Javed Miandad

[wfdu_ben91]

Why isn't he rated so highly? He played in an era which is supposedly dominated by alltime great bowlers and averaged higher then both Sunil Gavaskar and Sir Vivian Richards, who are both considered alltime greats. He even averaged an almighty 57 after his 100th Test. He also looked like a decent in the footage I've seen. He also has a 200 against every country barring the West Indies & Zimbabwe. So why isn't he rated so highly?

 

[Craig]

I thought he was rated very highly? Too bad he is a dickhead when it comes to the off field stuff since his retirement.

 

[zaremba]

I thought he was rated very highly? Too bad he is a dickhead.

fixed?

No, seriously he is or should be rated as an all-time great. I have a feeling his average would perhaps be a little lower now that we have the ICC elite umpire system in place, but you can't get away from the fact that he was skillful, belligerent, defiant, resourceful, and a superb scorer of runs. He also seemed to do it when the going was tough (although that's just an impression and I've no evidence to hand to back it up).

 

[Zinzan]

Why isn't he rated so highly? He played in an era which is supposedly dominated by alltime great bowlers and averaged higher then both Sunil Gavaskar and Sir Vivian Richards, who are both considered alltime greats. He even averaged an almighty 57 after his 100th Test. He also looked like a decent in the footage I've seen. He also has a 200 against every country barring the West Indies & Zimbabwe. So why isn't he rated so highly?

Presumably your a youngish fella. I started watching cricket around 1983-84 and I can assure you that as both a player and a competitor Miandad was held in the absolute highest regard. Definitely an All-time great for mine

 

[SJS]

Why isn't he rated so highly? He played in an era which is supposedly dominated by alltime great bowlers and averaged higher then both Sunil Gavaskar and Sir Vivian Richards, who are both considered alltime greats. He even averaged an almighty 57 after his 100th Test. He also looked like a decent in the footage I've seen. He also has a 200 against every country barring the West Indies & Zimbabwe. So why isn't he rated so highly?

Why do you think he is not rated highly ?
I must admit I find some of your criteria amusing ...

1. He also looked like a decent in the footage I've seen
2. He also has a 200 against every country barring the West Indies & Zimbabwe.

By the way, Gavaskar is rated so high, partly because he was an opener in an era of great fast bowling resources around the world.

Richards is rated so highly because he averaged about fifty with that devastatingly dominating style and his propensity to start the demolition act from the time he stepped on the crease.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Why do you think he is not rated highly ?
I must admit I find some of your criteria amusing ...

1. He also looked like a decent in the footage I've seen
2. He also has a 200 against every country barring the West Indies & Zimbabwe.

By the way, Gavaskar is rated so high, partly because he was an opener in an era of great fast bowling resources around the world.

Richards is rated so highly because he averaged about fifty with that devastatingly dominating style and his propensity to start the demolition act from the time he stepped on the crease.

Eh, his not rated anywhere near as highly as either of them, despite ourperforming both of them.

 

[zaremba]

Why do you think he is not rated highly ?

I must admit I find some of your criteria amusing ...

1. He also looked like a decent in the footage I've seen
2. He also has a 200 against every country barring the West Indies & Zimbabwe.

By the way, Gavaskar is rated so high, partly because he was an opener in an era of great fast bowling resources around the world.

Richards is rated so highly because he averaged about fifty with that devastatingly dominating style and his propensity to start the demolition act from the time he stepped on the crease.

I don't think this is completely fair. Ben isn't knocking either Gavaskar or Richards; nor is he questioning why they are rated so highly. He's just saying that Javed's record is comparable with theirs and yet he does not seem (to Ben) to be rated as highly as them by those who watch and write about the game.

And "looking like a decent player in the footage I've seen" is a fair enough measure if you didn't see him play live. And scoring 200 against all comers bar WI and Zim was a pretty impressive achievement, particularly when coupled with the exceptional average to which Ben also referred.

 

[Craig]

I have never knew anybody who didn't consider Miandad an all-time great or a lesser player to Richards.

 

[SJS]

Eh, his not rated anywhere near as highly as either of them, despite ourperforming both of them.

I just said why I think that is the case. Gavaskar was an opener and Richards played the kind of cricket that was not known to get you averages in the fifties in those times.

If you are going to go purely by averages you must try to understand why Ken Barrington isn't rated so highly. Maybe that will answer your question.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

I have never knew anybody who didn't consider Miandad an all-time great or a lesser player to Richards.

I just said why I think that is the case. Gavaskar was an opener and Richards played the kind of cricket that was not known to get you averages in the fifties in those times.

If you are going to go purely by averages you must try to understand why Ken Barrington isn't rated so highly. Maybe that will answer your question.

Well there you go, Craig.

Would rate Miandad higher then Dravid, Hayden & Kallis, SJS? Or is Hayden better because his an Opening Batsman and Kallis is better because he is an allrounder?

 

[SJS]

I have never knew anybody who didn't consider Miandad an all-time great or a lesser player to Richards.

Thats not entirely true you know. Richard's came out as one of the five greatest cricketers of the century in a poll where some of the finest cricketers and cricket writers were judges.

Richards was 5th on that list with 25 votes, Gavaskar 12th with 12 votes and as far as I can recall, Miandad did not get a single vote. The only Pakistanis to get votes were (rank and votes in brackets)

• Imran (Jt 10th/13) and
• Akram (Jt 26th/3)

Simlarly I ahven't read many accounts by contemporary writers and top notch world cricketers where Miandad is rated above Richards and many have rated Richards as the greatest batsman of his time. I myself rate Richards as the greatest right handed batsman I have seen in over four decades of watching cricket and that includes Tendulkar. Of course, I understand my rating is of no consequence but I am just stating that people do rate Richards very high. That, however, is no slight to Miandad.

Hammond was one of the greatest batsmen the world has seen in 140 years of Test cricket and yet he was not the best of his time but being second best to Bradman does not mean Hammond wasn't rated highly.

Personally, if Miandad had scored all those runs at the opening slot against the best fast bowlers of the time with the new ball, I would have rated him above Gavaskar. I think Miandad was a truly great batsman and the finest middle order batsman from Pakistan.

 

[SJS]

Well there you go, Craig.

Would rate Miandad higher then Dravid, Hayden & Kallis, SJS? Or is Hayden better because his an Opening Batsman and Kallis is better because he is an allrounder?

I dont think you get it.

Gavaskar is rated one of the greatest openers of all time. many people tend to put him in an all time list. They do so only becuase he is an opener. Its the same with Herbert Sutcliffe. Many people include Sutcliffe in an all time world XI as an opener. Their are middle order batsmen who have great records statistically (I mentioned Barrington one could name others) who dont get in.

The number of openers is, naturally fewer, only two in a team. The number of middle order batsmen is at least twice as many. Then, facing the new ball is a completely different experience. Any cricketer will tell you. Thus comparing Gacaaksr and Miandad has that issue but that does not mean it would be an issue with every great middle order batsman against any opener. That is a silly logic talking of Hayden.

I know some people here rate Hayden very high and he was/is a terrific batsman but he is no all time great. History will be the judge. You will live longer than me and will see for yourself. Hayden is not in the same class as these guys, Richards, Gavaskar and Miandad. Of course there will be openers who one would rate below Miandad but we are not talking of any opener, we are talking of someone who is rated amongst the top half a dozen greatest openers of all time. Miandad does not enjoy that position by any stretch of imagination.

I have nothing more to add. Thank you

 

[SJS]

Well there you go, Craig.

Would rate Miandad higher then Dravid, Hayden & Kallis, SJS? Or is Hayden better because his an Opening Batsman and Kallis is better because he is an allrounder?

Just one more thing, yes I rate Miandad above Dravid and well above Hayden and Kallis.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Tendulkar, Lara and Ponting are amongst the best batsman to have ever played the game and from what I've seen, Hayden wasn't far behind.

From what I've heard, seen and read of Gavaskar, he wasn't one of the most comprehensive cricketers to have ever played the game. A guy who was once selfish enough to bat 60 overs in a limited overs match and finished 36 not out and then claim he had trouble adjusting to the conditions, albeit the opposition's run-rate was almost 6 an over. He was also a guy who once jumped for joy and acted like he had just won the Olympics after he hit a 6 during a ODI in Australia during the 1980s... is this suppose to be a guy who is classes above someone like Hayden, who for him, hitting a six is inevitiable?

By all means, he scored 70% of his overall hundreds in drawn matches and he tops the lists in statistics for most runs scored in drawn matches. To score the majority of your runs in drawn matches, when you play in an era which is "bowler-dominated" has surely gotta count against you. His record against the West Indies is awfully decieving aswell, as he peppered the Windies in the 70s before all of their great bowlers appeared on the scene or had hit their strides, but yet failed as an Opening Batsman against the Windies in the 80s. England were the best bowling attack in the 1970s and he failed against them aswell.

So no, Gavaskar isn't classes above the likes of Miandad, Dravid, Hayden or Kallis. I'm not debating Gavaskar's status as an alltime great, but with so many flaws and questions over his career, you just can't say that Gavaskar is classes above other batsman who are worthy of alltime great status.

 

[fredfertang]

During his career there was a perception that Pakistani umpires wouldn't give him out though looking back at the stats now there is not a huge difference between his averages home and away

He was also knocked by some because of what was perceived to be an overtly aggressive character although personally he went up hugely in my estimation after his famous spat with Dennis Lillee

I'd rate him right up there with Richards and Gavaskar and just a tad behind Frank Hayes

 

[subshakerz]

Miandad was probably Pakistan's greatest batsman, and I'm a fan of his. Having said that, I think like Inzamam, he falls just short of being called an all-time great batsman because of his poor record against the best team of his era, the West Indies, similar to the way Inzamam struggle against Australia/South Africa. Had he been succesful, I would have no problem putting him in that category. As it is, he is still a world class player and very succesful at getting under the skin of the opposition.

 

[subshakerz]

From what I've heard, seen and read of Gavaskar, he wasn't one of the most comprehensive cricketers to have ever played the game. A guy who was once selfish enough to bat 60 overs in a limited overs match and finished 36 not out and then claim he had trouble adjusting to the conditions, albeit the opposition's run-rate was almost 6 an over. He was also a guy who once jumped for joy and acted like he had just won the Olympics after he hit a 6 during a ODI in Australia during the 1980s... is this suppose to be a guy who is classes above someone like Hayden, who for him, hitting a six is inevitiable?.

Nobody is going to argue that Gavaskar was a poor one day cricketer, but that doesnt affect his status in tests.

His record against the West Indies is awfully decieving aswell, as he peppered the Windies in the 70s before all of their great bowlers appeared on the scene or had hit their strides, but yet failed as an Opening Batsman against the Windies in the 80s.

Not completely true. He only failed in one series against the West Indies in 82, and was succesful in all series besides that , including against Holding and Roberts in 75-76, and the pace quartet in 83.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Not completely true. He only failed in one series against the West Indies in 82, and was succesful in all series besides that , including against Holding and Roberts in 75-76, and the pace quartet in 83.

He averaged 28 in the 1980s against the West Indies as an Opening Batsman.

 

[subshakerz]

He averaged 28 in the 1980s against the West Indies as an Opening Batsman.

He averaged 30 in the series in 82 and 50 in the series in 83. His average only goes down when you discount the 236* he scored playing in the middle order, but he shouldn't be penalised for that.

 

[Fusion]

One thing that has always puzzled me is this “dickhead” reputation that Miandad seems to have gotten on the field (I’m not referring to any of his off-field activities). There is of course that famous spat with Lillee that contributes to it. Disgraceful as it was, nearly everyone agrees it was Lillee’s fault (and in fact most agree Lillee wanted to provoke Miandad). Lilee didn’t suffer nearly the dent in his reputation as compared to Miandad, for whatever reason. Besides that incident, we all know that Miandad was chatty and wanted to get in the skin of the opposing players. I don’t think he did that in an overly negative way. It was skillful sledging. Gavaskar often likes to tell of the incident where Miandad got to Dilip Doshi. Gavaskar “praised his contemporary Pakistani cricketer Javed Miandad for possessing a rare skill of unsettling the opposition by just "talking" and not having to resort to sledging. Miandad had a "sharp" sense of humour and was one of those rare species of batsmen who "talked" to the bowlers, Gavaskar said while delivering the Colin Cowdrey lecture at the the Lord's, London” (source). So again, I’m just lost as to why Miandad is labeled a prick on the field, when to me all he’s guilty of is being a fierce competitor and fighter who refused to back down from anyone.