Not sure if you have read much about Miller? But imo if he had never bowled he would have been considered one of Australia's great batsman
High praise, AM. And no, I have not read much about Miller.
But the averages are interesting, although, of course, by no means totally indicative of anything.
His total batting average is 36.97 with 7 centuries and 13 half centuries.
His average at home is 40 with 3 centuries and 7 half centuries.
His average away is 34 with 4 centuries and 6 half centuries.
Good figures, no doubt. But, in no way outstanding, especially for someone whose batting is usually so lauded. Especially in terms of batting at 6 where, imo, its probably more important that one is able to bat well than that one is able to bowl well. Miller would probably be a better no. 7.
Even his list of hundreds is interesting.
His first in 1946 against England, 141 batting at 5, came against an attack of Bedser, Edrich, Wright, Yardley, Ikin, and Compton.
Only Wright was a decent bowler, Bedser was just starting out and was not the bowler he would become in 3 - 4 years time. IIRC he averaged 50 something in the series. All in all, a poor attack.
His second in 1951 against England, 145 batting at 5, came against an attack of Bedser, Warr, Brown, and Compton. Only Bedser is significant in that line-up, at the peak of his powers.
His third in 1951 against West Indies, 129 batting at 5, came against an attack of Jones, Gomez, Worrell, Valentine, Ramadhin, and Goddard.
His fourth in 1953 against England, 109 batting at 3, came against an attack of Bedser, Statham, Brown, Bailey, Wardle, and Compton. The presence of Bedser, a rookie Statham, and Wardle, make this a fine hundred against a fine attack.
His fifth hundred in 1955 against West Indies, 147 batting at 4, came against an attack of King, Worrell, Atkinson, Ramadhin, Valentine, Smith, Walcott etc.
His sixth hundred in the same series, 137 batting at 5, came against an attack of Worrell, Dewdney, Walcott, Valentine, Ramadhin, Atkinson, Smith, Sobers.
His seventh and last hundred in the same series, 109 batting at 5, came against an attack of Dewdney, King, Atkinson, Smith, Worrell, Sobers.
I find those hundreds quite telling.
Also the fact that even while he averaged 34 away, he averaged 24 in England, the home of the best opposition side of his time.
But, as you say, I may need to read more about Miller. But there is a little danger of looking at Miller through rose-tinted glasses, I think. Not that players and journalists back then did not know the game or any rubbish like that, but that post war England was a place of privations, rations, and austerity. A dashing, charistmatic, and handsome man like Miller may have had an impact that was out of proportion to his talents and actual results. Hence my doubts as to whether he is good enough for 6 or higher in an all time XI.
Again, not to make this into a long winded argument with lots of mini posts. I simply have heard alot of Miller and his batting on this site, and decided to go and have a look at his record myself. As I said, I find it quite interesting, for some of the reasons outlined above.
