Cribbage's Standardised Test Averages (UPDATED November 2018 - posts 753-755)

[smash84]

What I mean is, he wasn't really relied on as much to win matches with the bat. It was just something he was pretty good at and he only became comparable to Botham/Miller with the bat towards the end of his career where he at that point bowled less.

He was definitely a better bowler than Miller.

Fair enough about Imran's batting but was Miller relied upon as a match winner with his bowling?????

 

[Howe_zat]

Fair enough about Imran's batting but was Miller relied upon as a match winner with his bowling?????

He opened the bowling throughout most of his career, so yes. It's not like he was a part-timer.

 

[smash84]

Actually Ikki your statement about not "carrying the burden" was a little misleading which lead to a lot of confusion.

 

[ankitj]

SJS has made some good points on this subject.

Completely agree with what SJS says about Botham. He was a belief defying cricketer. In first half of his career, he could rival even Bradman and Sobers as the most valuable cricketer in a team. He was THAT good.

I always have problem properly rating Botham. There are times when I want to put him ahead of likes of Miller and there are times when I can't looking at his overall averages. Correctly pointed out by SJS that it's a matter of which part of a cricketer's career you look at.

Here are some astonishing facts about Botham putting in perspective how ridiculously good he was:

1. Only cricketer to score 10+ hundreds and take 10+ five wicket hauls.
2. Only cricketer to score a hundred and take a five wicket haul in the same match 5 times (no one did it more than twice).
3. Only cricketer to break the 800 ICC rating points as both batsman and bowler.
4. Quickest to complete 1000 runs-100 wickets and also 2000 runs-200 wickets.

Incredible is the word.

 

[smash84]

Completely agree with what SJS says about Botham. He was a belief defying cricketer. In first half of his career, he could rival even Bradman and Sobers as the most valuable cricketer in a team. He was THAT good.

I always have problem properly rating Botham. There are times when I want to put him ahead of likes of Miller and there are times when I can't looking at his overall averages. Correctly pointed out by SJS that it's a matter of which part of a cricketer's career you look at.

Here are some astonishing facts about Botham putting in perspective how ridiculously good he was:

1. Only cricketer to score 10+ hundreds and take 10+ five wicket hauls.
2. Only cricketer to score a hundred and take a five wicket haul in the same match 5 times (no one did it more than twice).
3. Only cricketer to break the 800 ICC rating points as both batsman and bowler.
4. Quickest to complete 1000 runs-100 wickets and also 2000 runs-200 wickets.

Incredible is the word.

Indeed Botham was incredible. In terms of sheer talent I think he was head and shoulders above the other great all rounders of that era (arguably even above Sobers).

By all accounts Imran was not so naturally gifted but he was more hardworking than a mule (to quote a Pakistani saying) and he was very very disciplined. According to Ramiz,Wasim, Waqar, Manjrekar, Gavaskar, etc he was probably the hardest working of all cricketers. I read some parts of Imran's book, All Round View, and I was surprised to read that he would play cricket or run out into the park in the afternoon during summers in Lahore. You have to be crazy to do that (and Imran says that people thought he was crazy). I have lived in Lahore for some time and in the summers 45 degrees Celsius in the shade is quite common, going up to 48-49 degrees. Waqar's area is even hotter in summers with temperatures reaching up to 50-51 degrees Celsius in hottest month. Even the nights have temperatures in the 30s. Imagine practicing in such conditions.

Botham on the other hand got fat, and lost all discipline. Did no justice to his talent and by the time he retired was a mere shadow of his former self (probably not even that). And I guess people usually recall the end part of your career better than earlier parts. The latter part probably sticks more in the memory. So Botham usually ends up paying the price for his terrible last few years. Otherwise any neutral observer of the game will tell you that talent wise none of the other all rounders came close to Botham.

 

[bagapath]

glad to see ravi shastri's bowling average jump from 40.96 to 40.94. always knew he was a much better bowler than he looked.

excellent work prince. looking forward to the batting list.

 

[Ikki]

Actually Ikki your statement about not "carrying the burden" was a little misleading which lead to a lot of confusion.

You're right and for what it's worth I think Miller gives a bit more with the bat and Imran a bit more with the ball. Generally, I put both up there as the best all-rounders of all-time. Yes, ahead of Sobers.

 

[smash84]

You're right and for what it's worth I think Miller gives a bit more with the bat and Imran a bit more with the ball. Generally, I put both up there as the best all-rounders of all-time. Yes, ahead of Sobers.

Interesting choice then.

I am tempted to ask you who you rate higher as a cricketer Imran/Miller or Warne. All three were outstanding cricketers.

I am asking you this because I know that you just love Warnie and have a bit of a soft spot for him.

 

[Uppercut]

There is even a point where Imran averages 50; but let's be real. He batted far down the order and he looks better with the bat than he really is because of not-outs.

The fact that Pakistan's batting lineup often either didn't really need Imran's batting or left him stranded doesn't really say anything about his quality as a cricketer. Although it does quite considerably overstate his contribution with the bat. Still, it's just lol to call into question Imran's contribution to Pakistani cricket.

The same principle applies to Miller's bowling. It doesn't really say anything for his quality that he only managed to take three wickets per match. If you're conceding 22 runs for every wicket you take, you're a top-quality bowler, regardless of whether you bowl five overs a match or fifty. But you'd certainly expect a bowler that good to contribute a lot more.

Is there any particular evidence as to why Miller didn't take any more wickets? I know he opened the bowling- were captains reluctant to give him a second or third spell because he was a key batsman? Was his side filled with other quality bowlers that tended to clean up quickly? It would be interesting to know what some contemporaries say about it.

 

[Top_Cat]

Had horrific back troubles from a plane crash during service, I believe.

 

[smash84]

Some contemporaries of his might be able to shed some light. Richie Benaud speaks of him quite highly and he had played with him too i think.

 

[Ikki]

The fact that Pakistan's batting lineup often either didn't really need Imran's batting or left him stranded doesn't really say anything about his quality as a cricketer. Although it does quite considerably overstate his contribution with the bat. Still, it's just lol to call into question Imran's contribution to Pakistani cricket.

Well, that's the whole point. You look at stats to see just how good they were for their team. As you say, his stats do tend to overstate his contribution to the team with the bat. I just couldn't agree with anyone who would rate Imran's contribution with the bat ahead of Miller's or Botham's (when he wasn't dire).

Also, I didn't call into question Imran's contribution to Pakistani cricket - or didn't mean to anyway. I rate him in the top handful of cricketers of all-time. One of the best all-rounders of the game, and a captain that brought a fractious team together for glory.

Interesting choice then.

I am tempted to ask you who you rate higher as a cricketer Imran/Miller or Warne. All three were outstanding cricketers.

I am asking you this because I know that you just love Warnie and have a bit of a soft spot for him.

It's really my bias that allows me to rate Warne greater than both. I acknowledge that because the combined efforts of great all-rounders puts them on a higher plane than specialists. Still, I still maintain I haven't seen a greater matchwinner* than Warne and I didn't really get to witness Imran or Miller play so that is the only reason I'd rate Warne higher.

*What I think a matchwinner is, as I am well aware people have their own definitions for that word.

 

[smash84]

It's really my bias that allows me to rate Warne greater than both. I acknowledge that because the combined efforts of great all-rounders puts them on a higher plane than specialists. Still, I still maintain I haven't seen a greater matchwinner* than Warne and I didn't really get to witness Imran or Miller play so that is the only reason I'd rate Warne higher.

*What I think a matchwinner is, as I am well aware people have their own definitions for that word.

Fair enough.

 

[JBH001]

I'm sorry I haven't been able to reply to queries earlier in the thread, it's been a busy weekend and a busier start to the work week. I don't rate Miller that highly because I think his better period coincided with poor opposition and he later filled his boots (with the bat for example) by hammering a poor WI side after being demolished by Hutton's touring England. His SR is good for his era but his WPM counter-acts that (poor for a front line fast bowler) and overall, I think his rating is partly based on the hype founded on his personality against the backdrop of postwar Britain.

Imran, Botham and Kapil are all better for mine.

I've made some of these points before, but tbh, I'm not sure how far I can go into it in this thread. I don't have time to post when my workday starts and am usually occupied in the evenings.

 

[Ikki]

On the plus side though he does have a very very high top and middle order wicket proportion - only ~22% of his wickets came from tailenders. Also, during the first half of his career he was averaging 46 against England and averages 40 for the series against WIndies in his other series in 51. A bit misleading to say he filled his against poor attacks.

Kapil being better is a huge stretch though. Worse with both bat and ball.

 

[honestbharani]

I'm sorry I haven't been able to reply to queries earlier in the thread, it's been a busy weekend and a busier start to the work week. I don't rate Miller that highly because I think his better period coincided with poor opposition and he later filled his boots (with the bat for example) by hammering a poor WI side after being demolished by Hutton's touring England. His SR is good for his era but his WPM counter-acts that (poor for a front line fast bowler) and overall, I think his rating is partly based on the hype founded on his personality against the backdrop of postwar Britain.

Imran, Botham and Kapil are all better for mine.

I've made some of these points before, but tbh, I'm not sure how far I can go into it in this thread. I don't have time to post when my workday starts and am usually occupied in the evenings.

How about Sobers?

 

[smash84]

How about Sobers?

I feel Imran and Botham were more rounded all rounders than Sobers. Sobers takes the cake though because his batting is probably only second to the Don himself. Add to that his versatility in bowling earns him a lot of points.

 

[Xuhaib]

People underrating Imran's contribution with the bat he saved quite a few games with the bat Adelade 90 vs Aus and Karachi 86 vs WI comes immediatley to mind I am sure there were few others aswell.

 

[brackenNY]

Sami's average dips below 50 at least.

 

[JBH001]

How about Sobers?

Yeah, I meant to edit that post but cbf.

Sobers and Kallis for sure along with Imran, Botham, and Kapil (although it is a close call). Miller was clearly a very good bowler but injuries regardless, I don't think he took enough wickets for a front-line strike bowler. I'm also skeptical that his batting was good enough to warrant serious comparison with the other great all-rounders (when weighing off batting, bowling and fielding strength against each other). 3 of his 7 hundreds, for example, came against a WI featuring no bowler worth the name (IIRC) and his other top series with the bat came against a weak postwar 46-47 England side. Neither was he an overly attacking batsman if the cricinfo SR approximation holds any water - that has him striking at 50/100 balls. Kapil, by comparison, has a SR of over 80 for his average of 32.

Anyway, it's time to start work. But, for mine, when it comes to discussion of the great and commonly known all-rounders I'd rank him behind Sobers/Kallis, Imran/Botham and yes, Kapil too.

He was good, no doubt, just not as good as sometimes made out to be.