Imran Khan vs Keith Miller

[Sanz]

Actually, Imran was known for his batting ability early in his career.

Early in his career Imran was known for nothing , he wasn't good enough to carry drinks between 1971-1976

 

[Sanz]

just want to point out that posters tend to poke holes in Imran's career without doing so for Miller, Botham and Sobers.

No, that is quite incorrect. It's just one man's obsession with declaring Imran as the greatest allrounder, bowler, captain etc.

 

[Sanz]

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.

Ofcourse, but rarely did he turn a single series with his allround performance like Botham did. It is a lot easier to perform as either a batsman or a bowler than performing as both a bowler and batsman

 

[RolledOver]

Ofcourse, but rarely did he turn a single series with his allround performance like Botham did. It is a lot easier to perform as either a batsman or a bowler than performing as both a bowler and batsman

Likewise its much easier to play and perform at at one's preferred selected venues than to play and perform everywhere.(this is one reason why Ian Chappel rated Imran ahead of Botham).

This thread is heading nowhere . I see strong bias on both sides not just one.

To me and most cricket pundits Sir Gary Sobers remains the best ever allrounder (even Imran acknowledge that), Imran Khan happens to be the second best after Sir Gary Sobers.

Funny how WI struggled to get a decent AR after sobers.

 

[Ikki]

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

Wow, can I ask, without offending you, how old you are? I wish with all my heart I had that opportunity to see Miller play.

 

[archie mac]

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.

I just don't agree with the above statement, achieved? What, who took the most wickets? who scored the most runs? I hardly think he based his assesment on who looked the better

IMO Khan is not even close to being the second best player behind Bradman, and I think it a little silly to say Khan is, but that is my opinion

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It's complete nonsense to describe Imran Khan as the second greatest cricketer ever. He was a great bowler, but no where near the greatest ever, and was a very limited batsman. The only thing that could give him the edge over Miller (and Ian Botham) is the fact that through sheer hard work and determination he made maximum use of his ability, something which Miller (and Botham) never did.

 

[archie mac]

It's complete nonsense to describe Imran Khan as the second greatest cricketer ever. He was a great bowler, but no where near the greatest ever, and was a very limited batsman. The only thing that could give him the edge over Miller (and Ian Botham) is the fact that through sheer hard work and determination he made maximum use of his ability, something which Miller (and Botham) never did.

Well put LT, I should just laugh at suggestions like Imran being the 2nd best in the history of Test cricket But the sad thing is, some people are being serious

 

[Engle]

Well, the fact is that there has never been a cricketer who came near to emulating his feats as a fast bowling all-rounder and leader.

Sobers was never considered a good captain. Neither were the other pace AR such as Botham, Kapil, Hadlee. Miller was never given that responsibility at Test level.
Current pace AR appointed as captains such as SPollock and Flintoff failed. Kallis not given the responsibility.

Fast bowling by itself is hard work. Throw in batting and that's the most one can expect.
Being asked to lead on top of that would require well nigh Herculenean efforts.

Which elaborates my prev point that it would be far more unlikely for the game to produce another such cricketer.

 

[Sanz]

I see strong bias on both sides not just one.

Where is the bias ? I myself have picked Imran ahead of Miller but it irks me when people make illogical statements to show Imran ahead.

 

[SJS]

Well put LT, I should just laugh at suggestions like Imran being the 2nd best in the history of Test cricket But the sad thing is, some people are being serious

Nationalism is a seriously powerful sentiment

 

[subshakerz]

Ofcourse, but rarely did he turn a single series with his allround performance like Botham did. It is a lot easier to perform as either a batsman or a bowler than performing as both a bowler and batsman

I disagree. It's a lot harder to perform well in every series you play for a decade with either the bat or ball than to give spurts of all-rounder brilliance mixed with displays of inconsistency and mediocrity over a decade, with is how Imran compared to Botham in the 80s.

 

[Sanz]

I disagree. It's a lot harder to perform well in every series you play for a decade with either the bat or ball than to give spurts of all-rounder brilliance mixed with displays of inconsistency and mediocrity over a decade, with is how Imran compared to Botham in the 80s.

Despite all the so called mediocrity and inconsistency Botham took more wickets and made more runs for his country than Imran did.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

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.

Please give a link to that post.

 

[Sanz]

Your first post in the thread.

 

[shortpitched713]

Despite all the so called mediocrity and inconsistency Botham took more wickets and made more runs for his country than Imran did.

The more argument doesn't work. In that case Courtney Walsh would be the second greatest pace bowler of all time.

 

[Fusion]

Well put LT, I should just laugh at suggestions like Imran being the 2nd best in the history of Test cricket But the sad thing is, some people are being serious

While I don't consider him the 2nd greatest cricketer ever, I do think Imran was the 2nd most complete player ever, behind Sobers. I don't think it's quite so laughable to throw Imran's name out there for the list of top 5 or 10 cricketers. He is considered by most to be in the top 10 (if not 5) greatest bowlers, top 5 greatest AR, and top 5 greatest Captains. His performance was outstanding against the best team of his time (individually and in a collective contribution as Captain). Add to all this the fact that Imran discovered and nurtured great talent, and his case for being amongst the greatest ever is even stronger.

 

[Engle]

Add to that the fact the chased after arguably one of the most domineering Test teams ever. His greatest wish was to captain against the WIndies in a 5-match series with neutral umpires.

He relished a challenge which brought out the best in him. In a motivational speech he made to a non-cricketing public, he repeated a quote :

" Oh hawk ! Fear not these gusts of wind, for it is these which will lift thee higher "

 

[BhupinderSingh]

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.

Man,Imran only played 4 tests in his first 5 years(the period you are giving reference).Anyone can be crap for 4 matches.Many greats had it for longer but Imran had it in the start of his career.4 tests can hardly be used to prove anything against him.

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.

Yes,14 centuries in his whole career,not at his peak.

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

A few days ago,Pratyush explained that how my criteria for allrounders is pretty harsh on batting allrounders & I need to change it.I've given it a serious though for a couple & I think he was right & I'm grateful to him for making me realize it.I've changed my criteria,doing calculations,will post a new list & it'll most probably have Sobers in it.Peviously,he was not there because of that 'harsh' criteria but his batting should allow him to make top 5 of mine just as Pollock's bowling did in previous criteria.He's still a mediocore bowler for me but he might get in top 5 because of mediocore batting of ,Pollock,Kapil,Cairns & some others.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Your first post in the thread.

Sir that meant 5 years as a specialist bowler & most of rest period as a genuine allrounder.