Grand Final - Greatest All-rounder of All Time

[bagapath]

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?

Yes I am. why dont you get it that I dont care about the batting ability at all here? This is about taking 20 wickets with 4 bowlers. Not about relying on one man to do everything. Miller is not good enough to play in a dream team as a bowler alone.

 

[Ikki]

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

Why? Gilchrist doesn't need the extra time as he starts smacking it from the word go. He was also in the top 3 batsman in the Aussie team for much his career, and batted low for precisely this reason.

 

[Ikki]

Yes I am. why dont you get it that I dont care about the batting ability at all here? This is about taking 20 wickets with 4 bowlers. Not about relying on one man to do everything. Miller is not good enough to play in a dream team as a bowler alone.

And why won't you understand that I think they WILL take 20 wickets. If you simply don't agree, say that. But please don't try to imply it a fact. I think it rather silly.

 

[Ikki]

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

Yes, I was reading that just now. Awesome stuff. Really showed he'd come up trumps when it mattered.

 

[subshakerz]

Why? Gilchrist doesn't need the extra time as he starts smacking it from the word go. He was also in the top 3 batsman in the Aussie team for much his career, and batted low for precisely this reason.

Yes, I'm assuming Gilchrist would come at no.7. It doesnt make any sense for him to bat at no.8 after Miller. Your better batsman goes first.

 

[bagapath]

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.

how so ikki? show me. last i checked imran actually has a superior batting average, far superior SR and a better bowling average.

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

That impression is wrong. The shooter pitches make batting difficult against any type of bowling, more so against finger spin i agree. But pacers also gain a distinct advantage bowling on soggy wickets with uneven bounce and moisture aided swing as the wicket starts to dry coming to their aid. wet out field can hamper the run up but it is not connected to covering the wicket.

you have laughed a lot tonight and used the word ridiculous liberally but still I cannot hear a convincing argument from you how miller would make a better fourth bowler in an all time line up over imran or hadlee

 

[subshakerz]

And why won't you understand that I think they WILL take 20 wickets. If you simply don't agree, say that. But please don't try to imply it a fact. I think it rather silly.

Yes, they will take 20 wickets, in the end, would you rather have a bowling attack of four all-time greats, or just a slightly stronger batting tail with three greats and one good bowler? That's the difference. The former is better equipped to take the 20 wickets. You don't know what sort of opposition you will be facing, I'd rather have a better bowling lineup.

 

[Ikki]

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?

No, not any #7. There is as much chance for me that your #7 will need to score runs as a 4th bowler will have to take wickets for the other ineffective 3. Meaning not much, but IF that situation arises Miller CAN be a very good 4th bowler and CAN score me a chunk of runs with the bat. Imran CAN be a great 4th bowler but probably WON'T score me those runs.

 

[Ikki]

Yes, I'm assuming Gilchrist would come at no.7. It doesnt make any sense for him to bat at no.8 after Miller. Your better batsman goes first.

It made sense for Gilchrist to bat beneath Martyn, Clarke and Symonds. Those guys can also make runs, but will need time. Gilchrist doesn't need time, so why should it matter to him? If Miller gets out early, it won't have made a difference to Gilchrist. If Miller does score runs, he'd have done so and provided an even better platform for Gilchrist to slaughter away.

 

[bagapath]

And why won't you understand that I think they WILL take 20 wickets. If you simply don't agree, say that. But please don't try to imply it a fact. I think it rather silly.

they may still take 20 wickets despite 3 bowlers covering for miller, yes. but i would rather have a superior bowler like imran or hadlee and bowl the opposition out faster without stretching my other bowlers to bowl those extra six overs. you dont need to baby sit any player in a dream team. miller's batting is of no significant value. we are after 20 wickets to take and we have only four bowlers. miller out. imran/hadlee in.

 

[bagapath]

Miller CAN be a very good 4th bowler and CAN score me a chunk of runs with the bat. Imran CAN be a great 4th bowler but probably WON'T score me those runs.

Your argument is wrong.

Miller: good bowler / very good batsman
Imran: great bowler / good batsman

Imran's bowling - Miller's bowling = X
Miller's batting - Imran's batting = Y

And X>>>Y

We need a great bowler here. So Imran, in. Miller, out.

 

[subshakerz]

No, not any #7. There is as much chance for me that your #7 will need to score runs as a 4th bowler will have to take wickets for the other ineffective 3. Meaning not much, but IF that situation arises Miller CAN be a very good 4th bowler and CAN score me a chunk of runs with the bat. Imran CAN be a great 4th bowler but probably WON'T score me those runs.

So you are saying that there is as much chance that there may be a collapse from the greatest batting lineup imaginable and your runs will decide the match, than there is for three great bowlers to not get wickets? I disagree. How many bowling attacks have you seen where the fourth bowler is a novelty?

You are assuming that this team will play novices. What if the bowling faces an almost equal batting lineup? A bowler of Imran's class and ability to bowl longer spells will be needed more. Miller as a weak link would become even more apparent.

If three great bowlers are all we need, then we might as well replace Miller with Lara or Tendulkar and have a longer batting lineup.

 

[Ikki]

Yes, they will take 20 wickets, in the end, would you rather have a bowling attack of four all-time greats, or just a slightly stronger batting tail with three greats and one good bowler? That's the difference. The former is better equipped to take the 20 wickets. You don't know what sort of opposition you will be facing, I'd rather have a better bowling lineup.

We don't seem to be convincing each other. I think Miller is a very very good bowler, just not an all-time great. And the only reason I wouldn't consider him a great like Imran is because of the amounts of overs he was limited to over his long career. I don't believe I am giving up much at all.

It doesn't matter that I don't know what kind of team I am facing because I am convinced no matter what squad we would still take those 20 wickets. If these 4 don't take 20 wickets then really it's hard to argue the difference is just Miller. What I also know is that no matter how many runs I'd save with Imran in the team; I'll still score them back with Miller.

But, where I give Miller the edge is where he is actually capable of winning the match for me with either discipline. So ontop of plugging the small leak in his bowling, I have someone that if the occasion arose will/can score those important runs whereas I'd only reasonably assume such a performance with Imran only with the ball.

I've kinda said this like 10 times now, I hope you finally understand it.

 

[Ikki]

So you are saying that there is a greater chance that there may be a collapse from the greatest batting lineup imaginable and your runs will decide the match, than there is for three great bowlers to not get wickets? I disagree. How many bowling attacks have you seen where the fourth bowler is a novelty?

No, I said there was an equal chance of it happening. However, the difference is even if it doesn't collapse, scoring more runs is always more beneficial. Whereas you can't take more than 20 wickets, regardless.

 

[Ikki]

they may still take 20 wickets despite 3 bowlers covering for miller, yes. but i would rather have a superior bowler like imran or hadlee and bowl the opposition out faster without stretching my other bowlers to bowl those extra six overs. you dont need to baby sit any player in a dream team. miller's batting is of no significant value. we are after 20 wickets to take and we have only four bowlers. miller out. imran/hadlee in.

You seem to exaggerate this "covering for miller" Miller will take wickets and for a 4th bowler more than enough. The only covering they'll do is bowling a few more overs per match.

It's clear you and I won't agree. "Stretching out my bowlers with 6 overs". Not gonna happen; 6 overs is nothing. And I already showed you, if Miller needs to bowl them, he can; he has done so. So what are you worrying about? 1-2 runs and a few balls for each wicket that Imran could have taken or a batsman that will make that up or even possibly save you the match if the need occurred.

For me, it's nonsensical to say the least to vote otherwise.

 

[Ikki]

Your argument is wrong.

Miller: good bowler / very good batsman
Imran: great bowler / good batsman

Imran's bowling - Miller's bowling = X
Miller's batting - Imran's batting = Y

And X>>>Y

We need a great bowler here. So Imran, in. Miller, out.

So Imran's batting is about as good as Miller's bowling? This is ridiculous

 

[bagapath]

You seem to exaggerate this "covering for miller" Miller will take wickets and for a 4th bowler more than enough. The only covering they'll do is bowling a few more overs per match.

It's clear you and I won't agree. "Stretching out my bowlers with 6 overs". Not gonna happen; 6 overs is nothing. And I already showed you, if Miller needs to bowl them, he can; he has done so. So what are you worrying about? 1-2 runs and a few balls for each wicket that Imran could have taken or a batsman that will make that up or even possibly save you the match if the need occurred.

For me, it's nonsensical to say the least to vote otherwise.

taking extra load in a few matches dont matter. Throughout his career Miller built a reputation thorough bowling smaller spells.

It is arguable whether he brings in a big difference with the bat in comparison with imran. it is a very negligible advantage even if it were true. and then with seven world class batsmen above him it doesn't matter at all in the scheme of things. whereas imran being a far far superior bowler is more important considering 4 bowlers will be gunning for the 20 wickets.

 

[Ikki]

taking extra load in a few matches dont matter. Throughout his career Miller built a reputation thorough bowling smaller spells.

He also built a reputation on bowling long spells, opening the bowling and doing whatever when the need arose as well.

It is arguable whether he brings in a big difference with the bat in comparison with imran. it is a very negligible advantage even if it were true.

Shouldn't even be debated. The only bowling all-rounder that is comparable is Botham. Both middle-order bats with plenty of 100s and 50s to boot.

How can you say that only Botham and Miller can save a match with the bat and Imran can't pages ago and now suddenly imply there is no difference between them with the bat? You're not making any sense.

and then with seven world class batsmen above him it doesn't matter at all in the scheme of things. whereas imran being a far far superior bowler is more important considering 4 bowlers will be gunning for the 20 wickets.

He is a superior bowler, sure. But far superior? LOL, no, Imran isn't a far superior anything.

 

[bagapath]

So Imran's batting is about as good as Miller's bowling? This is ridiculous

how did you come to that conclusion ikki? when did i say that?

okay let me start again if you need help

Imran's bowling A
Imran's batting B
Miller's bowling C
Miller's batting D

1) A>> (C=D) >B --------------------> so miller is a more well rounded all-rounder than imran
2) (A - C) >> (D - B) ---=------------> so imran is more useful as the fourth bowler in an all time XI

 

[bagapath]

How can you say that only Botham and Miller can save a match with the bat and Imran can't pages ago and now suddenly imply there is no difference between them with the bat? You're not making any sense.

at no.8 their batting doesnt matter. may be you should read it again in the morning. it will make sense to you.