The great 1980s all rounders

[_00_deathscar]

Why do I seem to remember someone breathlessly labouring a similarly bullshit point about a year ago?

That's because you have dreams about PFK.

 

[h_hurricane]

I think that is a bit unfair to Sir Richard. Clearly a better batsman than Mitch.

 

[_00_deathscar]

As I said, I understand the logic, but I don't think it actually holds up in practice. Put Heath Streak or Chaminda Vaas in the 80s Windies or 00s Aus side and I doubt they average much better than they did. Even saying they'd average, say, 2 runs less is being generous IMO.

but at this stage we are just stating our opinions I guess

It does happen though - cricket is an individual game wrapped inside a team game, and most particularly with regards to bowling. Teams bowl/hunt in packs, pairs etc. Srinath in particular is a good example I think - aside from settling in/early declines, his average doesn't really reflect that he was a better bowler than what he finished up with, in part because he received very little support. Not saying he'd be averaging 20 or something, but I reckon you put Srinath in THIS Indian team and he'd be averaging closer to 25/26 (between 1993-2001 he averaged 27-something) instead of his career average of just over 30.

 

[Starfighter]

It does happen though - cricket is an individual game wrapped inside a team game, and most particularly with regards to bowling. Teams bowl/hunt in packs, pairs etc. Srinath in particular is a good example I think - aside from settling in/early declines, his average doesn't really reflect that he was a better bowler than what he finished up with, in part because he received very little support. Not saying he'd be averaging 20 or something, but I reckon you put Srinath in THIS Indian team and he'd be averaging closer to 25/26 (between 1993-2001 he averaged 27-something) instead of his career average of just over 30.

>it does happen
>load of speculation

Pick one.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It does happen though - cricket is an individual game wrapped inside a team game, and most particularly with regards to bowling. Teams bowl/hunt in packs, pairs etc. Srinath in particular is a good example I think - aside from settling in/early declines, his average doesn't really reflect that he was a better bowler than what he finished up with, in part because he received very little support. Not saying he'd be averaging 20 or something, but I reckon you put Srinath in THIS Indian team and he'd be averaging closer to 25/26 (between 1993-2001 he averaged 27-something) instead of his career average of just over 30.

as I said, I do understand the theory

 

[stephen]

ITT - people saying that Miller wasn't an ATG but Kapil was because reasons.

What kind of spud thinks Miller wasn't an ATG bowler? Dude averaged low 20s with a war injury and freaking averaged more than half of Australia's current top order with the bat while he was at it.

 

[h_hurricane]

Not sure who said that. PFK mentioned that Miller wasn't an ATG bowler but I am not sure he mentioned Miller wasn't an ATG cricketer.

 

[Malcolm]

Was Clive Rice an ATG bowler? He averaged low 20s but with Kallis-esque WpM.

 

[TheJediBrah]

stephen you really should know better than to put any stock in anything PFK says in regards to this sort of thing

especially since I'm pretty sure he is Kapil Dev

 

[Coronis]

Was Clive Rice an ATG bowler? He averaged low 20s but with Kallis-esque WpM.

I think it would be a similarISH case as Miller.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Was Clive Rice an ATG bowler? He averaged low 20s but with Kallis-esque WpM.

Or Milleresque , if you are talking about FC career.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

But he literally fulfilled every requirement on your earlier criteria, and when that was pointed out you’ve gone “Yeah, but...”

I didn't .

I said , ATG bowling + 35 ish avg league Batting.

 

[stephen]

Sobers was the best all rounder, Miller the best bowling all rounder and Imran the best peaking all rounder.

3 wpm is perfectly fine for a guy who has war injuries, averages close to 20 with the ball and still finds time to average over 35 batting in the top 6.

Without his war injury I'm sure Miller would have taken more of the bowling burden but you know, Kapil had to bowl in India so that automatically makes his average worth 10 less than it was.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Miller absolutely was an ATG bowler. His WPM is explained easily by the fact he bowled on average 31 overs per match. For comparison, his contemporaries, Johnston and Lindwall, bowled 46 overs per match and 37 overs per match, respectively. During Miller's career, especially around the 48 Ashes and the years after, Australia almost always played five bowlers, a combination of:

Lindwall
Miller
Johnston
Johnson
Loxton/Toshack

Toshack and Johnston, in particular, were capable of bowling long accurate economical spells. Usually Lindwall and Miller let fly with the new ball, before the others would take over. The other thing to consider is that Miller was batting at either 4 or 5, and was prone to niggling injuries, so it was smart captaincy by Bradman and Hassett not to overbowl him.

1.As things stand now , his WPM is not ATG category.
2. Miller's FC bowling record with 2.2 WPM is no better than Clive Rice's.
3. He might have been an ATG bowler with more work load , but that might harm his batting stats as well.

 

[stephen]

I'm not normally one for averages in wins to show the quality of a player, but Miller played 55 tests and won 31 of them. In those tests he took 113 of his 170 wickets and averaged under 20. He only played in 9 losses! In draws his average was 35 and he only took 33 wickets in those 15 matches.

This suggests that he was quite influential in his team's ability to win. He didn't bowl a huge amount of overs but he would come in and take important top order wickets and leave the lower order/ tail to other bowlers.

 

[stephen]

1.As things stand now , his WPM is not ATG category.
2. Miller's FC bowling record with 2.2 WPM is no better than Clive Rice's.
3. He might have been an ATG bowler with more work load , but that might harm his batting stats as well.

If you look at his FC stats he was an ATG bat. So either you take his test stats where he was an ATG bowler or you take his FC stats where he was an ATG bat (and didn't bowl as much because of bullets lodged in his body).

It's fair to say he's at least as good as any of the 80s all rounders and probably better than all but perhaps Imran or peak Botham. His bowling was behind peak Imran and Hadlee but his batting was ahead of both. His bowling and batting were ahead of Kapil. Botham is a case of a guy who was brilliant for a while and then let himself go and became very ordinary for a long time. He is the only real true all rounder that can challenge Miller. The rest weren't good enough (Kapil in both disciplines, Hadlee as a batsman), or weren't good enough at the same time (Imran).

Peak Botham is possibly the greatest all rounder in history. But his decline counts heavily against him. Miller is second best all round. Sobers and Kallis are tilted to their batting, Hadlee and Imran to their bowling (and then batting in Imran's case).

 

[Dendarii]

If the discussion is being extended to all rounders from other periods then how does Aubrey Faulkner compare?

 

[h_hurricane]

Sobers was the best all rounder, Miller the best bowling all rounder and Imran the best peaking all rounder.

3 wpm is perfectly fine for a guy who has war injuries, averages close to 20 with the ball and still finds time to average over 35 batting in the top 6.

Without his war injury I'm sure Miller would have taken more of the bowling burden but you know, Kapil had to bowl in India so that automatically makes his average worth 10 less than it was.

Some good points here, but disagree that Miller was the best bowling allrounder. Imran wins it clearly. Was a better bowler than Miller, though Miller was the better bat. Wickets per match is a decent indicator of workload. While Miller was clearly a better bowler and batsman than Kapil and Botham, it is not as if he was Mcgrath or Lillee level as a bowler based on that average.

 

[h_hurricane]

If the discussion is being extended to all rounders from other periods then how does Aubrey Faulkner compare?

Possibly the best pre-war allrounder. Difficult to compare with others due to him having part of an era a century back.

 

[Dendarii]

Possibly the best pre-war allrounder. Difficult to compare with others due to him having part of an era a century back.

Yeah, that was my thought too, with the smaller number of test matches also hampering comparison. With player rankings having been applied retrospectively he was both the top ranked batsman and bowler (although not at the same time), but then again with there only being three countries playing test cricket at the time there was also less competition.