & 10 wicket hauls.Imran would almost make everyone's top 10 bowlers ever but Miller would struggle to find a plance in top 30 even.As a batsman,Miller was surely better than Imran but difference was not as much as some people here try to make.They had pretty similar batting averages but Miller has one more hundred despite playing 33 less games but I think it was due to the reason that Imran played as just a bowler for 5 years after becoming a regular in the team.Imran has more fifties than Miller though.And Imran Khan's batting is also cricticized for having 25 not outs out of 126 test innings played(1/5th).I think it also goes in Imran's favour as its not like he was a tailender & it was easy for him to achieve that,it rather shows his commitment with batting,ability to saty at the wicket & capability to form useful partnerships with tailenders.

Also,Imran Khan's average of 52 with the bat & 20 with the ball in last 50 tests of his career is the greatest peak of an allrounder ever.Imran also had the burden of captaincy on his shoulders.These are the reason why I think Imran Khan was a better allrounder than Keith Miller.

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

Take a look at the first quote and then read the second quote and tell us if that is what you said ? If you still maintain and insist on being fair in your assessment then please answer the following :-

a. On what basis is Imran miles ahead of Miller as a bowler ?
b. How is Imran an allrounder when he played 5 years mainly as a bowlers(you basically use that argument to discredit Miller's more Centuries in fewer tests)
c. So Imran played 5 good years only as bowler, played 20 tests only as batsman and he still is the better allrounder than Miller/Botham/Sobers who played most of their games as allrounders ? Does that not give Imran an unfair edge and kind of boosts his avg both as a bowler and batsman and giving false impression of him being a far better allrounder than others ?
d. You use Imran's last 50 tests to boost your claim of his all round skills when you yourself have accepted that he didn't bowl in close to 20. How can he be considered an allrounder on that basis and why should one give that record any value in order to consider him as the greatest allrounder ?
e. On what basis do you call Sir Gary Sobers a mediocre bowler ?

There are many more..and I will get back to them later.

 

[subshakerz]

Take a look at the first quote and then read the second quote and tell us if that is what you said ? If you still maintain and insist on being fair in your assessment then please answer the following :-

a. On what basis is Imran miles ahead of Miller as a bowler ?
b. How is Imran an allrounder when he played 5 years mainly as a bowlers(you basically use that argument to discredit Miller's more Centuries in fewer tests)
c. So Imran played 5 good years only as bowler, played 20 tests only as batsman and he still is the better allrounder than Miller/Botham/Sobers who played most of their games as allrounders ? Does that not give Imran an unfair edge and kind of boosts his avg both as a bowler and batsman and giving false impression of him being a far better allrounder than others ?
d. You use Imran's last 50 tests to boost your claim of his all round skills when you yourself have accepted that he didn't bowl in close to 20. How can he be considered an allrounder on that basis and why should one give that record any value in order to consider him as the greatest allrounder ?
e. On what basis do you call Sir Gary Sobers a mediocre bowler ?

There are many more..and I will get back to them later.

By the way, Sobers had a slow start to his bowling career, just like Imran had for his batting. In his first 30 tests, he took 31 wickets at an average of 50. But do we judge him for that time of his career?

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Take a look at the first quote and then read the second quote and tell us if that is what you said ? If you still maintain and insist on being fair in your assessment then please answer the following :-

a. On what basis is Imran miles ahead of Miller as a bowler ?
b. How is Imran an allrounder when he played 5 years mainly as a bowlers(you basically use that argument to discredit Miller's more Centuries in fewer tests)
c. So Imran played 5 good years only as bowler, played 20 tests only as batsman and he still is the better allrounder than Miller/Botham/Sobers who played most of their games as allrounders ? Does that not give Imran an unfair edge and kind of boosts his avg both as a bowler and batsman and giving false impression of him being a far better allrounder than others ?
d. You use Imran's last 50 tests to boost your claim of his all round skills when you yourself have accepted that he didn't bowl in close to 20. How can he be considered an allrounder on that basis and why should one give that record any value in order to consider him as the greatest allrounder ?
e. On what basis do you call Sir Gary Sobers a mediocre bowler ?

There are many more..and I will get back to them later.

a.Miles ahead is surely an exaggeration but its a well known fact he was definitely a much better bowler than Miller.

b.Imran didn't play just for 5 years as a bowler,I don't remember saying such a thing.

c.Sobers just took 31 wickets @ in his first 30 matches,why doesn't it count against if Imran's 20 tests as batsman do?Botham was either too good or too worst in different phases of his career & thats why has nothing more than a fine record.Miller was pretty consistent & if you go through all my posts in this thread,I've said on a number of ocassions that he is pretty equal to Imran as an allrounder but Imran is just a little ahead.

d.Imran always performed in one discipline consistently since becoming a regular member of the team in 1978.Gary Sobers & Ian Botham made 100 runs & took 5 wickets 3 or 4 more times in a match than Imran did doesn't mean they always performed with both bat & ball at the same time & Imran never did.Botham had a very short peak & for about half of his international career,he was crap at both disciplies especially 1986 onwards.If I' not wrong,Miller made 100 runs & took 5 wickets just as many times as Imran did.Miller took much less wickets per match than Imran didAnd I don't give those 20 tests reference to to consider him the greatest ever allrounder but to tell that he took more wickets/match than some of the other bowlers in those matches he played as a bowler.All these other allrounders had some records which can count against them just as Imran's not outs against him.Everone accepts that Imran's overall record in his last 50 tests is the greatest ever peak of any allrounder.

e.Based on his record & I've explained this thing number of times before.An average of around 35,strike rate of over 90 are enough to call Garry Sobers as a bowler.I highly repect Sobers & makes my alltime XI as a batsman & he deserves it.Those who select him as allrounder don't understand that he would hardly get a chance to bowl a single over in presence of 4 or 5 alltime great bowlers in the team.

 

[archie mac]

e.Based on his record & I've explained this thing number of times before.An average of around 35,strike rate of over 90 are enough to call Garry Sobers as a bowler.I highly repect Sobers & makes my alltime XI as a batsman & he deserves it.Those who select him as allrounder don't understand that he would hardly get a chance to bowl a single over in presence of 4 or 5 alltime great bowlers in the team.

You can't have it both ways BS (sorry)

You are happy to rate Khan higher as a bowler sighting the reason that a lot of experts rate him in their top 10 as a bowler, but most experts (99%) say that Sobers is the best ever AR, and most people who played with and against him (again 99%) say Lilllee was the best bowler, so do you argee with the experts? Or only when they agree with you?

I would think a lot would not rate Khan in their top 5 although most would have him in their top 10 (and rightly so)

 

[BhupinderSingh]

You can't have it both ways BS (sorry)

You are happy to rate Khan higher as a bowler sighting the reason that a lot of experts rate him in their top 10 as a bowler, but most experts (99%) say that Sobers is the best ever AR, and most people who played with and against him (again 99%) say Lilllee was the best bowler, so do you argee with the experts? Or only when they agree with you?

I would think a lot would not rate Khan in their top 5 although most would have him in their top 10 (and rightly so)

When I say that experts rate Imran pretty higher then it is to answer you people with your logics because you're the ones who bring references of experts in favour of your favourite players & I never give a **** to what these "experts say".If you base your views on opinion of experts,then you have to consider Imran a much better bowler than Miller or never argue again(in favour of your favourite players) by quoting those experts because it would be hypocrisy.Half of those experts have Imran in their top 5 & almost all of the rest have him in top 10 as well.

 

[archie mac]

When I say that experts rate Imran pretty higher then it is to answer you people with your logics because you're the ones who bring references of experts in favour of your favourite players & I never give a **** to what these "experts say".If you base your views on opinion of experts,then you have to consider Imran a much better bowler than Miller or never argue again(in favour of your favourite players) by quoting those experts because it would be hypocrisy.Half of those experts have Imran in their top 5 & almost all of the rest have him in top 10 as well.

I have never read one 'expert' say that Khan was a much better bowler than Miller, can you find me a quote?

Anyway there are experts and then there are experts

I watched Atherton on tele and he had never heard of George Lohmann

 

[kiwipostereborn]

Imran Khan, I rate him comfortably ahead of Sobers as well.

 

[JBMAC]

When I say that experts rate Imran pretty higher then it is to answer you people with your logics because you're the ones who bring references of experts in favour of your favourite players & I never give a **** to what these "experts say".If you base your views on opinion of experts,then you have to consider Imran a much better bowler than Miller or never argue again(in favour of your favourite players) by quoting those experts because it would be hypocrisy.Half of those experts have Imran in their top 5 & almost all of the rest have him in top 10 as well.

Forget about your "experts", I have seen both players playing and let me assure you BS that Miller was by far the superior in ALL facets of the game.


BTW, the definition of expert :- Ex, the unknown quantity
Spe(u)rt, the drip under pressure

 

[kiwipostereborn]

Forget about your "experts", I have seen both players playing and let me assure you BS that Miller was by far the superior in ALL facets of the game.

What you saw doesn't matter really in cricket. You can only judge talent that way. the question is who is better and that can be done through their achievements and stats which Imran has over miller.
Imran Khan= Greatest allrounder of all time.

Imo also the 2nd best cricketer ever behind Bradman.

 

[archie mac]

What you saw doesn't matter really in cricket. You can only judge talent that way. the question is who is better and that can be done through their achievements and stats which Imran has over miller.
Imran Khan= Greatest allrounder of all time.

Imo also the 2nd best cricketer ever behind Bradman.

Why can't you judge talent from what you have watched?

The 2nd paragraph is only saved form being very silly with the IMO at the start

 

[JBH001]

Yes, but does that not still mean that the opinion held is a silly one?

 

[shortpitched713]

The 2nd paragraph is only saved form being very silly with the IMO at the start

Nothing silly about it afaic. Its not like hes saying someone is better than Bradman. The most popular second choice would be Sobers, but its far from unanimous(sp?), and I've always found it hard to compare a Sobers and an Imran, let alone a Barnes and a Lara.

 

[Sanz]

a.Miles ahead is surely an exaggeration but its a well known fact he was definitely a much better bowler than Miller.

So first you say Imran is miles ahead of Miller as a bowler, when I ask you how do come to that conclusion, you change the words to 'Much better bowler' and still dont offer any explanation.

So how do you come to the conclusion that Imran is much better bowler than Miller ?

 

[kiwipostereborn]

Why can't you judge talent from what you have watched?

Read it properly. I said you can only judge talent- More talented does not mean better. you can't judge their whole career based on who looked better to you, what they achieved is more important and that can be known whether you saw them live or not.

My 2nd statement was just fine. I rate Imtan khan as the 2nd best cricketer of all time behind Bradman.

 

[Sanz]

b.Imran didn't play just for 5 years as a bowler,I don't remember saying such a thing.

Dude, Either you are having trouble comprehending or you are deliberately trying to change the meaning of what you said. You said "...Imran played as just a bowler for 5 years after becoming a regular in the team.." Now figure out why you said that and what you meant by that and then we can discuss.

 

[Sanz]

c.Sobers just took 31 wickets @ in his first 30 matches,why doesn't it count against if Imran's 20 tests as batsman do?

Because people rarely use selective stats while arguing about Sobers but in case of Imran you almost always hear oh he averaged 50 with bat and 20 with ball in last 50 tests or something like that.

Secondly Sobers did play as an allrounder in all those games, its just that he probably didn't have as much success early in his career as a bowler as he did later.

 

[Sanz]

Imran always performed in one discipline consistently since becoming a regular member of the team in 1978.

So did Sobers. Sobers always performed with the bat. Dont know what you are trying to prove. It was Imran who wasn't good enough as a batsman or bowler between 1971-76.

Gary Sobers & Ian Botham made 100 runs & took 5 wickets 3 or 4 more times in a match than Imran did doesn't mean they always performed with both bat & ball at the same time & Imran never did.

Noone is claiming that Botham and Sobers always performed with both bat and ball or that Imran never did but just that they did it more often than Imran.

Botham had a very short peak & for about half of his international career,he was crap at both disciplies especially 1986 onwards.

Short Peak ? Dude that peak was enough to hit 14 centuries (8 more than Imran) and more wickets than Imran, Yeah he was crap 1986 onwards..but who really cares.

Frankly I can go on and on and shred all your logic into pieces..but I dont have time and neither the motivation to do that. I have already said that I have no problem with you picking Imran as the best allrounder, but to not consider Sobers in top 5 all time is hurting your credibility here and I seriously have stopped taking your opinion seriously.

 

[subshakerz]

Is it possible to say that Sobers wasn't the greatest allrounder ever but the second greatest cricketer after Bradman? Perhaps that might solve a lot of this ruckus.

 

[subshakerz]

Because people rarely use selective stats while arguing about Sobers but in case of Imran you almost always hear oh he averaged 50 with bat and 20 with ball in last 50 tests or something like that.

Secondly Sobers did play as an allrounder in all those games, its just that he probably didn't have as much success early in his career as a bowler as he did later.

Actually, Imran was known for his batting ability early in his career, just like Sobers with the ball, but only evolved into a genuine bat after 30 odd tests, like Sobers again with the ball.

Just to clarify, I still think Sobers is a slightly better cricketer than Imran, just want to point out that posters tend to poke holes in Imran's career without doing so for Miller, Botham and Sobers.

 

[subshakerz]

Short Peak ? Dude that peak was enough to hit 14 centuries (8 more than Imran) and more wickets than Imran, Yeah he was crap 1986 onwards..but who really cares.
.

If you look at Botham's career, that Ashes series of 81 was the point after which he became inconsistent with the bat and less potent with the ball. As the years passed, so did his form. From 78-81 though, he was incomparable.

I was listening to an interview of Sobers where he says that conditions had to be right for Botham to deliver, if not he looked ordinary and people used to dismiss it by saying "that's just how Botham plays". Sobers felt that was a poor excuse for a sportsman.

Imran, throughout the 80s, never failed in a single series. It's unbelievable, he would either deliver with the bat or ball, and adjusted to conditions all across the world. To not have a poor series for a decade on is mind-blowing.