Keith Miller vs Vivian Richards

[ma1978]

That's not true. The 50s was a bowling era and the runs-per-wicket in Miller's Tests is low. There is nothing to suggest he played on mostly benign pitches.

Miller retired in 1954

The late 50s were a bowling era. Early 50s far less so,

The age of bowling

Stunning strike rates, incredible depth in attacks, battered batters: a deep dive into an unparalleled era of bowler domination in Test cricket

www.thecricketmonthly.com

 

[BazBall21]

Miller retired in 1954

The late 50s were a bowling era. Early 50s far less so,

The age of bowling

Stunning strike rates, incredible depth in attacks, battered batters: a deep dive into an unparalleled era of bowler domination in Test cricket

www.thecricketmonthly.com

1956. All of the 50s was a bowling era.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I disagree with this. No selector would ever trade Viv or Sachin’s career for Keith Miller’s career. Or Ricky Pontings for that matters. The top specialists are worth a lot more than very good in each discipline all rounders.

I disagree with the Ponting one for sure and I wasn't talking about specific examples. In a more general sense, a cricketer who is very good in multiple disciplines can indeed in theory and sometimes in practice be better than a cricketer who is great in one.

But fine, if we're dealing in examples, a lot of people will consider Root, Williamson and Kohli ATGs, or close. You can make very strong arguments that cricketers like Stokes, Jadeja and Shakib are better than them. And yes, I know none of these batsmen are as good as Viv (or Smith who I excluded) but none of those all rounders are as good as Miller too I'm sure you'll agree so I still feel those are good enough examples to illustrate what I'm saying.

Finally though, I think some people (not me) don't actually consider Viv a top tier ATG (as good as Sobers or Sachin or Hobbs for example). His record was far from perfect and there are perfectly valid reasons to put him a level below the very top level of ATG batsmen. This is something even his most ardent fans shouldnt dismiss even if they themselves consider him the best after Bradman.

 

[kyear2]

Well Botham was til he got fat.



So?



So?



Just like Imran wasn’t nearly the batsman Miller was. You don’t need to be an ATG in either discipline to be an ATG allrounder and you know that.



How many players could score 905 runs in a series (an away series at that too)? Less than a handful and certainly not Viv.

Yes you possibly can, but you can't be a legitimate top ten player when you're not an ATG in either discipline. Nor can you if you're not a legitimate option for an ATG team. And he's neither.

And you ignored my point, the attempt is in to downgrade Viv, but he was able to do things that no one else has ever done, or could do. That's why he's a top tier ATG batsman and one of the best after Bradman.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Viv played in a modern, professional era of cricket. It’s a lot closer to today’s standards than the 1940s / 1950s.

This is just one or few more opinion rather than anything that can be proven.

I certainly think there has been even more improvement since Viv time and now than Viv and Millers time.

 

[BazBall21]

Yes you possibly can, but you can't be a legitimate top ten player when you're not an ATG in either discipline. Nor can you if you're not a legitimate option for an ATG team. And he's neither.

And you ignored my point, the attempt is in to downgrade Viv, but he was able to do things that no one else has ever done, or could do. That's why he's a top tier ATG batsman and one of the best after Bradman.

Don't really agree with that ruling. I don't think there are ten cricketers that I would rather have in my team than Keith Miller.

 

[Coronis]

He averaged in his mid 30s. Maybe he was better than Imran but )4 wasn’t l

Miller was a mid 30s average batsman in ore of the most benign eras of all time

He was a 3 WPM bowler

Yea like a Flintoff and Stokes the sum of the parts is worth a lot but this is just Aussie myth creation

Shockingly he had less WPM because he bowled less overs per match.

Yes you possibly can, but you can't be a legitimate top ten player when you're not an ATG in either discipline. Nor can you if you're not a legitimate option for an ATG team. And he's neither.

That’s your opinion only, stop pushing your definitions like they’re fact. Clearly many people here disagree with you.

And you ignored my point, the attempt is in to downgrade Viv, but he was able to do things that no one else has ever done, or could do. That's why he's a top tier ATG batsman and one of the best after Bradman.

Shockingly there’s lots of things players have done that others haven’t done because they’re never playing in the same circumstances. All you did was randomly bring up O’Reilly and Hammond to denigrate older players as you love to do, and attack specific people because you can’t handle the fact that some of us don’t share your opinion that Viv was jesus with a stick.

 

[kyear2]

I disagree with the Ponting one for sure and I wasn't talking about specific examples. In a more general sense, a cricketer who is very good in multiple disciplines can indeed in theory and sometimes in practice be better than a cricketer who is great in one.

But fine, if we're dealing in examples, a lot of people will consider Root, Williamson and Kohli ATGs, or close. You can make very strong arguments that cricketers like Stokes, Jadeja and Shakib are better than them. And yes, I know none of these batsmen are as good as Viv (or Smith who I excluded) but none of those all rounders are as good as Miller too I'm sure you'll agree so I still feel those are good enough examples to illustrate what I'm saying.

Finally though, I think some people (not me) don't actually consider Viv a top tier ATG (as good as Sobers or Sachin or Hobbs for example). His record was far from perfect and there are perfectly valid reasons to put him a level below the very top level of ATG batsmen. This is something even his most ardent fans shouldnt dismiss even if they themselves consider him the best after Bradman.

The difference between Viv and those other gentlemen are multiple though.

He played in a much tougher era to bat than Bradman, Sobers and Hobbs. Unlike Sachin and all of the others mentioned, he didn't have to luxury of facing minnows to boost his average. While all of the pitches of the era weren't as bower friendly as some believe he didn't have the home featherbeds that Bradman, Sachin, Sobers had either.
You can't look and him and compare averages from earlier or subsequent times, he played in that era.

 

[kyear2]

Don't really agree with that ruling. I don't think there are ten cricketers that I would rather have in my team than Keith Miller.

I've seen hundreds of ATG XI's, we've had multiple CW teams, there about 4 people who much argue for Miller and he's never come close to making the first team nor made the second.

 

[BazBall21]

I've seen hundreds of ATG XI's, we've had multiple CW teams, there about 4 people who much argue for Miller and he's never come close to making the first team nor made the second.

Just because he's not as good as Sobers and Imran that doesn't mean he isn't a top ten cricketer of all time.

 

[kyear2]

Shockingly he had less WPM because he bowled less overs per match.



That’s your opinion only, stop pushing your definitions like they’re fact. Clearly many people here disagree with you.



Shockingly there’s lots of things players have done that others haven’t done because they’re never playing in the same circumstances. All you did was randomly bring up O’Reilly and Hammond to denigrate older players as you love to do, and attack specific people because you can’t handle the fact that some of us don’t share your opinion that Viv was jesus with a stick.

That's the thing, I don't think Viv was Jesus, I know he wasn't perfect, I know he went over board at times, possibly to the detriment of the team, I know he didn't maintain his form as long as others did.

I have acknowledged those things, it's you guys who think the older players were perfect. I have no delusions with regards to what Viv was. But you guys disrespect Jim the same you you believe I disrespect Sutcliffe.
And by the way, I've said O'Reilly is the 3rd greatest spinner, just that his record can't possibly be perfect. I love Hammond the cricketer.Top order batsman who could bowl and was an elite top tier slip fielder, that's the prototype for the perfect cricketer, and I've said these things. You guys depict Viv as an over rated hack.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

That's the thing, I don't think Viv was Jesus, I know he wasn't perfect, I know he went over board at times, possibly to the detriment of the team, I know he didn't maintain his form as long as others did.

I have acknowledged those things, it's you guys who think the older players were perfect. I have no delusions with regards to what Viv was. But you guys disrespect Jim the same you you believe I disrespect Sutcliffe.
And by the way, I've said O'Reilly is the 3rd greatest spinner, just that his record can't possibly be perfect. I love Hammond the cricketer.Top order batsman who could bowl and was an elite top tier slip fielder, that's the prototype for the perfect cricketer, and I've said these things. You guys depict Viv as an over rated hack.

Jimmy is disrespected to rile up the English.

 

[number11]

This is like a Porsche vs a Ferrari.
IVA Richards is the most impactful player in modern times. A titan, he struck fear into his oppenents. A wonderful batsman.
Miller is amongst the most complete cricketers ever - up there with Sobers and Imran as T1 allrounders.
I opted for Viv but this was super close. Viv just did it against the best.

 

[kyear2]

Shockingly he had less WPM because he bowled less overs per match.



That’s your opinion only, stop pushing your definitions like they’re fact. Clearly many people here disagree with you.



Shockingly there’s lots of things players have done that others haven’t done because they’re never playing in the same circumstances. All you did was randomly bring up O’Reilly and Hammond to denigrate older players as you love to do, and attack specific people because you can’t handle the fact that some of us don’t share your opinion that Viv was jesus with a stick.

Pushing my opinions, I'm not, but I'll allow you to answer for yourself.

Was he an ATG batsman?
Was he an ATG bowler?

Is he a legitimate contender for an ATG XI, we've done tons of them, how many has he made it come close to making.

So if he's not an ATG bowler, an average at best test batsman, doesn't make ATG teams, besides nostalgia and admiration for his playing style, what makes him a top 10 player of all time?

 

[BazBall21]

Miller is a top 10 cricketer because he is the most balanced all-rounder who ever lived. Nobody in the history of cricket was as good in their secondary skillset as he was. He doesn't make all time XIs because he's not as good as Sobers and Imran. They are top 3 cricketers of all time in my opinion, so this isn't contradictory.

 

[trundler]

Pushing my opinions, I'm not, but I'll allow you to answer for yourself.

Was he an ATG batsman?
Was he an ATG bowler?

Is he a legitimate contender for an ATG XI, we've done tons of them, how many has he made it come close to making.

So if he's not an ATG bowler, an average at best test batsman, doesn't make ATG teams, besides nostalgia and admiration for his playing style, what makes him a top 10 player of all time?

This is a terrible way to rank players. Checklist-y and completely out of touch with what makes a player valuable.

 

[ma1978]

Shockingly he had less WPM because he bowled less overs per match.

He bowled less overs per math because he was not one of the two or three lead bowlers on the team. That does impact his value

 

[BazBall21]

Elite foil bowler, highly productive middle order batsman, and one of the best fielders of his time is a handy profile.

 

[The Sean]

He bowled less overs per math because he was not one of the two or three lead bowlers on the team. That does impact his value

Stop. Lying.

 

[ma1978]

Stop. Lying.

Why are you taking this so personally. Can you not agree his capitalism bowled him a lot less than Benaud and Lindwall (and later Davidson)