Grand Final - Greatest All-rounder of All Time

[Ikki]

By the way, since when is an average of 24 not impressive? You can nitpick any great's record and find even greater shortcomings. Lillee averaged 30 against Pakistan and 27 against the West Indies. Donald averaged 33 against Australia. Ambrose averaged 38 against India. Yet somehow averaging 24 against decent opposition means you are a lesser bowler.

For your interest's sake, I was merely saying he did awesomely against the best but amongst all-time greats you also have to do better against the rest and while even though he was very good, he didn't meet those standards.

But it's clear that Imran had a lot of on-the-job learning in the 70s but I didn't realise just how much. It's like night and day. So it kinda makes that a moot point because he certainly had the stick on everybody.

I'd rather go for the better bowling option then give the other three an extra load of work.

I've already mentioned this several times, but I'll mention it again: Miller was very capable of taking a heavy load if need be and proved very successful when he did. It's just that he had started cricket crook and was worse for wear towards the end of his career hence his lower wickets per test and overs per test stat.

And 6 or so overs spread over 3 other bowlers per match is really negligible; let's be honest here.

Ignore my post, posted after you.

No, it's fine. I learnt a thing or two.

 

[bagapath]

=
EDIT/ADD: I found a post The Sean made on this, as I remembered him doing so, and it was you who brought it up there and seemed to accept it then. So why argue against it here?

i have very clearly written even then miller is not in the same class as imran or ambrose as a bowler. why do you write as though i am changing my stance? the least you can do before digging up an old post and quoting it here is reading it once. anyways, thanks for bringing it up ikki. it makes me feel good for staying consistent in my arguments.

i can remind you of the warne / oreilly argument we had in which your reason for choosing warne over oreilly was purely based on SR. dont know why you cant accept imran is superior to miller as a bowler by the same token. but, i dont want to. you have decided in your mind that miller is fit enough to be among the bowling attack consisting of 4 best bowlers in history and nothing can convince you otherwise. so forget it.

 

[fredfertang]

Miller bowled 75 overs at Headingley in 1953 (6 for 102) - pretty impressive for a guy with a dodgy back that hadn't allowed him to bowl in the first Test of the series

 

[bagapath]

I've already mentioned this several times, but I'll mention it again: Miller was very capable of taking a heavy load if need be and proved very successful when he did. It's just that he had started cricket crook and was worse for wear towards the end of his career hence his lower wickets per test and overs per test stat.

And 6 or so overs spread over 3 other bowlers per match is really negligible; let's be honest here.

no.he was not. over 55 tests it did not happen. so i will not accept this argument.

and why should the 3 bowlers bowl the extra overs. why? there are better bowlers like hadlee and imran who dont need that kind of cover. i am very honest here ikki. you cant have your way with such a weak case. so you please be honest. what are you trying to prove?

 

[Ikki]

i have very clearly written even then miller is not in the same class as imran or ambrose as a bowler. why do you write as though i am changing my stance? the least you can do before digging up an old post and quoting it here is reading it once. anyways, thanks for bringing it up ikki. it makes me feel good for staying consistent in my arguments.

You showed there you were willing to accept that very few people were near Miller's SR then and here you are trying imply differently. At least, that's what I understood.

i can remind you of the warne / oreilly argument we had in which your reason for choosing warne over oreilly was purely based on SR. dont know why you cant accept imran is superior to miller as a bowler by the same token. but, i dont want to. you have decided in your mind that miller is fit enough to be among the bowling attack consisting of 4 best bowlers in history and nothing can convince you otherwise. so forget it.

The argument re Warne/Tiger was a bit more than SR, although I don't remember much of it and probably between then and now probably know even more about the era. IIRC it was more about ER. Also, wouldn't this example be a reason for you to back Miller since you backed Tiger then?

Anyway, Warne did what he did on covered pitches.

With regards to this discussion, it's clear that Imran was the better bowler. Still, you're right, we won't agree. For me, what keeps Miller from all-time great status is his back injury and him bowling more. In a team with 3 other all-time greats, I would rather pass off the 6-7 overs per test to them and have Miller bat for me.

Because logically, what those bowlers do with those overs will be just as good as Imran; without it being such a load that would make the whole thing a farce. Yet I get Miller to bat for me.

 

[bagapath]

The argument re Warne/Tiger was a bit more than SR, although I don't remember much of it and probably between then and now probably know even more about the era. IIRC it was more about ER. Also, wouldn't this example be a reason for you to back Miller since you backed Tiger then?

No. Tiger averaged less than Warne. Took more wickets per test than Warne. Miller didnt average under Imran and took less wickets per test. So my argument is consistent. Since you were harping on superior SR you should be the one accepting Imran's superiority here. I am glad you dont remember the argument. You would be very embarrassed for changing tunes so drastically otherwise.

With regards to this discussion, it's clear that Imran was the better bowler. Still, you're right, we won't agree. For me, what keeps Miller from all-time great status is his back injury and him bowling more. In a team with 3 other all-time greats, I would rather pass off the 6-7 overs per test to them and have Miller bat for me.

Big deal. Tiger Pataudi batted with one eye and averaged 34. Am I supposed to assume he would have averaged more than Richards with a better eye sight? Miller has done very well for himself. Dont give such excuses and insult him. He was not as good as Hadlee and Imran. That is all. And that is no shame.

Because logically, what those bowlers do with those overs will be just as good as Imran; without it being such a load that would make the whole thing a farce. Yet I get Miller to bat for me.

So you want three other bowlers to step in and make Miller as effective as Imran. Doesnt sound like you are his real fan at all.

 

[Ikki]

no.he was not. over 55 tests it did not happen. so i will not accept this argument.

Why does it have to happen over all 55 tests? Ridiculous. Miller opened in 37 tests when the need arised and in those Tests he averaged 37 overs per match and took 3.6 wickets per match in those matches. Clearly, when he needed to be a frontline bowler, he was a very good one.

and why should the 3 bowlers bowl the extra overs. why? there are better bowlers like hadlee and imran who dont need that kind of cover. i am very honest here ikki. you cant have your way with such a weak case. so you please be honest. what are you trying to prove?

They don't need that kind of cover? They don't bat near as good as Miller either and are unlikely to win a match for me with the bat. You said it yourself, Miller can do so with both disciplines. So what is the outrage for if I pass off half a dozen overs to 3 other all-time greats for that kind of batsman?

It comes down to this: 6 or so overs per match given to other bowlers so a middle-to-lower order batsman can save/win the game for me. Or a bowler who won't need those 6 overs to be bowled by somebody else but won't win me or save me a match with the bat either.

I'd say Miller is covering the team much more than the team is covering Miller.

 

[bagapath]

are you planning to ignore my recent post on your changing tunes regarding the importance of SR and the comparison of pataudi's eyesight with miller's bad back?

 

[Ikki]

No. Tiger averaged less than Warne. Took more wickets per test than Warne. Miller didnt average under Imran and took less wickets per test. So my argument is consistent. Since you were harping on superior SR you should be the one accepting Imran's superiority here. I am glad you dont remember the argument. You would be very embarrassed for changing tunes to drastically otherwise.

It's expected for you to average less and take more wickets when you bowl about 20 more overs than the other guy per match and on uncovered wickets.

What I remember of the debate was that you said because Tiger would actually concede less runs overall because of his ER, that you would forgo all the other overs extra he needed to bowl to take wickets. Which isn't a silly argument, however somebody else needs to bowl those overs. You were trying to argue that the 12 points in SR between them won't mean anything.

I really don't remember the argument that well, but what I do remember was that it wasn't as big as I had thought statistically. However, we never talked about uncovered pitches which essentially changes the complexion of the debate.

Big deal. Tiger Pataudi batted with one eye and averaged 34. Am I supposed to assume he would have averaged more than Richards with a better eye sight? Miller has done very well for himself. Dont give such excuses and insult him.

So I am cutting him short by saying he can't bowl as long as the others by 6 overs? I thought I was just telling the truth. Now it's just excuses.

Ok, he can bowl as good as Marshall, Lillee and Imran, even with his left hand. Better?

So you want three other bowlers to step in and make Miller as effective as Imran. Doesnt sound like you are his real fan at all.

Yes, for half a dozen overs per match, they can take the ball out of his hand so he can save his back for scoring runs.

are you planning to ignore my recent post on your changing tunes regarding the importance of SR and the comparison of pataudi's eyesight with miller's bad back?

I answered your post, answer mine:

It comes down to this: 6 or so overs per match given to other bowlers so a middle-to-lower order batsman can save/win the game for me. Or a bowler who won't need those 6 overs to be bowled by somebody else but won't win me or save me a match with the bat either.

I'd say Miller is covering the team much more than the team is covering Miller.

 

[subshakerz]

They don't need that kind of cover? They don't bat near as good as Miller either and are unlikely to win a match for me with the bat. You said it yourself, Miller can do so with both disciplines. So what is the outrage for if I pass off half a dozen overs to 3 other all-time greats for that kind of batsman?
.

An all-time XI already has its batting covered pretty well with seven guys averaging around 50 or more. But for an all-rounder coming at no.8, his bowling abilities take greater priority given that there are only three great bowlers left and Sobers. The issue here is to now have as potent a bowling attack as possible while the batting is already in good shape.

So it only makes sense that you would pick an all-rounder who can fill the bowling void better and provide some useful lower order batting, like Imran, rather than an all-rounder who we have to sacrifice some needed bowling skill for to get some less needed batting skill, like Miller. Not that Miller isnt a great cricketer, but for the balance of the side, Imran works.

 

[bagapath]

It comes down to this: 6 or so overs per match given to other bowlers so a middle-to-lower order batsman can save/win the game for me. Or a bowler who won't need those 6 overs to be bowled by somebody else but won't win me or save me a match with the bat either.

I'd say Miller is covering the team much more than the team is covering Miller.

when you have 4 bowlers in an alltime xi they should be able to take 20 wickets. miller would prove to be the weak link in that kind of an attack because he cant bowl long spells. i would take another fast bowler who can bowl more and take more wickets per test, and at a better SR. the top 7 batsmen can score all the runs they want. the extra run or two miller can score more than imran, if at all, or the 10 runs he can score more than hadlee would not matter at all. but they can bowl more than him and take more wickets than him. their presence in the bowling attack makes the team more complete than miller's inclusion. whereas miller's marginal superiority with the bat makes absolutely no difference to the batting line-up

 

[subshakerz]

Yes, for half a dozen overs per match, they can take the ball out of his hand so he can save his back for scoring runs.

Here's the part you don't seem to get. For an all-rounder coming in an all-time XI at no.8, with a batting lineup of seven giants preceeding him, yet only three bowlers ahead of him, his bowling should take precedence, not his batting. Why would you want to sacrifice on bowling skill (by not having a top 10 bowler like Imran or Hadlee) for batting skill that is not as heavily required?

 

[Ikki]

An all-time XI already has its batting covered pretty well with seven guys averaging around 50 or more. But for an all-rounder coming at no.8, his bowling abilities take greater priority given that there are only three great bowlers left and Sobers. The issue here is to now have as potent a bowling attack as possible while the batting is already in good shape.

Why would Miller come at #8? What happened to #7?

So it only makes sense that you would pick an all-rounder who can fill the bowling void better and provide some useful lower order batting, like Imran, rather than an all-rounder who we have to sacrifice some needed bowling skill for to get some less needed batting skill, like Miller. Not that Miller isnt a great cricketer, but for the balance of the side, Imran works.

If your argument is that there is enough batting cover in an all-time XI to score enough runs, then the 3 other bowlers with Miller are also more than enough to take 20 wickets.

The difference is: there is no limit on the runs you can score but there is on the wickets you can take. So to score more runs is always a bonus. Whereas there is no bonus on wickets as you can only take 20.

 

[subshakerz]

whereas miller's marginal superiority with the bat makes absolutely no difference to the batting line-up

Bingo

 

[bagapath]

I really don't remember the argument that well, but what I do remember was that it wasn't as big as I had thought statistically. However, we never talked about uncovered pitches which essentially changes the complexion of the debate.

Do you want to take this back? Because if I say Miller bowled on uncovered wickets and Imran bowled on covered pitches yet Imran had a superior record it will completely destroy your argument. Not too happy to use your own point against you. So I want to give you a chance to save your case

 

[bagapath]

The difference is: there is no limit on the runs you can score but there is on the wickets you can take. So to score more runs is always a bonus. Whereas there is no bonus on wickets as you can only take 20.

You are so wrong Ikki. The fact is you can score as little as you want but it is important to take 20 wickets to win a test match. I hope you will see my point now.

 

[subshakerz]

Why would Miller come at #8? What happened to #7?

I'm assuming Gilchrist would bat ahead, given that he is a better batter than both Miller and Imran.

 

[Ikki]

when you have 4 bowlers in an alltime xi they should be able to take 20 wickets. miller would prove to be the weak link in that kind of an attack because he cant bowl long spells. i would take another fast bowler who can bowl more and take more wickets per test, and at a better SR. the top 7 batsmen can score all the runs they want. the extra run or two miller can score more than imran, if at all, or the 10 runs he can score more than hadlee would not matter at all. but they can bowl more than him and take more wickets than him. their presence in the bowling attack makes the team more complete than miller's inclusion. whereas miller's marginal superiority with the bat makes absolutely no difference to the batting line-up

Listen, they are going to take 20 wickets. He is a weaker link, but certainly not a weak link in the absolute sense. But it doesn't matter because he is the 4th bowler in that attack. A 4th bowler is not going to affect the match as much as the openers anyway.

I find it ironic you mentioning the top 7 batsman will score runs anyway as if it's just a matter of fact. Yeh, I am sure an attack of Warne, Marshall, Hadlee and Broad will take 20 wickets anyway, but that's not the point. Heck, I am even sure 5 specialist batsmen will do the job 70% of the time, but that's still not the point.

Even if Miller is a weaker bowler than Imran, as a 4th bowler it will be negligible because whatever runs he does concede is a bowler he is more likely to score as a batsman. The difference is, he can win me the match with both disciplines; whereas Imran is unlikely to with the bat. You pretty much said this yourself, now you are reverting to it being "an extra run or two more than Imran". Are you serious?

 

[Ikki]

You are so wrong Ikki. The fact is you can score as little as you want but it is important to take 20 wickets to win a test match. I hope you will see my point now.

Even subshakerz admitted they would. The matter then becomes averages and SR, of which the difference is not large; or as large as their batting.

Do you want to take this back? Because if I say Miller bowled on uncovered wickets and Imran bowled on covered pitches yet Imran had a superior record it will completely destroy your argument. Not too happy to use your own point against you. So I want to give you a chance to save your case

Because rain affected pitches help pace bowlers, do they? I was under the impression that they actually hindered pacers making the ball slow.

You're quite hilarious. You are trying to point out a contradiction, when if I am supposed to have the opposite opinion so are YOU. Because in both comparisons we were on the other side of the fence. So who are you catching out? Me or you?

 

[subshakerz]

Listen, they are going to take 20 wickets. He is a weaker link, but certainly not a weak link in the absolute sense. But it doesn't matter because he is the 4th bowler in that attack. A 4th bowler is not going to affect the match as much as the openers anyway.

Yes, but a 4th bowler is going to affect the match much more than a no.7 or no.8 batsman. Can't you see that?

Even if Miller is a weaker bowler than Imran, as a 4th bowler it will be negligible because whatever runs he does concede is a bowler he is more likely to score as a batsman. The difference is, he can win me the match with both disciplines; whereas Imran is unlikely to with the bat. You pretty much said this yourself, now you are reverting to it being "an extra run or two more than Imran". Are you serious?

You dont have to be a genius to know that if you are coming at no.7 or no.8 in the lineup, your duties are obviously more bowling than batting related. Wickets are needed more, runs less.