CW decides the greatest All-Rounder ever, 64 man knockout tournament: Voting Thread

[viriya]

Miller is way overrated here.. no way he's #2 all-time.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Why not

 

[Red]

Miller is way overrated here.. no way he's #2 all-time.

No he isn't and yes he is.

 

[viriya]

Imran ended with similar batting numbers and is an ATG bowler. If you're not looking at actual all-round performances but the career, there is no way you can pick Miller over Imran. And no, FC records are irrelevant.

 

[Red]

I think Imran got everything out of his batting ability that he could, and that's a massive credit to him. He was a limited batsman but he worked his game out so that he could make a lot more runs at the end of his career than he did at the start. His average reflects that.

I think Miller didn't get everything out of his batting (or bowling) that he could. He probably had bloody PTSD after the war and it's common knowledge that he didn't enjoy the ultra-competitive nature of sport that some other guys did. This is speculative, but I have no doubt he would've averaged 50 plus if he'd not had a big workload and if he could've been bothered.

It's also worth noting that Miller batted the majority of his career in the top 5, while Imran batted the majority of his career at 7 or 8. So in terms of being a true all rounder, Miller fits the bill far more, meaning his team could play 2 spinners more easily.

I'd have no drama if someone thought Imran to be Miller's superior as a cricketer or all rounder to be honest. But I don't think Miller is overrated when looked at in context. How many genuine opening bowlers have batted at #5 for most of their test career?

 

[Gowza]

Miller's stats are very comparable to lindwall's and he was an ATG of that time, add that Miller had back problems, and didn't always take things as seriously and you'll realise just how good of a bowler he was. As a bat it's pretty unanimous the talent he had, again he didn't always put in the effort, had the bad back and like said he batted mostly at 5 compared to imran batting mainly at 7/8.

 

[The Sean]

Miller is way overrated here.. no way he's #2 all-time.

On the other hand, in earlier rounds you voted for both Bravo and Jayasuriya over him. And there's no way that's right either.

 

[Coronis]

Imran ended with similar batting numbers and is an ATG bowler. If you're not looking at actual all-round performances but the career, there is no way you can pick Miller over Imran. And no, FC records are irrelevant.

Imran's batting is not comparable to Miller's.

 

[viriya]

I think Imran got everything out of his batting ability that he could, and that's a massive credit to him. He was a limited batsman but he worked his game out so that he could make a lot more runs at the end of his career than he did at the start. His average reflects that.

I think Miller didn't get everything out of his batting (or bowling) that he could. He probably had bloody PTSD after the war and it's common knowledge that he didn't enjoy the ultra-competitive nature of sport that some other guys did. This is speculative, but I have no doubt he would've averaged 50 plus if he'd not had a big workload and if he could've been bothered.

It's also worth noting that Miller batted the majority of his career in the top 5, while Imran batted the majority of his career at 7 or 8. So in terms of being a true all rounder, Miller fits the bill far more, meaning his team could play 2 spinners more easily.

I'd have no drama if someone thought Imran to be Miller's superior as a cricketer or all rounder to be honest. But I don't think Miller is overrated when looked at in context. How many genuine opening bowlers have batted at #5 for most of their test career?

Batting at #5 by itself doesn't mean anything.. he got to bat more with proper batsmen than Imran at 7. If anything it is easier to make runs at #5 than #7. He basically averaged the same as Imran at #5. Doesn't tell me he was a clearly better bat. And we know Imran was a clearly better bowler.

 

[viriya]

On the other hand, in earlier rounds you voted for both Bravo and Jayasuriya over him. And there's no way that's right either.

My votes were based on ODI performance because apparently this whole setup allowed you to rate any game format how you liked. It was my way of protesting because that was nonsensical

 

[subshakerz]

I think Imran got everything out of his batting ability that he could, and that's a massive credit to him. He was a limited batsman but he worked his game out so that he could make a lot more runs at the end of his career than he did at the start. His average reflects that.

I think Miller didn't get everything out of his batting (or bowling) that he could. He probably had bloody PTSD after the war and it's common knowledge that he didn't enjoy the ultra-competitive nature of sport that some other guys did. This is speculative, but I have no doubt he would've averaged 50 plus if he'd not had a big workload and if he could've been bothered.

It's also worth noting that Miller batted the majority of his career in the top 5, while Imran batted the majority of his career at 7 or 8. So in terms of being a true all rounder, Miller fits the bill far more, meaning his team could play 2 spinners more easily.

I'd have no drama if someone thought Imran to be Miller's superior as a cricketer or all rounder to be honest. But I don't think Miller is overrated when looked at in context. How many genuine opening bowlers have batted at #5 for most of their test career?

I think Imran is somewhat underrated as a batsman. He averaged 37 at a time when bowling standards were arguably at their highest. As I pointed out, at his bowling peak, he had an average of 40. I dont think he was necessarily better than Miller as a batter, but I dont think their gap in this discipline is as big as it is in bowling. In terms of all-round output, I feel Imran offered more to his team, slightly perhaps.

And if Miller couldnt get the best of of his abilities, thats not to his credit, ala Ian Botham.

 

[marc71178]

Stop peddling the bull**** about his batting being so good at his bowling peak. It clearly ignores what actually happened (is when he was at his peak as a bowler he had a low batting workload and when he was at his peak with the bat he barely bowled)

 

[Red]

And if Miller couldnt get the best of of his abilities, thats not to his credit, ala Ian Botham.

Where did I say it was or wasn't?

 

[Red]

Batting at #5 by itself doesn't mean anything.. he got to bat more with proper batsmen than Imran at 7. If anything it is easier to make runs at #5 than #7. He basically averaged the same as Imran at #5. Doesn't tell me he was a clearly better bat. And we know Imran was a clearly better bowler.

Over history, would you say that stronger teams have generally batted their better batsmen in the top 5, or at 7 or 8?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Jesus people stop with the wahhh over Imran being eliminated by Miller. It's embarassing to watch. He lost. Deal with it

 

[cnerd123]

Jesus people stop with the wahhh over Imran being eliminated by Miller. It's embarassing to watch. He lost. Deal with it

Waaahing over others waahing. Classic.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Like your dumb waahs about other people's stupid waahs about the Nagur pitch...

 

[viriya]

Over history, would you say that stronger teams have generally batted their better batsmen in the top 5, or at 7 or 8?

It doesn't matter if he didn't perform as a #5. Just because a player bats higher doesn't mean he's automatically a better batsman.

 

[marc71178]

It doesn't matter if he didn't perform as a #5. Just because a player bats higher doesn't mean he's automatically a better batsman.

And just because someone averaged a similar amount doesn't mean they're anywhere near the same class as a batsman

 

[cnerd123]

Like your dumb waahs about other people's stupid waahs about the Nagur pitch...

Are you waahing about me waahing about you having a waah over other people's waahs?