CW All Time Country XI Discussion Thread

[smash84]

interesting.......will need to look up a bit more on him.....this might change the equation somewhat

 

[Slifer]

Gilchrist is where Aus really take the take edge though. A proper batsman coming in at number 7 for your AT XI team that happens to be your keeper. Now that is what the military would call a strategic asset and something that would be hard to beat by other teams. Otherwise the WI AT XI's batting is pretty close even with Bradman in the Aus side.

Gilchrist is a nice bonus to have but where Oz obviously shades it (IMO) is Bradman

Heres a look at Oz without Bradman as an example:

Trumper
Morris
Ponting
Chappell
Border
Miller
Gilchrist+
Warne
Lillee
O'reiley
Mcgrath

Still a great lineup but one that is readily bettered by the WI (the combo of Sobers and Walcott at 6 and 7 >> Miller and Gilchrist) and possibly even England and RSA. Without Bradman, Oz probably cannot afford to have Miller in the team 'cause he IMO seriously weakens their batting lineup, relative to the other teams. As it is right now Oz do have the overall best batting and bowling lineups but that is ever so slightly on both accounts over the WI.

 

[akilana]

Not to go into this argument again, but these teams are made up of players selected at their very peak, eg Richards from '76- post WSC, Lara 94- '99 ect, and no one could convince me that even peak Bradman was twice the batsman that peak Richards was, and I honestly belive that there hasn't been a better batsman than '76 - WSC Richards. Plus I would take my chances with a fired up Marshall and Ambrose vs The Don with a new cherry.

So I would expect you to consider Don's peak.
You are comparing Richard's peak with Don's overall record. Just compare Richard's peak with Don's. At Don's peak, he was still twice as good as the next batsmsn in his peak. You can take your chances with any bowlers against Don but he will destroy them. They couldn't even handle S Waugh.

 

[Slifer]

So I would expect you to consider Don's peak.
You are comparing Richard's peak with Don's overall record. Just compare Richard's peak with Don's. At Don's peak, he was still twice as good as the next batsmsn in his peak. You can take your chances with any bowlers against Don but he will destroy them. They couldn't even handle S Waugh.

Truth be told, Waugh was in his infancy in tests when he played MM and he didnt do all that well. Over his career vs Amby I would say evens stephens. Still though ur point about the Don remains, he was head and shoulders above ne other batsman

 

[the big bambino]

I agree with kyear (I think it was kyear) who implied the 2 outstanding performers in cricket history have been Bradman's batting and the WI quick bowling book ended by the rise of Roberts to that of Ambrose. I'd probably add Gilchrist's match winning batting at 7. Even so most of the other sides are bloody useful allright and when combinations get this good no side is a safe bet.

 

[watson]

Walcott would equal if not better him with the bat, even if ever so slightly behind with the gloves. I agree though, Gilly is the difference maker for the Aussies.

I still have vivid memories of the South African quicks, and Flintoff going around the wicket to aim at the top of Gilchrist's off stump. That sort of delivery was Gilchrist's achilles heal.

I can see Holding and Ambrose doing the same.

 

[marc71178]

Haven't WI had significantly better keepers over the years than Walcott? For some reason I always thought of him as a keeper like Sangakkara (when he came in as a keeper and wasn't playing as a pure batsman)

Didn't keep enough to warrant inclusion as a keeper in an AT team and when he did, his batting wasn't anywhere near as good as when he didn't. It is a similar case to Sangakkara IMO, although in Walcott's case there are more options to replace him.

 

[smash84]

Didn't keep enough to warrant inclusion as a keeper in an AT team and when he did, his batting wasn't anywhere near as good as when he didn't. It is a similar case to Sangakkara IMO, although in Walcott's case there are more options to replace him.

that was my impression too

 

[kyear2]

I agree with kyear (I think it was kyear) who implied the 2 outstanding performers in cricket history have been Bradman's batting and the WI quick bowling book ended by the rise of Roberts to that of Ambrose. I'd probably add Gilchrist's match winning batting at 7. Even so most of the other sides are bloody useful allright and when combinations get this good no side is a safe bet.

Yea, I think at the time I was saying that the game has three true superstars Dr Grace, Sir Donald and Sir Garry (four if one wants to include Hobbs) but only two phenomenons who dominated the game like no others and to such an extent that rule changes were made to restrict them; Bradman and the four man pace attack from '76 - '91. Don't think people understand how dominat those attacks were specifically from '83-'88.
But agree with your premise, any of the top 5 teams have a chance to win and even India and Sri Lanka is in with a shout at home. Still wouldn't bet agains Australia and the Windies though.

 

[MartinB]

Miller isn't an ATG batsman and scored a lot of his runs againts very weak W.I attacks, so as under rated that Chappell is, Miller is even more so over rated imho.
But don't get me wrong, it would be an amazing series and one that I would think would be too close to call.

With regards Millers batting, He did average 42 with the bat over the first 6 years of his career, his batting seems to take a dive after the age of 32. That could be because Englands bowling improved or it could also be age related or he needed to do more Bowling (Bill Johnson was injured around then and Miller dropped to 7/8 in the batting).


With regards to his bowling, If you look Keith Millers Bowling Statistics:

average: 23; Strike Rate: 61.5; 3.1 wickets per test and ~80% wickets are top 6 batsmen

On the surface, Millers Strike Rate and Wickets per test are not great, but the Top 6 batsmen is excellent. These stats also imply Miller takes almost 2.5 top 6 batsmen per Test and 0.6 bottom 4.

If you look closely at Holding / Ambrose / Imran?? you will find they all took around
2.5/2.6 Top 6 batsmen and 1.6 bottom 4 wickets. So the difference between Miller and Holding / Ambrose is Miller takes 1 less tailender (probably a 9 / 10 /11). The question I would ask you is - how many runs would a 9/10/11 batsmen score against likes of Holding / Ambrose / Imran / Miller ???

Personally I would say most 9/10/11 would struggle to score 12 runs and last 3/4 overs.
If you where to take 1 tailender (12 runs 3/4 overs) from Holding / Ambrose’s there
bowling figures become (roughly)

             Actual Averages                    Recalculated (after subtracting 1 tailender)
Ambrose:  Average:21    Strike Rate:54.5   ====>    Average:24     Strike Rate:64
Holding:  Average:23.7  Strike Rate:51     ====>    Average:26.5   Strike Rate:60.5

I would argue the Miller strike rate is very good given the high percentage of top 6 batsmen he dismissed and the bowling average is exceptional. The very high top six percentage means his bowling average can not be directly compared to Most other ATG.

Personally I think Miller's bowling would be a real asset to the Australians, they have 4 other ATG to get rid of the tail. For me, the most important job for a Fast bowler is to get rid of the Specialist Batsmen, Miller seems to be just as good at that as Ambrose or Holding, there is only a difference of 3/4 over's Between Miller and Holding

Note: If you add 1 tailender to Miller's Bowling figures they become
Average:20.5 Strike Rate:52/53, you could argue Batting standards where weakend by the War


What I think is happening is Miller bowls like Holding (Short sharp bursts) until 6/7th wicket falls at which point he is rested. This extra rest would help Miller to bat in the Top 6.

 

[The Sean]

MartinB - should post more.

 

[kyear2]

With regards Millers batting, He did average 42 with the bat over the first 6 years of his career, his batting seems to take a dive after the age of 32. That could be because Englands bowling improved or it could also be age related or he needed to do more Bowling (Bill Johnson was injured around then and Miller dropped to 7/8 in the batting).


With regards to his bowling, If you look Keith Millers Bowling Statistics:

average: 23; Strike Rate: 61.5; 3.1 wickets per test and ~80% wickets are top 6 batsmen

On the surface, Millers Strike Rate and Wickets per test are not great, but the Top 6 batsmen is excellent. These stats also imply Miller takes almost 2.5 top 6 batsmen per Test and 0.6 bottom 4.

If you look closely at Holding / Ambrose / Imran?? you will find they all took around
2.5/2.6 Top 6 batsmen and 1.6 bottom 4 wickets. So the difference between Miller and Holding / Ambrose is Miller takes 1 less tailender (probably a 9 / 10 /11). The question I would ask you is - how many runs would a 9/10/11 batsmen score against likes of Holding / Ambrose / Imran / Miller ???

Personally I would say most 9/10/11 would struggle to score 12 runs and last 3/4 overs.
If you where to take 1 tailender (12 runs 3/4 overs) from Holding / Ambrose’s there
bowling figures become (roughly)

             Actual Averages                    Recalculated (after subtracting 1 tailender)
Ambrose:  Average:21    Strike Rate:54.5   ====>    Average:24     Strike Rate:64
Holding:  Average:23.7  Strike Rate:51     ====>    Average:26.5   Strike Rate:60.5

I would argue the Miller strike rate is very good given the high percentage of top 6 batsmen he dismissed and the bowling average is exceptional. The very high top six percentage means his bowling average can not be directly compared to Most other ATG.

Personally I think Miller's bowling would be a real asset to the Australians, they have 4 other ATG to get rid of the tail. For me, the most important job for a Fast bowler is to get rid of the Specialist Batsmen, Miller seems to be just as good at that as Ambrose or Holding, there is only a difference of 3/4 over's Between Miller and Holding

Note: If you add 1 tailender to Miller's Bowling figures they become
Average:20.5 Strike Rate:52/53, you could argue Batting standards where weakend by the War


What I think is happening is Miller bowls like Holding (Short sharp bursts) until 6/7th wicket falls at which point he is rested. This extra rest would help Miller to bat in the Top 6.

Regarding Miller's bowling, his S/R and WPM are not impressive, but even more because for the first part of his career he was primarily used as a shock bowler, ie short bursts with the new ball and he didn't have to ber the less fruitful burden of long spells with the older ball, probably not exposing him so much to the lower order. So regardless how one tries to portray it he was not a absolute top tier fast bowler, and even if he had bowled more, it would have been with the older ball and not always againts the tail.

As far as the batting goes, he just wasn't a great batsman period, especially for an era immediately post war where Australia had. by some distance the best bowling attack and doesn't belong in the top order of an ATG level XI. Australia's team would not be as balanced, but would be a stronger line up with
Simpson
Morris
Bradman
Chappell
Ponting
Border
Gilchrist
Lindwall
Warne
Lillee
McGrath
Best 6 batsmen and best four bowlers.

 

[Red]

Regarding Miller's bowling, his S/R and WPM are not impressive, but even more because for the first part of his career he was primarily used as a shock bowler, ie short bursts with the new ball and he didn't have to ber the less fruitful burden of long spells with the older ball, probably not exposing him so much to the lower order. So regardless how one tries to portray it he was not a absolute top tier fast bowler, and even if he had bowled more, it would have been with the older ball and not always againts the tail.

What's your point? Bowling at the top order with a new ball is harder than bowling at the tail with an older ball (in terms of wicket taking/SRs etc). I think that's obvious. So there's no reason to think Miller wouldn't have had the same, or better, bowling figures if he'd bowled more...

As far as the batting goes, he just wasn't a great batsman period

It's bizarre that everyone who saw him play, and played with him, says that he WAS a great batsman.

I actually think that Miller was managed very well by his captains (particularly Bradman) as an all rounder. I've no doubt he'd have averaged 45 plus as a batsman had he not been a bowler (his FC batting avg was nearly 50), and if he'd been a pure bowler he'd have taken many more wickets per test. The teams Miller played in were exceptionally good, and well balanced sides. Miller was often part of a bowling attack consisting of 5 very capable bowlers. FWIW his last test match had 5 bowling options of very high quality-

Lindwall/Miller/Davidson/Johnson/Benaud

As a pure all rounder, Miller is peerless.

 

[kyear2]

He was a great All Rounder, but that doesn't make him a great batsman. You say that if he didn't bowl so much he would have been a great batsman, Miller bowled on average 31 overs p/m, Sobers almost 39. So I assume the same stands for Sir Garry who still managed to average 57 with the bat.
Everyone who saw Sobers play also said he was a great All Rounder and Bowler, that still isn't accepted by many here (the bowler part). The only team he averahed over 40 againts was the W.I and that awful bowling attack we had in the mid 50's on those flat pitches.

Pure all rounder, peerless, could be, only really Faulkner and Botham to really challenge. But neither are good enough to be picked in an ATG XI based wither on batting or bowling alone unlike Sobers, Kallis, Imran ect.

 

[smash84]

_l_

 

[Red]

He was a great All Rounder, but that doesn't make him a great batsman. You say that if he didn't bowl so much he would have been a great batsman, Miller bowled on average 31 overs p/m, Sobers almost 39. So I assume the same stands for Sir Garry who still managed to average 57 with the bat.
Everyone who saw Sobers play also said he was a great All Rounder and Bowler, that still isn't accepted by many here (the bowler part). The only team he averahed over 40 againts was the W.I and that awful bowling attack we had in the mid 50's on those flat pitches.

Pure all rounder, peerless, could be, only really Faulkner and Botham to really challenge. But neither are good enough to be picked in an ATG XI based wither on batting or bowling alone unlike Sobers, Kallis, Imran ect.

I rate Sobers as a bowler, but Miller was a far better bowler than Sobers.

And the point is, you aren't picking Miller as a batsman only, or a bowler only. You're picking him as a genuine all rounder. He balances the Aust ATG team brilliantly. What do you lose by having Miller over Border? Maybe 10 runs an innings on batting average? What do you gain? A genuine pace bowler who can bat at 5, who also gives you the option of having both Warne and O'Reilly in the team, plus a far more formidable presence in the middle. Warne and O'Reilly, along with three genuine quicks, is so much better than 3 quicks and 1 spinner. And it will win you games on day 4 and 5.

I'd take-

- Trumper
- Morris
- Bradman
- Chappell
- Miller
- Harvey/Ponting
- Gilchrist
- Warne
- Lillee
- O'Reilly
- McGrath

over-

Simpson
Morris
Bradman
Chappell
Ponting
Border
Gilchrist
Lindwall
Warne
Lillee
McGrath

any day....

 

[watson]

He was a great All Rounder, but that doesn't make him a great batsman. You say that if he didn't bowl so much he would have been a great batsman, Miller bowled on average 31 overs p/m, Sobers almost 39. So I assume the same stands for Sir Garry who still managed to average 57 with the bat.
Everyone who saw Sobers play also said he was a great All Rounder and Bowler, that still isn't accepted by many here (the bowler part). The only team he averahed over 40 againts was the W.I and that awful bowling attack we had in the mid 50's on those flat pitches.

Pure all rounder, peerless, could be, only really Faulkner and Botham to really challenge. But neither are good enough to be picked in an ATG XI based wither on batting or bowling alone unlike Sobers, Kallis, Imran ect.

What's interesting is that there has been no discussion about Faulkner's selection in the ATG South African XI, yet he is similar to Miller in that there are better batsman who could take his spot.

I assume that no one minds Faulkner at No.6 because of the lengthy batting order and make-up of the side. That is, with Procter and Waite to follow in the batting order there is not much reliance on Faulkner to make runs.

The same could be said of Miller. With Gilchrist to follow, and Bradman at No.3 there is not much reliance on Miller to make runs.

And so, when considering both Faulkner and Miller we have to look at their selection in context. Yes, they are weaker batsman but when surrounded by an abundance of good batsman this doesn't matter so much. What matters is their batting/bowling/fielding expertise combined.

 

[kyear2]

Well with All Rounders something has to be compromised, Miller weakens the top 6, Sobers is a much weaker 5th bowler. I would personally prefer a weaker 5th bowler than to weaken a spot in the top 6, but that is a personal preference.
With Faulkner it's less of a dilema, as there are no stronger batsmen that he is keeping out of the team and so the balance seems less compromised.

 

[Gowza]

i'd say the main positive of miller is that with him in the team you get to have both warne and o'reilly also in the team. your negative being that your batting is weakened by this. but the thing is he didn't always give his 100%, a positive in that if he had he probably would have averaged more with the bat, the negative with that, well obviously he only tried when he felt like it. if he had given his 100% and averaged 40+ i think more people would put him in an all time.

i personally like to go for the best bowlers and best batsman in all time teams so unless they get selected due to one of those then i find it hard to put them in the side.

with miller i like how he gives you the option of warne and o'reilly, but i don't like how he weakens the batting. i also don't like that he didn't try all the time. i guess playing in an all time team against other all time teams he'd be more likely to give 100% because the reasons why he didn't was when he wanted to give the opposition a chance and i'm sure in these matches up it'd be close most of the time. but i'd always have that doubt in my mind that he might not give it his all. and that is probably the reason why at the end of the day i wouldn't select him. if i was guaranteed he'd always be giving 100% then it might be different.

 

[Days of Grace]

Miller = more than the sum of his parts. AWTA, in that he lends great balance to the Australian team and I am of the opinion that any good team needs five bowlers.

I am not sure why everyone needs to bat Miller at no.5 in the Australian team. Why not no.6?

FWIW, my alltime Australian XI:

Hayden
Simpson
Bradman
Chappell
Ponting
Miller
Gilchrist (wk)
Warne
Lillee
O'Reilly
McGrath

Totally based on my ratings. I normally pick one player as a "wildcard" to replace someone in the ratings-based XI, and I thought of Trumper or Lawry over Hayden, but I think Hayden, if he comes off, adds so much aggression to the top-order. The notion that he would struggle against Marshall, Barnes, and the like is an over-used one, especially if we were playing on the pitches of today.

EDIT: These are my adjusted averages for the top 8 Australian openers:

Lawry 47.83
Simpson 47.19
Hayden 47.15
Ponsford 46.89
Trumper 46.84

Morris 44.10

Langer 42.93
Taylor 41.84

As you can see, there is not much separating the top 5, and the choice in the end would come down to personal preference.