The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Red]

Miller, at the theoretical level of cricket we're talking about, would not be anywhere close to the side as a specialist batsman.

This is probably the point we won't agree on. I think Miller is basically as good a batsman as the others in that middle order.

I view Miller's average in much the same way as I view Mark Waugh's average- unrepresentative of their actual ability.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Miller would probably pilot space shuttles in the second Earth-Martian war, and would consequently view any Earth-Mars Test cricket as a step down.

“Pressure is an anal probe up your arse, cricket is not."

 

[Howe_zat]

Miller would probably pilot space shuttles in the second Earth-Martian war, and would consequently view any Earth-Mars Test cricket as a step down.

“Pressure is an anal probe up your arse, cricket is not."

 

[kyear2]

This is probably the point we won't agree on. I think Miller is basically as good a batsman as the others in that middle order.

I view Miller's average in much the same way as I view Mark Waugh's average- unrepresentative of their actual ability.

Can't agree with anything in that statement and to say that Miller was as good a batsman as Richards, Tendulkar and Sobers is a bit mindblowing.

Basicall Miller isn't good enough to be a top order stand alone batsman in an ATG XI and when you look at his wpm he isn't good and durable enough to be one of the top four strike bowlers either.

 

[Red]

Can't agree with anything in that statement and to say that Miller was as good a batsman as Richards, Tendulkar and Sobers is a bit mindblowing.

Basicall Miller isn't good enough to be a top order stand alone batsman in an ATG XI and when you look at his wpm he isn't good and durable enough to be one of the top four strike bowlers either.

Miller was an exceptional batsmen. Don't be misled by his average. He was also an exceptional bowler. He was the greatest pure all rounder ever. No doubt.

 

[kyear2]

Exceptional batsmen don't average under 37 and great front line bolwers don't average 3 wickets per match with a s/r of 61. Unlike Garry who could make an AT XI as a batsman alone or Imran as a bowler alone, Miller can't make it based on any one of his skills alone.

 

[NUFAN]

I think Miller isn't as good as Mock thinks and not as bad as kyear2 is making out.

If you are going to play GIlchrist as your keeper and go in with 2 spinners, Miller at 7 is an excellent choice.

 

[the big bambino]

Not at all concerned by Miller's SR and I think that stat is misleading (his ave is still superb) and probably reflects a different attitude across eras as to how batsmen played bowling. My impression is that run rates are faster now and with it risk taking which impact SRs downward.

Perhaps in Miller's day bats were more cautious (stories of deathly dull batting are told of that period) so they took fewer risks in an effort to see him off. Miller's ave tends to suggest it was a good tactic and in the end the proper measure of his bowling ability.

 

[Red]

Exceptional batsmen don't average under 37 and great front line bolwers don't average 3 wickets per match with a s/r of 61. Unlike Garry who could make an AT XI as a batsman alone or Imran as a bowler alone, Miller can't make it based on any one of his skills alone.

Exceptional batsmen can adapt to conditions, threaten the opposition with their ability, play all the shots necessary etc etc. Miller had all that.

Miller is unique. He makes a team as a pure all rounder. Him and Botham are the two most "pure" all rounders of all time I think.

That said, Miller would have EASILY made the XI he actually played in as a batsman OR a bowler. Easily. Same as Botham...

 

[NUFAN]

Shakib makes the XI he actually plays in as a batsman or bowler too EASILY. He would actually make the Bangladesh all time team EASILY as just a batsman or just a bowler.

 

[the big bambino]

Miller's XI = one of the best team's to play the game.

Shakib's XI could only beat our current ashes squad.

 

[NUFAN]

I'm just highlighting that Miller isn't unique.

 

[Coronis]

Shakib's quite underrated. Be nice if Bang played some more tests.

 

[Red]

I'm just highlighting that Miller isn't unique.

I think he's quite unique. How many other cricketers in test history would command a place in a good test XI on their batting OR their bowling, while being very proficient in both? As in, able to bat in the top six of a high quality test side, as well as be one of the four main bowlers?

 

[Coronis]

Depends on how you'd define a good test XI.

 

[NUFAN]

I think he's quite unique. How many other cricketers in test history would command a place in a good test XI on their batting OR their bowling, while being very proficient in both? As in, able to bat in the top six of a high quality test side, as well as be one of the four main bowlers?

I suppose we are all unique.

I'll answer your question with a strawman (lol) and say how many cricketers in test history have the opportunity to command a place in a good test XI on either batting or bowling? Chris Cairns, Jacques Kallis, Andrew Flintoff, Shakib Al Hasan, Daniel Vettori, Kapil Dev, Imran Khan, Garry Sobers, Tony Greig, Brian McMillan and Vinoo Mankad are 11 cricketers who could demand a spot as either bowler or batsman at various times in their careers.

I rate Miller highly, he is clearly one of the best out of the names I've just mentioned, but I think you overrate his batting a little, 7 tons in close to 90 bats doesn't command a spot in a top 6 at ATG level. I rate his bowling highly though, sometimes I think he is underrated with his bowling.

 

[Howe_zat]

Sounds easy to rate players highly when you decide they were better than how they actually played.

Why not pick players who delivered on their intangible "ability"?

 

[smash84]

Shakib makes the XI he actually plays in as a batsman or bowler too EASILY. He would actually make the Bangladesh all time team EASILY as just a batsman or just a bowler.

 

[Red]

I suppose we are all unique.

I'll answer your question with a strawman (lol) and say how many cricketers in test history have the opportunity to command a place in a good test XI on either batting or bowling? Chris Cairns, Jacques Kallis, Andrew Flintoff, Shakib Al Hasan, Daniel Vettori, Kapil Dev, Imran Khan, Garry Sobers, Tony Greig, Brian McMillan and Vinoo Mankad are 11 cricketers who could demand a spot as either bowler or batsman at various times in their careers.

I rate Miller highly, he is clearly one of the best out of the names I've just mentioned, but I think you overrate his batting a little, 7 tons in close to 90 bats doesn't command a spot in a top 6 at ATG level. I rate his bowling highly though, sometimes I think he is underrated with his bowling.

Yeh, I get your point. I'm not a blind advocate for Miller, but I think he was pretty special in terms of being a cricketer. And in my opinion, he is the complete all-rounder.

Had he not been a bowler, he would've been selected as a top 6 batsman. And I can only speculate on this, but I think his test average as a batsman unburdened by bowling would've been a lot closer to 50 than it was. He was a proper top 6 batsman, unlike some others mentioned.

Also, he was without doubt second choice bowler for Australia in his era, and some would argue he was a better pace bowler than Lindwall.

Regarding his wickets per match ratio, he was actually very cleverly captained by Bradman and Hassett. Used as an opening strike bowler for fewer overs than he might've bowled, with Bill Johnston and Lindwall doing the heavy work. Admittedly he had back problems which probably stopped him bowling more than he did as well.

Many of the players listed (Dev, Vettori, Cairns, Khan) were not really top 6 batsmen, and spent a lot of their careers at 7 or 8 in the batting order. Similarly, it's debatable whether Greig or Sobers or some others would be selected as bowlers without their batting. Possibly, but maybe not.

As an overall package Miller was undeniably good though. Top 6 bat, genuine opening bowler. True all rounder. Giving a team the ability to play two spinners and three quicks.

Sounds easy to rate players highly when you decide they were better than how they actually played.

Why not pick players who delivered on their intangible "ability"?

I don't think i'm really saying Miller was better than he was. I'm mostly saying that as a cricketer he adds a ridiculous amount of versatility to a team.

 

[marc71178]

How does he add more versatility than someone like Kallis?

I personally would pick Kallis over him in this sort of exercise, which says a lot.