Choose the last player for Post WW 2 XI

[archie mac]

well i am already a miller fan, no doubt. but just cant convince myself he could get a regular batting place in an all-time aussie middle order, even post ww2 for that matter. though as an allrounder he edges out other greats such as gregory, armstrong and noble and bowling all-rounders like lindwall, davidson and benaud quite comfortably. but archie, your vote for miller is totally justified. you can always vote with your heart in these imaginary team selections. i always vote for warne over murali, whereas statistically murali i feel has the edge.

Thanks for the permission

 

[SJS]

I think Aust. went for a number of years without scoring a ton against England during Miller's time, which suggests a pretty good line up. And it should be mentioned that he was one of the main bowlers in his team. Not like Kallis who is usually the third or fourth strike bowler (nothing against Kallis, just an example).

I could be wrong but I think if you read a bio of Miller you also will be converted

I think Miller was a fabulous batsman who is under rated because he was such a tremendous bowler as well. Having said that, I would hesitate to say that if he had never bowled he would have been considered one of Australia's great batsman

About his batting pedigree there is no doubt.

I find a few things very strange in Miller's batting records. The most striking of these is that his first class record is almost as good as the Test batsmen of those times but his Test record, great though it is for an all rounder, falls short of a pure batsman's standards. This is very strange for one can not disparage the standards of Australian FC cricket which are higher than anywhere else in the world.

His 41 FC centuries and his average of 48.9 is outstanding. His average in FC matches not including Tests is as high as 53.5. So if he was to be played as a pure batsman and he had to compete with another Fc batsman of his time, he would have had very strong credentials.

I looked up the players who had more centuries than him till the early 1960's and came across five (not including Bradman) - Bardsley, Hassett, Harvey, Simpson and Lawry. Very good company indded. Here are their comparative figures.

[B]Batsman	Ave	100's	50+	I/100	I/50	Test Ave[/B]
Miller 	48.9	41	104	8.0	3.1	[COLOR="DarkRed"]37.0[/COLOR]
Harvey	50.9	67	161	6.9	2.9	48.4
Simpson	56.2	60	160	7.3	2.7	46.8
Hassett	58.2	59	134	5.5	2.4	46.6
Brdsley	49.9	53	126	7.1	3.0	40.5
Lawry	50.9	50	150	8.3	2.8	47.2

Those figures are revealing. Except for his Test average, he holds his own in such good company. Clearly his Test match batting, though very good for an all rounder(I repeat) did not do him justice.

Why ?

 

[SJS]

Those figures are revealing. Except for his Test average, he holds his own in such good company. Clearly his Test match batting, though very good for an all rounder(I repeat) did not do him justice.

Why ?

I do not have ready answers to that. But I am sure that if all the other batsmen in that list below had to also open the bowling for Australia and bowl at the fiery pace of Miller, their batting performances would suffer. Surely that is a fair conclusion.

But it still doesn't explain why Miller's average in Tests is so different from that in other FC matches compared to almost any top batsman I can think of at least for now.

 

[bagapath]

Thanks for the permission

you are welcome, mate. i know you were worried about it. thought i might as well give it openly and relieve you of the moral burden you were carrying.

 

[archie mac]

you are welcome, mate. i know you were worried about it. thought i might as well give it openly and relieve you of the moral burden you were carrying.

cheers

 

[Ikki]

I do not have ready answers to that. But I am sure that if all the other batsmen in that list below had to also open the bowling for Australia and bowl at the fiery pace of Miller, their batting performances would suffer. Surely that is a fair conclusion.

But it still doesn't explain why Miller's average in Tests is so different from that in other FC matches compared to almost any top batsman I can think of at least for now.

SJS, would it be possible to get his SR of the time? I have a suspicion because of his back injury he may have tried to score runs whilst being at the crease as little as possible. It was because of his back that he did not bowl the kind of bowlers a leading bowler like himself would. Then being asked to bat as well...I dunno, just a hunch.

 

[Ikki]

one last time... then i am wishing you "good day" and going my way...

kallis can not do to his team what sobers does to his... sobers got into his team as a batsman... kallis did not get in as anything... remember lara beat kallis in the batting poll. and sobers has beaten lara in the batting poll here. so sobers is considered way above kallis as a batsman. sobers > lara > kallis.

so it is not their relative bowling skills that guided the voters one way... kallis could be inferior or superior or equal to sobers as a bowler. that doesnt matter for this selection.

good day

You don't get, it's gone over your head many times already. It is not about their batting. The difference in people's choices had nothing to do with their batting. It is also not about Sobers vs Kallis. But you keep missing the point I am making so I feel I should just chalk it up as lost.

 

[bagapath]

You don't get, it's gone over your head many times already. It is not about their batting. The difference in people's choices had nothing to do with their batting. It is also not about Sobers vs Kallis. But you keep missing the point I am making so I feel I should just chalk it up as lost.

okay ikki. please explain to me step by step how people have voted in these polls for sobers that has led you to conclude they think sobers' bowling is better than kallis'. dont say you've said it already. explain it to me step by step.

more importantly, imagine that the majority thinks kallis' bowling is better than sobers' and then tell me how the poll results would have been different in that case. again i would need a step by step explanation.

 

[Michaelf7777777]

I think Miller was a fabulous batsman who is under rated because he was such a tremendous bowler as well. Having said that, I would hesitate to say that if he had never bowled he would have been considered one of Australia's great batsman

About his batting pedigree there is no doubt.

I find a few things very strange in Miller's batting records. The most striking of these is that his first class record is almost as good as the Test batsmen of those times but his Test record, great though it is for an all rounder, falls short of a pure batsman's standards. This is very strange for one can not disparage the standards of Australian FC cricket which are higher than anywhere else in the world.

His 41 FC centuries and his average of 48.9 is outstanding. His average in FC matches not including Tests is as high as 53.5. So if he was to be played as a pure batsman and he had to compete with another Fc batsman of his time, he would have had very strong credentials.

I looked up the players who had more centuries than him till the early 1960's and came across five (not including Bradman) - Bardsley, Hassett, Harvey, Simpson and Lawry. Very good company indded. Here are their comparative figures.

[B]Batsman	Ave	100's	50+	I/100	I/50	Test Ave[/B]
Miller 	48.9	41	104	8.0	3.1	[COLOR="DarkRed"]37.0[/COLOR]
Harvey	50.9	67	161	6.9	2.9	48.4
Simpson	56.2	60	160	7.3	2.7	46.8
Hassett	58.2	59	134	5.5	2.4	46.6
Brdsley	49.9	53	126	7.1	3.0	40.5
Lawry	50.9	50	150	8.3	2.8	47.2

Those figures are revealing. Except for his Test average, he holds his own in such good company. Clearly his Test match batting, though very good for an all rounder(I repeat) did not do him justice.

Why ?

From what I've read of Miller I don't think he bowled much while playing in the Sheffield Shield particularly after moving to NSW in 1947 and he also didn't bowl to much in his best season against international quality bowling in 1945 (The Victory Tests and the England vs Dominions match at Lords).

 

[JBH001]

I think Aust. went for a number of years without scoring a ton against England during Miller's time, which suggests a pretty good line up. And it should be mentioned that he was one of the main bowlers in his team. Not like Kallis who is usually the third or fourth strike bowler (nothing against Kallis, just an example).

I could be wrong but I think if you read a bio of Miller you also will be converted

Fair enough, mate. I will have a look at a bio when I have the time (I am likely to be quite busy over the next couple of months).

I will just clarify my, perhaps incomplete, thoughts on Miller the batsman.

As I said, I find it significant that his actual results are not upto the standard of what might be expected of a quality middle order batsman. His overall average is 37, and most of his hundreds seem to have come against poor, ordinary, or merely decent opposition. The century against Bedser, Statham, and Wardle being the lone and stellar exception to this. He also has a very poor average against England in England, the best opposition of his time. His total average in England is 24, and after 3 tours of England, he never averaged over 30, with a final total of 1 hundred and 4 fifties over 26 innings. This is perfectly reasonable for a good lower middle order bat (say a number 7) but it is pretty poor for a middle order bat who usually batted at number 5. I could understand it if he had one good tour and a couple of bad tours - bad tours do happen after all. But as I said, he never got above 30. In fact his highest tour average is 26, followed by 24, and 22.

Hence my doubts as to his worth as a number 6 or higher in an all-time XI. I dont think his batting was good enough. Hence, imo, his inclusion in an all-time XI is dependant on the composition of the team. Five batsmen, 4 specialist bowlers, and a wicket keeper at 7 argues for a batting all-rounder at number 6, and here, imo, Sobers or Kallis are the automatic selections.

If however, the XI features 5 good batsmen, a wicket keeper - batsman in the mould of Gilly or Ames at 6, then it opens up a space for Miller at 7. Although here I think he is likely to face some stiff competition from Imran and Botham (and perhaps even Kapil Dev). This is because I dont think Miller's claims to superiority as an AR are as clear cut as might be thought.

I can understand the argument regarding Miller's peaks and his troubles with back injury. But Miller's peak (46 - 51?) of 45 with the bat and 21 with the ball, is comparable to Botham's peak (77 - 82) and Imran's peak (82 - 88 iirc). Certainly both these all-rounders had trouble with injury too, Botham's back which gave him consistent trouble, and Imran's stress fracture in his shin (iirc).

IMO, I would rank Miller below Sobers, Kallis, and Imran over the course of their careers, and if peaks are being considered, I would rank him behind Botham too.

But, as you say AM, I need to do some reading on K R Miller. I may yet be converted.

 

[bagapath]

BTW, warne and lillee have won the 3rd and 4th bowling slots.

 

[SJS]

Fair enough, mate. I will have a look at a bio when I have the time (I am likely to be quite busy over the next couple of months).

I will just clarify my, perhaps incomplete, thoughts on Miller the batsman.

As I said, I find it significant that his actual results are not upto the standard of what might be expected of a quality middle order batsman. His overall average is 37, and most of his hundreds seem to have come against poor, ordinary, or merely decent opposition. The century against Bedser, Statham, and Wardle being the lone and stellar exception to this. He also has a very poor average against England in England, the best opposition of his time. His total average in England is 24, and after 3 tours of England, he never averaged over 30, with a final total of 1 hundred and 4 fifties over 26 innings. This is perfectly reasonable for a good lower middle order bat (say a number 7) but it is pretty poor for a middle order bat who usually batted at number 5. I could understand it if he had one good tour and a couple of bad tours - bad tours do happen after all. But as I said, he never got above 30. In fact his highest tour average is 26, followed by 24, and 22.

Hence my doubts as to his worth as a number 6 or higher in an all-time XI. I dont think his batting was good enough. Hence, imo, his inclusion in an all-time XI is dependant on the composition of the team. Five batsmen, 4 specialist bowlers, and a wicket keeper at 7 argues for a batting all-rounder at number 6, and here, imo, Sobers or Kallis are the automatic selections.

If however, the XI features 5 good batsmen, a wicket keeper - batsman in the mould of Gilly or Ames at 6, then it opens up a space for Miller at 7. Although here I think he is likely to face some stiff competition from Imran and Botham (and perhaps even Kapil Dev). This is because I dont think Miller's claims to superiority as an AR are as clear cut as might be thought.

I can understand the argument regarding Miller's peaks and his troubles with back injury. But Miller's peak (46 - 51?) of 45 with the bat and 21 with the ball, is comparable to Botham's peak (77 - 82) and Imran's peak (82 - 88 iirc). Certainly both these all-rounders had trouble with injury too, Botham's back which gave him consistent trouble, and Imran's stress fracture in his shin (iirc).

IMO, I would rank Miller below Sobers, Kallis, and Imran over the course of their careers, and if peaks are being considered, I would rank him behind Botham too.

But, as you say AM, I need to do some reading on K R Miller. I may yet be converted.

I think you have a good case. I am also pretty perplexed by Miller's Test record as a batsman. Mind you it is a very impressive one for an all rounder but for a pure batsman its not that great.

During the period (March 1946 to October 1956), which is Miller's Test career, here are the stats of the top dozen Aussie batsmen,

[B]Player        	 Inns	 NO	 50s	 100s	 HS	 Runs	 Avg[/B]

D G Bradman	23	5	5	8	234	1903	105.72
S G Barnes	17	2	5	3	234	998	66.53
R N Harvey	81	6	14	16	205	4146	55.28
A L Hassett	61	3	10	10	  *198	2874	49.55
A R Morris	79	3	12	12	206	3533	46.49
C C McDonald	36	1	8	3	154	1458	41.66
W A Brown	7	0	2	0	99	268	38.29
K R Miller	87	7	13	7	147	2958	36.98
S J E Loxton	15	0	3	1	101	554	36.93
C L McCool	17	4	1	1	  *104	459	35.31
J A R Moroney	12	1	1	2	118	383	34.82
J W Burke	24	2	2	2	161	680	30.91

Of these Bradman retired in 1948 itself so we may exclude him but the others played into the fifties including Hassett. That puts Miller seventh in the averages - sixth if you take away Hassett too.

All of them except Brown have hundreds during that period. Others who scored hundreds but are not in the list by averages are Lindwall (2), Ron Archer and Benaud theough Sean may be right about a period of draught of centuries, the English bowling doesn't look too strong on paper. Its interesting.

 

[Burgey]

Went with Imran.

I know there's plenty of bowlers already, but what the heck? if they're playing against a dream team from another generation/ era on some of the flatter pitches, they'll need all the bowlers they can get.

Wouldn't bitch if either Lara or Miller get picked though.

 

[steve132]

Fair enough, mate. I will have a look at a bio when I have the time (I am likely to be quite busy over the next couple of months).

I will just clarify my, perhaps incomplete, thoughts on Miller the batsman.

As I said, I find it significant that his actual results are not upto the standard of what might be expected of a quality middle order batsman. His overall average is 37, and most of his hundreds seem to have come against poor, ordinary, or merely decent opposition. The century against Bedser, Statham, and Wardle being the lone and stellar exception to this. He also has a very poor average against England in England, the best opposition of his time. His total average in England is 24, and after 3 tours of England, he never averaged over 30, with a final total of 1 hundred and 4 fifties over 26 innings. This is perfectly reasonable for a good lower middle order bat (say a number 7) but it is pretty poor for a middle order bat who usually batted at number 5. I could understand it if he had one good tour and a couple of bad tours - bad tours do happen after all. But as I said, he never got above 30. In fact his highest tour average is 26, followed by 24, and 22.

Hence my doubts as to his worth as a number 6 or higher in an all-time XI. I dont think his batting was good enough. Hence, imo, his inclusion in an all-time XI is dependant on the composition of the team. Five batsmen, 4 specialist bowlers, and a wicket keeper at 7 argues for a batting all-rounder at number 6, and here, imo, Sobers or Kallis are the automatic selections.

If however, the XI features 5 good batsmen, a wicket keeper - batsman in the mould of Gilly or Ames at 6, then it opens up a space for Miller at 7. Although here I think he is likely to face some stiff competition from Imran and Botham (and perhaps even Kapil Dev). This is because I dont think Miller's claims to superiority as an AR are as clear cut as might be thought.

I can understand the argument regarding Miller's peaks and his troubles with back injury. But Miller's peak (46 - 51?) of 45 with the bat and 21 with the ball, is comparable to Botham's peak (77 - 82) and Imran's peak (82 - 88 iirc). Certainly both these all-rounders had trouble with injury too, Botham's back which gave him consistent trouble, and Imran's stress fracture in his shin (iirc).

IMO, I would rank Miller below Sobers, Kallis, and Imran over the course of their careers, and if peaks are being considered, I would rank him behind Botham too.

But, as you say AM, I need to do some reading on K R Miller. I may yet be converted.

Your view of Miller's batting is shared by many of his contemporaries - at least the English and West Indian ones that I've read most. Like Botham, he could be a brilliant strokeplayer at times, but he did not have the reputation of being someone who could score consistently against the very finest pace or spin bowling. Several England players, including Bailey, Compton and Laker, made this point.

One reason for Miller's early success is that he did not have to face many strong bowling attacks in the first half of his career. England, the country against which he played most often, was desperately short of bowling at this time. When Trueman, Statham, Tyson and Laker emerged as world class bowlers (from the 1953 series onwards) Miller's average against England dropped substantially. There is a noticeable contrast between his performances against England in 1954-55 (against Tyson and Statham) and 1956 (Laker's series, played largely on wickets favoring spin bowling) and the success he enjoyed against the West Indies between these two series. He was not alone, of course. Most of the Australians enjoyed their visit to the Caribbean in 1955 after facing Tyson a few months earlier. Australia's first innings scores in the five Tests were as follows:

515 for 9
600 for 9
257
668
758 for 8

As a batsman Miller was roughly comparable to Botham, Imran and Procter. I don't think that the available evidence indicates that he was significantly better than any of them.

 

[archie mac]

Your view of Miller's batting is shared by many of his contemporaries - at least the English and West Indian ones that I've read most. Like Botham, he could be a brilliant strokeplayer at times, but he did not have the reputation of being someone who could score consistently against the very finest pace or spin bowling. Several England players, including Bailey, Compton and Laker, made this point.

One reason for Miller's early success is that he did not have to face many strong bowling attacks in the first half of his career. England, the country against which he played most often, was desperately short of bowling at this time. When Trueman, Statham, Tyson and Laker emerged as world class bowlers (from the 1953 series onwards) Miller's average against England dropped substantially. There is a noticeable contrast between his performances against England in 1954-55 (against Tyson and Statham) and 1956 (Laker's series, played largely on wickets favoring spin bowling) and the success he enjoyed against the West Indies between these two series. He was not alone, of course. Most of the Australians enjoyed their visit to the Caribbean in 1955 after facing Tyson a few months earlier. Australia's first innings scores in the five Tests were as follows:

515 for 9
600 for 9
257
668
758 for 8

As a batsman Miller was roughly comparable to Botham, Imran and Procter. I don't think that the available evidence indicates that he was significantly better than any of them.

I think none of the Aussies did well in 56 and not that many in 54-55, Miller was one of the rare ones that Laker rated in that series, maybe because he had smashed him in 48

 

[archie mac]

Fair enough, mate. I will have a look at a bio when I have the time (I am likely to be quite busy over the next couple of months).

I will just clarify my, perhaps incomplete, thoughts on Miller the batsman.

As I said, I find it significant that his actual results are not upto the standard of what might be expected of a quality middle order batsman. His overall average is 37, and most of his hundreds seem to have come against poor, ordinary, or merely decent opposition. The century against Bedser, Statham, and Wardle being the lone and stellar exception to this. He also has a very poor average against England in England, the best opposition of his time. His total average in England is 24, and after 3 tours of England, he never averaged over 30, with a final total of 1 hundred and 4 fifties over 26 innings. This is perfectly reasonable for a good lower middle order bat (say a number 7) but it is pretty poor for a middle order bat who usually batted at number 5. I could understand it if he had one good tour and a couple of bad tours - bad tours do happen after all. But as I said, he never got above 30. In fact his highest tour average is 26, followed by 24, and 22.

Hence my doubts as to his worth as a number 6 or higher in an all-time XI. I dont think his batting was good enough. Hence, imo, his inclusion in an all-time XI is dependant on the composition of the team. Five batsmen, 4 specialist bowlers, and a wicket keeper at 7 argues for a batting all-rounder at number 6, and here, imo, Sobers or Kallis are the automatic selections.

If however, the XI features 5 good batsmen, a wicket keeper - batsman in the mould of Gilly or Ames at 6, then it opens up a space for Miller at 7. Although here I think he is likely to face some stiff competition from Imran and Botham (and perhaps even Kapil Dev). This is because I dont think Miller's claims to superiority as an AR are as clear cut as might be thought.

I can understand the argument regarding Miller's peaks and his troubles with back injury. But Miller's peak (46 - 51?) of 45 with the bat and 21 with the ball, is comparable to Botham's peak (77 - 82) and Imran's peak (82 - 88 iirc). Certainly both these all-rounders had trouble with injury too, Botham's back which gave him consistent trouble, and Imran's stress fracture in his shin (iirc).

IMO, I would rank Miller below Sobers, Kallis, and Imran over the course of their careers, and if peaks are being considered, I would rank him behind Botham too.

But, as you say AM, I need to do some reading on K R Miller. I may yet be converted.

Good post, the one by Perry is not too bad imo, and a good starting point, a very easy read

 

[bagapath]

lara wins the poll