-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Tendulkar vs Keith Miller
- Thread starter ma1978
- Start date
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Miller for his batting strike rate, obviously.
Adorable Asshole
International Regular
What was Miller's bowling speed?
Yes, but 10 years is still a very short career, and 24 is still ridiculously long. And Miller didn't carry a full bowling load.
WWII a factor though.
BazBall21
International Captain
I think ten years is very short for a batsman. For a pace bowling all-rounder it isn't. And Miller making his debut at 26 was just misfortune. Tendulkar's longevity is basically an argument against every cricketer he comes up against except Don Bradman and Garfield Sobers.
Adorable Asshole
International Regular
McGrath, Imran, Wasim, Hadlee, Kallis, Kapil
10 years for a fast bowler was a lot in those times.
Last edited:
BazBall21
International Captain
Would estimate he could hit mid-80s but was generally around 81/82. Got extra bounce because of his high release point and he had a wide range of variations. Bedser will have been mid-70s on average.
Line and Length
Cricketer Of The Year
Particularly for one making his Test debut at 26. WWII definitely interfered with a career that could have been even greater.
BazBall21
International Captain
Kapil has no case against him so is irrelevant. The others yeah fair enough. Wider point though is Tendulkar's longevity isn't a really slight on Miller because Keith's longevity is fine for a pace all-rounder that was hindered by the War. SRT's longevity just overwhelms the vast majority of ATGs.
13 or 14 for Trueman and Lindwall, with a higher workload.
Trueman in particular has nearly 5 times as many FC wickets.
BazBall21
International Captain
They weren't all-rounders
It's two different points. There aren't really top draw ARs from that era to compare to.
Top draw ARs from other eras did tend to play longer though. Shortest I can think of is Pollock at 13 years, which might be somewhat comparable (factoring the war in), but he played a lot more cricket.
BazBall21
International Captain
Botham did have a bigger bowling workload but he was done after 9 and a half years. Dead weight after that.
Coronis
International Coach
All the Aussies immediately post Bradman were plodders tbh.
Faster than Tendulkar’s.
I don't only judge him on the first 9.5 years. He played longer.
His workload across different forms of cricket in those 9.5 years was massive in relation to Miller's if you want to go that route though.
BazBall21
International Captain
Botham was completely ineffective after 9.5 years so I think it's disingenuous to include his work after that as some kind of point against Miller. Workload point is far more reasonable which I brought up in favour of Botham.
Patience and Accuracy+Gut
State Vice-Captain
Most definitely not slower than 4-5 quicks of 1970s-80s etc. For my best guess probably in the early 90s mph if he had to bowl flat out quick.