The Greatest All-Rounder of All Time

[Lillian Thomson]

Well having never seen Miller live i have to base it on stats and opinions of the experts (to some extent). Like Benaud, CHappell and Bradman himself, they seem to be in no doubt that Sobers was the greatest ever (and by sum margin). I disagree i think its a close run thing between Sobers, Imran, and Miller but none of these players (overall and based on their stats) are making ne all time team on both traits.

If your definition of an allrounder is someone who could make an All-Time XI with bat or ball then there's never been an allrounder in history.

 

[aussie]

At his peak, though, Miller only took 78 wickets in 28 matches. That hardly good enough for a proper bowler, let alone an all-time great.

I'd be interested to know which period you looked at to get these figures. Since from all i'ver read, Miller after the 1953 Ashes as a bowler was no longer quick. So from 46-53 with ball he averaged 21, but yea it took him 40 tests.

From Ashes 53/54 - 56 Ashes, he added some nice variety to his bowling though - which was highlighted most natably @ Lord's 56.

He along with Lindwall where definately crocked in the Karachi test that PAK won haa.

 

[MrIncredible]

True that. Havent seen ne player that completely fills that bill. At their peaks, Miller and Imran probably fulfill that criteria but we cant just consider peaks while neglecting the troughs or ordinary times.

When a player comes along capable of averaging (for a career) over 50 with the bat and sub 30 with the ball (sub 25 a bonus) i would consider that player the best ever

 

[MrIncredible]

If your definition of an allrounder is someone who could make an All-Time XI with bat or ball then there's never been an allrounder in history.

No not in the true sense if u really think about it overall. there have been players at their peak (as already pointed out) who made their teams on either traits. To make and all time team as a batsman (WI for example) one would be competing with the likes of lara, viv, www, and sobers all of whom average over 50, so to make that side as a batsman one should average around 50. Like wise the bowling would comprise bowlers all averagin under 30 with the ball. to break in as a bowler would be to average under 30. There is no player in history (overall) who fulfill both criteria. The only way an 'allrounder' gets into an all time team is if one of their traits is as good as those of his teammates. ( i hope that makes sense)

 

[Ikki]

True that. Havent seen ne player that completely fills that bill. At their peaks, Miller and Imran probably fulfill that criteria but we cant just consider peaks while neglecting the troughs or ordinary times.

When a player comes along capable of averaging (for a career) over 50 with the bat and sub 30 with the ball (sub 25 a bonus) i would consider that player the best ever

Well, Miller's trough is still pretty good. His career seems to be split into two halves. In the first half he averaged 45 with the bat and 22 with the ball. In the second half he averaged 31 with the bat and 24 with the ball. Probably the more balanced when you look at the careers of the other all-rounders where: Imran takes time into becoming a decent batsman, Sobers has a peak in the 60s but is nowhere close with the ball at any time else, and Botham who looked a magician at one time and the rabbit at another.

 

[aussie]

From the time of his 1st test hundred to his retirement gary Sobers averaged 61 with the bat and 34 with the ball. Not especially special with the ball but still over 84 tests wow. His record vs NZL does let him down though

I think when judging Sobers as an all-rounder, you have to start from the famous 60/61 series to ENG 69. Since during that period is where his medium pace was at its peak, based on what i read & researched.

So that would make it, 55 with the bat - 31 with the ball. Still superb.

 

[aussie]

Well, Miller's trough is still pretty good. His career seems to be split into two halves. In the first half he averaged 45 with the bat and 22 with the ball. In the second half he averaged 31 with the bat and 24 with the ball. Probably the more balanced when you look at the careers of the other all-rounders where: Imran takes time into becoming a decent batsman, Sobers has a peak in the 60s but is nowhere close with the ball at any time else, and Botham who looked a magician at one time and the rabbit at another.

What happend to Miller in 1951, that made you cut off the first peak period then?

 

[MrIncredible]

Superb indeed but still he'd make it into my team mainly for his batting. Pity his stats from the 2 world XI series cant be included (though originally they were considered tests).

 

[aussie]

If your definition of an allrounder is someone who could make an All-Time XI with bat or ball then there's never been an allrounder in history.

You know what LT i really think Procter was that man you know. Unlike Sobers, Imran, Botham, Miller who had their peaks or developed into all-rounders. Procter was on the ball from game 1.

After those intial 7 tests. He seemed coincidentally as SA where banned to have been capable of batting from 3-6, while bowling with the unsual action from around the wicket @ 90 mph very consistently for at least over a decade. 1970-1982

I would stop at 1982, since as you may remember when the ENG rebel team toured SA then. Procter bowling apparantley had lost some fire.

You probably saw him, what you do think?

 

[subshakerz]

I'd be interested to know which period you looked at to get these figures. Since from all i'ver read, Miller after the 1953 Ashes as a bowler was no longer quick. So from 46-53 with ball he averaged 21, but yea it took him 40 tests.

From Ashes 53/54 - 56 Ashes, he added some nice variety to his bowling though - which was highlighted most natably @ Lord's 56.

He along with Lindwall where definately crocked in the Karachi test that PAK won haa.

I used the stats that Ikki presented for Miller's peak. It was at the start of his career, so age didn't really play a role.

I dont think Miller can be considered a world class bowler if he averaged less than 3 wickets a test.

 

[Ikki]

What happend to Miller in 1951, that made you cut off the first peak period then?

It's the high-point of his career, half-way through it. From 52 onwards he also had several back and knee injuries IIRC to add to his already limited physicality due to his war injuries.

When you look at his cricketing career it's a shame. He missed his absolute prime and could have possibly been what MrIncredible is after (a player who can genuinely get into an all-time team with both bat and ball). Add also the fact that after the war he didn't see it as important as he used to. But I guess these things add to his mystique.

 

[Ikki]

I used the stats that Ikki presented for Miller's peak. It was at the start of his career, so age didn't really play a role.

I dont think Miller can be considered a world class bowler if he averaged less than 3 wickets a test.

Ironically, he does average 3 wickets per test. In that peak I think it's like 2.9 and later on it improves although he is not as tight as before.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

You know what LT i really think Procter was that man you know. Unlike Sobers, Imran, Botham, Miller who had their peaks or developed into all-rounders. Procter was on the ball from game 1.

After those intial 7 tests. He seemed coincidentally as SA where banned to have been capable of batting from 3-6, while bowling with the unsual action from around the wicket @ 90 mph very consistently for at least over a decade. 1970-1982

I would stop at 1982, since as you may remember when the ENG rebel team toured SA then. Procter bowling apparantley had lost some fire.

You probably saw him, what you do think?

There's no chance that he would make an All Time XI as just a batsman or just a bowler. To make the definition he'd have to do both.

 

[subshakerz]

When you look at his cricketing career it's a shame. He missed his absolute prime and could have possibly been what MrIncredible is after (a player who can genuinely get into an all-time team with both bat and ball). Add also the fact that after the war he didn't see it as important as he used to. But I guess these things add to his mystique.

There's no possibility he would get into an all-time great team with bat, or with the ball either. As a bowler, it is a huge stretch to suggest he belongs alongside guys like Lillee, Marshall, Hadlee, Imran, etc IMO. Its the allround package that makes him an all-timer.

 

[Ikki]

There's no possibility he would get into an all-time great team with bat, or with the ball either. As a bowler, it is a huge stretch to suggest he belongs alongside guys like Lillee, Marshall, Hadlee, Imran, etc IMO. Its the allround package that makes him an all-timer.

As a bat, he was one of the best in FC cricket averaging almost 50. As a bowler, the only thing he lacked was bowling longer spells. Had he not had injuries and had he played throughout his prime that question could be answered.

Saying there is NO possibility is just being obtuse.

Edit: I am talking about an all-time Australian XI, not world XI.

 

[The Sean]

I remember u from a post on Sobers talking about Ind/Pak/Nz being Zimbabwe-esque therefore in like manner i think it only fair we incl Miller's stats vs the non-minnow team(s) of his time:

England/RSA:

Bat ave: 33+/-
Bowling ave: 22+/-
38 mts 3 hundreds and 117 wkts

Nothing special with the bat and a great bowler (though WPM kinda low). Still great all rounder but nothing there to show him to a "beast" of ne kind.
Bowl ave:

Mind telling me how you figure that WI in that era were minnows? Take away India/NZ by all means, but WI were ahead of RSA at that time, and rivalled Australia and England.

 

[subshakerz]

As a bat, he was one of the best in FC cricket averaging almost 50. As a bowler, the only thing he lacked was bowling longer spells. Had he not had injuries and had he played throughout his prime that question could be answered.

Saying there is NO possibility is just being obtuse.

Edit: I am talking about an all-time Australian XI, not world XI.

Well, I thought you were talking about a world XI, which is why I said there was no possibility.

Even for an Australian XI it's a stretch. He only averaged 36, simply put thats not good enough to merit a batting position. Mark Waugh averaged over 50 in FC cricket, but nobody would seriously consider him for an all-time XI.

As a bowler, you might say if he had the ability to bowl longer spells, not been injured, and played through his prime, he may have been a great. But he didn't, as such he shouldnt be called one. As his record stands, I can't see him pushing out one of Lillee, McGrath, Lindwall or Davidson.

 

[Ikki]

Yeah but he actually averaged upto 45 in Tests before he started to disintegrate and this was still after the war and having been affected by injury, missing out on his prime. I said had he not gone through that, it's a possibility he could have fulfilled that. Neil Harvey played along the same generation essentially and he averaged 50 in FC cricket - he is often considered for an all-time XI in Australia - whereas Miller averages similar IIRC. And in terms of ratios, his are just as good as the aforementioned bowlers, he just didn't bowl long spells to take a large aggregate amount of wickets. For me, he clearly had the quality, it's just a matter of "what if that didn't happen", etc, which I guess some people will just dismiss.

 

[bagapath]

been tied up at work. will try to start the polls this week.

 

[zaremba]

Miller was clearly a great all-rounder but, realistically, with the bat alone it's hard to see a way for him to get into an all-time convict middle order past the likes of both Chappells, Border, Ponting, both Waughs, Harvey and Bradman; arguably a whole host of others from recent times (Martyn, Langer, Boon, Jones among them); and a galaxy of pre-War stars (including Hill, Jackson, McCabe). Bearing in mind also that you can have at most 4 middle-order bats given that Gilchrist would (for most people's money) bat at 7.