Keith Miller v Sir Garry Sobers

[weldone]

Two minor points. One, SJS and I are not peers. Two, the fact that he often agrees with me is purely because he thinks my points are correct and he'll take the point in isolation rather than be swayed by whether or not he likes my general style of posting. Hopefully you'll have noticed that he hasn't even dignified your attempted snipe with a reply.

So what if you're not peers? So are not the cricketers and contemporaries who praise them....There are ample evidences all over the currently running threads that he is overwhelmed by your general style of posting...Yeah, I've noticed that he doesn't support me (specially when it's between me and you). So what? I don't post here to please someone, and I believe none is perfect...

 

[weldone]

Now this is really taking it too far.




Yeah Sachin and Lara are Brainless dummies.

You've got it all wrong Sanz.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

How does Imran having a higher batting average make miller not consistent? Imran has a higher average because he batted lower down the order and got more not outs than miller. Miller also occasionally gave his wicket away on purpose iirc and has an easily better first class batting average of 48 than Khans 36.

Yes,Imran made 3800 test runs by just coming at #11 and going back with a not out without scoring!
FC averages don't come into consideration when rating players to most of people here.If you do,then I'm sorry Miller was not an allrounder because he took just 1.9 wkts per game

 

[Sanz]

You've got it all wrong Sanz.

Tell me I am wrong when Lara/Sachin call AA greatest bowler they faced. Until then you are wrong.

 

[Sanz]

Have I ever said only stats(and I mean ONLY) should be used while forming opinions on players?

Isn't what you are doing in case of Sobers i.e. considering stats only ?

To me,stats matter the most but not be all end all,and thats true in Iman's case as well.

Really ?? But its not true when we are discussing Sobers. You change colors faster than a chameleon.

 

[weldone]

Tell me I am wrong when Lara/Sachin call AA greatest bowler they faced. Until then you are wrong.

How am I wrong? Did I predict that they'll say so...You didn't get the meaning of my post...

 

[Lillian Thomson]

So what if you're not peers? So are not the cricketers and contemporaries who praise them....There are ample evidences all over the currently running threads that he is overwhelmed by your general style of posting...Yeah, I've noticed that he doesn't support me (specially when it's between me and you). So what? I don't post here to please someone, and I believe none is perfect...

Your point was about peers agreeing with each other and you sighted SJS and myself as an example on this forum...........so that's "so what".

If your aim in posting is not to please anyone then you're succeeding nicely in that aim.

 

[Sanz]

How am I wrong? Did I predict that they'll say so...You didn't get the meaning of my post...

You used that assumption to make a point about why peer opinion can not be taken seriously. Your assumption is wrong, so is your point.

 

[weldone]

You used that assumption to make a point about why peer opinion can not be taken seriously. Your assumption is wrong, so is your point.

If you think that was my assumption then either
1. You don't know the meaning of the word 'assumption' or
2. You didn't read my post carefully...

I said SJS praising Lillian Thomson for every point he makes is equivalent to Sachin and Lara jointly declaring AA as the best bowler they have seen...two events are similar doesn't imply that the second will happen if the first one does...Hope that is clear enough...

 

[SJS]

So what if you're not peers? So are not the cricketers and contemporaries who praise them....There are ample evidences all over the currently running threads that he is overwhelmed by your general style of posting...Yeah, I've noticed that he doesn't support me (specially when it's between me and you). So what? I don't post here to please someone, and I believe none is perfect...

Come on Weldone. Thats being childish AND churlish.

I have no clue where you picked up that idea from. I disagree with may things LT posts here but I do not make it a point to speak out against every single post that I disagree with. I do have a lot of time at my disposal since I am retired but I certainly do not make use of it by telling the whole world who I disagree with.

Yes I like his sense of humour - ha makes me smile and that is very rewarding and I would not like to come here and not feel nice.

I came to CW because I love it and I post here if I think I have something worthwhile to say.

Sometimes someone makes a preposterous statement and in a moment of pique I may post a one line rebuke or, more likely a sarcastic comment - which I always regret and try to avoid but I am human and weak as well as the other man

As far as you are concerned, you cant be more wrong. I must admit I do not read the stuff posted by quite a few people here because of various reasons and my ignore list is huge. Some thirty people in all - I think. But thats not so much because I disagree with what they say but how they say it. I am a bit old fashioned (cant help it being old I suppose) in the matter of being polite to people and some people are on that list because they are not and others because I am afraid I may overstep the limit myself if I read the stuff they post - seriously.

I particularly read most of the stuff you post and dont remember having ever felt that you write stuff I have strong disagreement with in general. Where on earth did you pick up that impression from. You are wrong, my dear.

PS : I must tell you also that when you first posted that thing about peers and me and LT, I thought I did not get it. I read it again and again and thought you were being sarcastic. It was only when others started commenting on it that I realised that you actually meant it. It didn't bother me though I was very surprised that you thought so. I thought maybe it has to do with your arguments with LT more than anything to do with me really.

Anyway, there is nothing in what you say.

 

[weldone]

Your point was about peers agreeing with each other and you sighted SJS and myself as an example on this forum...........so that's "so what".

If your aim in posting is not to please anyone then you're succeeding nicely in that aim.

I wrote the phrase 'peer opinion' in the general sense it's used in this forum...

In the last sentence of your post, if you include 'one of' before the word 'your', include an 's' at the end of the word 'aim' and replace the word 'anyone' by 'some chosen ones' then you are almost right...

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I wrote the phrase 'peer opinion' in the general sense it's used in this forum...

..............and what sense is that exactly?

 

[weldone]

Come on Weldone. Thats being childish AND churlish.

I have no clue where you picked up that idea from. I disagree with may things LT posts here but I do not make it a point to speak out against every single post that I disagree with. I do have a lot of time at my disposal since I am retired but I certainly do not make use of it by telling the whole world who I disagree with.

Yes I like his sense of humour - ha makes me smile and that is very rewarding and I would not like to come here and not feel nice.

I came to CW because I love it and I post here if I think I have something worthwhile to say.

Sometimes someone makes a preposterous statement and in a moment of pique I may post a one line rebuke or, more likely a sarcastic comment - which I always regret and try to avoid but I am human and weak as well as the other man

As far as you are concerned, you cant be more wrong. I must admit I do not read the stuff posted by quite a few people here because of various reasons and my ignore list is huge. Some thirty people in all - I think. But thats not so much because I disagree with what they say but how they say it. I am a bit old fashioned (cant help it being old I suppose) in the matter of being polite to people and some people are on that list because they are not and others because I am afraid I may overstep the limit myself if I read the stuff they post - seriously.

I particularly read most of the stuff you post and dont remember having ever felt that you write stuff I have strong disagreement with in general. Where on earth did you pick up that impression from. You are wrong, my dear.

PS : I must tell you also that when you first posted that thing about peers and me and LT, I thought I did not get it. I read it again and again and thought you were being sarcastic. It was only when others started commenting on it that I realised that you actually meant it. It didn't bother me though I was very surprised that you thought so. I thought maybe it has to do with your arguments with LT more than anything to do with me really.

Anyway, there is nothing in what you say.

I am not very old in this forum...What I posted was from my very little experience here...Maybe I was wrong...And needless to say, I'll be very happy if I was ...

 

[Ikki]

Completely wrong and it's a twisting of truth. After using it in the formula to calculate how much runs would each give, it's no longer valid. We have converted runs and wickets to all runs. You are clearly twisting the truth.

Wrong. Just because player A and B give up the same amount of runs does not make them equal.

You are only considering runs they've made or conceded whilst batting or bowling. That's only one side of the equation. Player X and Y may make the same total aggregate of runs, but player X may also take a wicket in doing so. Not only this, Miller saves more overs - which will have to be bowled later by someone else, and even the best of ERs will not lessen even more runs being taken.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Isn't what you are doing in case of Sobers i.e. considering stats only ?

If two players have small difference in stats(analyzing those who layed on covered & uncovered wickets separately),then you can argue in favour of the one with relatively poor average using variables .If someone has too bad stats as compared to others in the team,then can be easily called as mediocre.Look at Sobers record compared to Hall,Griffith,Gibbs & Ramadhin and they all hardly are greats.Sobers has a too bad average & took so less wktsmatch compared to them that he can easily be termed as mediocre.

Really ?? But its not true when we are discussing Sobers. You change colors faster than a chameleon.

You mean its arguable that Bradman is not the best batsman ever?On what grounds is he considered best batsman ever?Its stats only,Sir.He's well ahead of others who played in that era.Sobers has poor stats compared to even good West Indian bowlers of that time.

 

[Ikki]

Really ?? Is it another one of your statsguru fact ?

Walcott during Sobers era (Mar'54-Mar'60) - Avg. 61.03, Sobers during that period - 63.52

And how does this disprove my point? I said averages were higher in this period. Did you just refute that?

Gavaskar's Average Dropped to 49 by the end of 1974 (The year Sober played his last test).

Between 1971-74, Gavaskar Averaged 49.03
Between 1975-83 Gavaskar Averaged 53.23
Between 1975-1987 Gavaskar Averaged 51.51
Between 1975-1987 Gavaskar Averaged 50.97 against teams which had at least one of the following bowlers :-

Imran Khan, Lillee, Akram, Hadlee, Holding, Marshall, Roberts, Botham

You've counted more matches than Sobers' career:

Remember, that career ends April 5th 1974.

 

[SJS]

I am not very old in this forum...What I posted was from my very little experience here...Maybe I was wrong...And needless to say, I'll be very happy if I was ...

Good.

 

[Sanz]

If two players have small difference in stats(analyzing those who layed on covered & uncovered wickets separately),then you can argue in favour of the one with relatively poor average using variables .If someone has too bad stats as compared to others in the team,then can be easily called as mediocre.Look at Sobers record compared to Hall,Griffith,Gibbs & Ramadhin and they all hardly are greats.Sobers has a too bad average & took so less wktsmatch compared to them that he can easily be termed as mediocre.

Sobers, Gibbs and Ramdhin have very comparable records.

Besides have you ever looked at Marshall's & Imran's stats ? The difference in their stats is similar to the difference between Gibbs and Sobers Bowling stats. Imran must be mediocre compared to Macca.

You mean its arguable that Bradman is not the best batsman ever?On what grounds is he considered best batsman ever?Its stats only,Sir.He's well ahead of others who played in that era.Sobers has poor stats compared to even good West Indian bowlers of that time.

And Imran's record is bradmansque ? Besides if you consider stats so much then why start crying about wickets when we talk about SF Barnes.

 

[Ikki]

I think the number would not increase 10 even then.

Well, some of his biggest scores come in this time.

.The problem is that all alltime great bowlers have 3.9+ wkts per match whereas Miller has only 3.1.Imran has 4.6(excluding the games which he played as a batsman) and I think anyone would be happy to have him in hisher alltime XI.Imran bowled regularly till the age of 37 & don't think you expect genuine fas bowlers to bowl after that age.Therefore,its understand able that why he ddn't bowl at all in his last 7 tests.

Sorry, Miller was an all-time great bowler. Wickets per test is more to do with how much Imran bowled vs how much Miller bowled. It has nothing to do with Miller's ability as a bowler. He kept an SR of 60 in such an era, which is more impressive than Imran's SR in his.

I don't see how you give leniency to Imran for not bowling much as he ages yet not understanding that Miller had a physical limit - not a limit to ability - that his back would not let him endure that many overs.

Even Miller's SR is better than Imran's when you take into account the era they played in. He just bowled less because he was physically incapable. No,thats not true.You can say if Miller had played in Imran's era his SR would've been better than what it actually is but still I don't think it would've been as good as Imran's.

Miller's SR is more impressive in his time than Imran's in his:

Miller's SR: 61.5; During his career SR: 80.5
Imran's SR: 53.7; During his career SR: 71.9

Miller is slightly ahead here. Furthermore, in Miller's time, his SR was really only second to Lindwall's and Laker's.

Imran, however, is behind Lillee, Hadlee, Holding, Garner, Willis, Thomson and Marshall.

I included only bowlers who'd have had more than enough Tests and were comparable (although, not like Steve's qualification where someone had to have played the same amount of matches at the same exact time )

This means people like Waqar Younis, Croft, Bishop, Pascoe, Tyson, Trueman were excluded.

Imran successfully played at # 5 & 6 in some tests and being a # 7 does not make you a tailender.Imran won less matches because he played less innings per match.

Please... Miller played 25 tests (out of overall 55 tests) at #3 and #4 and more at #5. There is a class difference between them. The reason Imran won less matches on his batting was because he batted too low to make an effect. The reason he batted too low was because he wasn't good enough till around the end of his career.

Even then Imran has better average which means Miller was not consistent.

Miller for half his career averaged 45 with the bat. It's only as he aged it started to deteriorate as did his fitness, and even then it was 30 at least, I believe.

No,Imran was a much superior allrounder to Botham.The difference between their batting is little but Imran is lightears ahead of Botham as a bowler.

It may be true overall, but when people talk about Botham they are talking about when he was good, not when he was absolute crap. And when Botham was good, he was much better than what Imran was. Again, the distance between them is not that great. Do you think Imran himself would feel insulted being compared to Botham? I doubt it.

Anyway, this is a Miller v Sobers thread.

 

[Ikki]

You know Kazo why I feel sometimes peer opinion can be very misleading?...See on this forum itself, someone as knowledgeable as SJS most of the times supports Lillian Thomson's actions and points of view...After this I won't be very surprised if tomorrow Sachin says Agarkar is the best bowler he's seen, and Lara supports him

I am not sure what you mean by this, but I am disappointed someone I respected like SJS takes attempts in every thread to big-up his buddy. I thought he was more mature than that. LT makes a wisecrack and SJS is behind him.