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

[Ikki]

He was much better than you are making it out. Miller averaged almost 50 in FC cricket. He was brought in as a batsman originally. He scored 3 100s and 6 50s against England - the best opposition other than his own. Miller averages 45 as a #5. He was considered so talented with the bat he was asked to bat at #3.

And the note re his wicket-taking is exaggerated. Miller bowled less when he could bowl less. Aus had a very good attack at the time and could afford to underbowl him. However, when needed he bowled long spells and led the Aus attack. In his last Ashes tour when Lindwall and Davidson were injured he led the pace attack and had an awesome series. It's interesting to note that for a bowler who bowled less than Lindwall and took less wickets per match than him, his 4/5/10 wicket hauls are very close to his (in Lindwall's case he doesn't even have a 10w haul). Another interesting thing to note is that Miller only averaged 30+ in 2 series in his entire career (32 and 30).

Also, if Miller's batting SR was 50 then that was pretty fast for his time. IIRC his era's SR was in the low 40s.

 

[Sanz]

He was much better than you are making it out. Miller averaged almost 50 in FC cricket. He was brought in as a batsman originally. He scored 3 100s and 6 50s against England - the best opposition other than his own. Miller averages 45 as a #5. He was considered so talented with the bat he was asked to bat at #3.

It is astonishing to see you continue to post wrong stats after wrong stats in order to prove the Miller as the greatest allrounder (statistically).

Miller @ no. 5 averages :- 41.97 (and not 45 as claimed by you)
Miller @ no. 3 averages :- 34.90 (obviously Statistics do not back up your claim)
Edit :- Miller does have 3 100s and 6 50s against England but again he also played almost 60% of his Test matches against them.


Also it is interesting to see you taking refuge in First class stats when the Test Stats do not back your arguments. I hope you will consider the following next time you call Sobers an average bowler.

Sobers First Class bowling average is 27.74

Sobers was so talented with the ball that he often opened the bowling for his team at international level.

 

[Prince EWS]

It is astonishing to see you continue to post wrong stats after wrong stats in order to prove the Miller as the greatest allrounder (statistically).

Miller @ no. 5 averages :- 41.97 (and not 45 as claimed by you)
Miller @ no. 3 averages :- 34.90 (obviously Statistics do not back up your claim)
Edit :- Miller does have 3 100s and 6 50s against England but again he also played almost 60% of his Test matches against them.


Also it is interesting to see you taking refuge in First class stats when the Test Stats do not back your arguments. I hope you will consider the following next time you call Sobers an average bowler.

Sobers First Class bowling average is 27.74

Sobers was so talented with the ball that he often opened the bowling for his team at international level.

To be fair to Ikki, First Class cricket was a lot more relevant and esteemed during Miller's time than it was during Sobers's.

 

[smash84]

To be fair to Ikki, First Class cricket was a lot more relevant and esteemed during Miller's time than it was during Sobers's.

Didn't the early parts of their careers overlap????

 

[Prince EWS]

Didn't the early parts of their careers overlap????

Sobers came onto the scene just as or just before Miller retired IIRC.

 

[Ikki]

IMiller @ no. 5 averages :- 41.97
Miller @ no. 3 averages :- 34.90 (obviously Statistics do not back up your claim)
Edit :- Miller does have 3 100s and 6 50s against England but again he also played almost 60% of his Test matches against them.

Sorry, I pasted the stats where he had averaged 45 for half his career. Yes, he did average 42. I am not sure how that really devalues the argument however.

And I said he was good enough to be asked to bat at #3 - not that he had large success there. None of the other bowling all-rounders were talented near enough to be asked to do such a task.

And Miller played 60% of his matches against his biggest rivals. That doesn't devalue his record it enhances it.

The only reason I pointed to FC average was because JBH referred to their prowess with the bat overall. In that period FC cricket was also much closer to Test standard than it is now.

There is no way in hell Kapil was a better bat (or bowler) and Miller was clearly better than the other bowling all-rounders with the bat. Only Botham really compares.

 

[smash84]

There is no way in hell Kapil was a better bat (or bowler) and Miller was clearly better than the other bowling all-rounders with the bat. Only Botham really compares.

Kapil used to be a decent bat.

 

[honestbharani]

To be fair to Ikki, First Class cricket was a lot more relevant and esteemed during Miller's time than it was during Sobers's.

At the same time,FC cricket in Sobers' era was much more relevant and esteemed than at any time after that... And somehow, that is not part of the debate if it is Imran Vs Sobers..

 

[smash84]

At the same time,FC cricket in Sobers' era was much more relevant and esteemed than at any time after that... And somehow, that is not part of the debate if it is Imrav Vs Sobers..

Yeah. I am not too comfortable with bringing in too much of FC cricket. There is a big big gap between FC cricket and the international level. The pressure is immense at the international level.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah. I am not too comfortable with bringing in too much of FC cricket. There is a big big gap between FC cricket and the international level. The pressure is immense at the international level.

No, the point there have been various FC competitions which have been relevant, prestigious and of a high standard at various times during cricket history. The Pre-50s for instance, FC games were very big esp. in England, as all the best players came and played there.. Ditto for the SS in Australia. So I agree with Ikki that FC stats do need to be taken into accont (perhaps not at the same level as international cricket, but at least as an indicator) reg. Miller but it is not fair if it is suddenly deemed meaningless about Sobers who played on for a couple of more decades...

 

[Ikki]

Kapil used to be a decent bat.

But not as good as Botham, Imran or Miller.

 

[Ikki]

So I agree with Ikki that FC stats do need to be taken into accont (perhaps not at the same level as international cricket, but at least as an indicator) reg. Miller but it is not fair if it is suddenly deemed meaningless about Sobers who played on for a couple of more decades...

I am not really saying we have to include his FC figures. It was really just a side point showing how talented with the bat he was, even if he didn't achieve the same at Test level. As I had mentioned, Miller was actually brought in for his batting but was so good he was turned into an opening bowler.

Miller had an outstanding career and it's even more a testament to his talent that his figures are still up there with the best despite the fact that he missed ~6 years of his prime due to the war and the fact that after the war he had a very laid back attitude towards cricket complimented by his playboy lifestyle.

Although this is a personal opinion but reading about Miller I sense that had he been in the pursuit of records this wouldn't be much of a debate.

 

[honestbharani]

I am not really saying we have to include his FC figures. It was really just a side point showing how talented with the bat he was, even if he didn't achieve the same at Test level. As I had mentioned, Miller was actually brought in for his batting but was so good he was turned into an opening bowler.

Miller had an outstanding career and it's even more a testament to his talent that his figures are still up there with the best despite the fact that he missed ~6 years of his prime due to the war and the fact that after the war he had a very laid back attitude towards cricket complimented by his playboy lifestyle.

Although this is a personal opinion but reading about Miller I sense that had he been in the pursuit of records this wouldn't be much of a debate.

And so they say about Sobers..

 

[Ikki]

But Sobers pretty much sucked with the ball....

 

[bagapath]

miller averaged under 30 with the ball and over 30 with the bat against every team he faced in test cricket, (except against pak with the bat; but he played only one test against them). cant really imagine anyone else in the history of the game to have had that kind of an all round record over a ten year career.

 

[fredfertang]

miller averaged under 30 with the ball and over 30 with the bat against every team he faced in test cricket, (except against pak with the bat; but he played only one test against them). cant really imagine anyone else in the history of the game to have had that kind of an all round record over a ten year career.

It's difficult to compare as he didn't really play enough but had Stanley Jackson had a full career I suspect his stats would have been equally impressive

 

[Howe_zat]

miller averaged under 30 with the ball and over 30 with the bat against every team he faced in test cricket, (except against pak with the bat; but he played only one test against them). cant really imagine anyone else in the history of the game to have had that kind of an all round record over a ten year career.

Actually, Imran managed it, the only fault being his averaging 27 against the West Indies, and Miller never played against a side as good as the 1970s-80s Windies.

 

[smash84]

Actually, Imran managed it, the only fault being his averaging 27 against the West Indies, and Miller never played against a side as good as the 1970s-80s Windies.

Imran was a top class bowler an All TIme Great based on his bowling alone. His bowling prowess isn't under any doubt whatsoever. It is just that his batting probably wasn't as good as some of the other all rounders and when he was superb with the ball he wasn't usually outstanding with the bat.

 

[vcs]

I am not really saying we have to include his FC figures. It was really just a side point showing how talented with the bat he was, even if he didn't achieve the same at Test level. As I had mentioned, Miller was actually brought in for his batting but was so good he was turned into an opening bowler.

Miller had an outstanding career and it's even more a testament to his talent that his figures are still up there with the best despite the fact that he missed ~6 years of his prime due to the war and the fact that after the war he had a very laid back attitude towards cricket complimented by his playboy lifestyle.

Although this is a personal opinion but reading about Miller I sense that had he been in the pursuit of records this wouldn't be much of a debate.

You say these things as if they are positives for Miller.. I mean the war is a mitigating factor yes, but the rest is his own indiscipline and lack of commitment (if what you say is true) and I can't see how it is anything other than a negative for him.

Kapil was also considered a very talented batsman who underachieved with the bat, as was Akram. You are, and should be judged on, what you achieve.

 

[Ikki]

That's one take on it. His team was the best of his era and he didn't see the point in crushing the opposition further when his surrounding batsmen were already taking care of that. He contrasted with Bradman in that he saw more to life than Cricket. The war had affected him to the point where he treated Cricket merely as the game it was. He lost many friends and endured moments where he thought his own life would be at an end.

Even on what they achieved, Miller is arguably the best rounded all-rounder of all time.

Neither Kapil nor Akram get close to Miller even as it is. With Miller you're talking about a batsman who probably could've/should've averaged above 40. Just how much better were Kapil or Akram going to be? The former averages 31 and the latter 22.