Keith Miller vs Vivian Richards

[number11]

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.

Agree with this to a degree. Sobers, Imran and Miller are in the top few players ever. Sobers and Immy are clearly the 2 greatest ARs, and Miller is right up there. No player [bar Bradman?] can add more value to a side than one of these 3.

 

[Coronis]

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.

I don’t disrespect him, I rate him as a top 15 batsman of all time and I’ve seen others still rate him well within the top 10 - but not top 5 - and get destroyed here. Specifically you said there’s a group of posters doing this lol. I also don’t disregard all players of a certain era and say they can’t compete with modern players. You consistently bring up lots of older players and discount their achievements.

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?

No he was not an ATG batsman. ATG bowler - Idk it really depends how ATG is defined person to person. I think he’s definitely in the discussion for a borderline ATG bowler - again thats just me. He can definitely be argued as a top 10 player (I’m unsure of where exactly I’d have him, I find it more difficult to rate players across disciplines).

Making an ATG XI shouldn’t be a criteria imo or should it necessarily reflect how great you are when comparing with other players with different roles. Picking ATG XI’s focuses on specialists because we know we’re going to have other ATGs supporting them and its about the best team fit rather than the best overall player, especially when it comes to allrounders.

For me at least I’ll follow Richie’s thinking, Miller would be the perfect 12th man for any XI.

 

[kyear2]

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.

He wasn't great in his primary skill, that's not an exaggeration, he wasn't an ATG in his secondary. He's not going to be selected as a primary bowler because of how few bowlers he bowled and generally didn't do the grunt work later in innings with the older ball.
He's out of place batting in the top 6, and can't be one of the primary fast bowlers.

I would really like to see a comparison between Miller and Kallis to see how deep this goes.

But when you're looking at top tier A1 ATG batsmen, bowlers and all round cricketers

The list I posted in another thread


Openers
Hobbs

Middle Order
Bradman
Tendulkar
Richards
Smith
Lara

All Round Cricketers
Sobers
Kallis
Imran
Gilchrist

Bowlers
Marshall
McGrath
Hadlee
Steyn
Ambrose

Doesn't include

Hutton
Gavaskar
Warne
Muralitharan
Hammond

Even if you don't agree with my top 20 of all time .... And most wouldn't.

Hobbs
Bradman
Marshall
McGrath
Sobers
Imran
Hadlee
Tendulkar
Kallis
Steyn
Murali
Warne

That's 12, took out the contentious Windies, where does Miller come in?

 

[Adorable Asshole]

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)

Miller bowled less because of his capitalism?

So basically he let poor workers Lindwall, Benaud and Davidson do the hard work and made profit off it.

They should have seized the means of bowling.

 

[Coronis]

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)

Thats funny because when Miller and Davidson played together Miller bowled 377.4 overs to Davidson’s 221. Its also funny because when Miller and Benaud played together Miller bowled 800 overs and Benaud bowled 661.1

 

[BazBall21]

He wasn't great in his primary skill, that's not an exaggeration, he wasn't an ATG in his secondary. He's not going to be selected as a primary bowler because of how few bowlers he bowled and generally didn't do the grunt work later in innings with the older ball.
He's out of place batting in the top 6, and can't be one of the primary fast bowlers.

I would really like to see a comparison between Miller and Kallis to see how deep this goes.

But when you're looking at top tier A1 ATG batsmen, bowlers and all round cricketers

The list I posted in another thread


Openers
Hobbs

Middle Order
Bradman
Tendulkar
Richards
Smith
Lara

All Round Cricketers
Sobers
Kallis
Imran
Gilchrist

Bowlers
Marshall
McGrath
Hadlee
Steyn
Ambrose

Doesn't include

Hutton
Gavaskar
Warne
Muralitharan
Hammond

Even if you don't agree with my top 20 of all time .... And most wouldn't.

Hobbs
Bradman
Marshall
McGrath
Sobers
Imran
Hadlee
Tendulkar
Kallis
Steyn
Murali
Warne

That's 12, took out the contentious Windies, where does Miller come in?

Your rules here are too rigid imo. Unfair on Miller when he is competing with the most inherently valuable type of player. There aren't ten cricketers I would rather have in my team than him.

In that list I would have Miller over Warne, Murali, Steyn and Kallis without having to think.

 

[BazBall21]

Miller bowled less because of his capitalism?

So basically he let poor workers Lindwall, Benaud and Davidson do the hard work and made profit off it.

They should have seized the means of bowling.

Bradman was a staunch capitalist.

 

[The Sean]

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)

Stop. Lying.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Who you'd select in ATG XIs often has as much if not more to do with imaginary team balance considerations than real world value and the actual performances/output the players managed. Not a useful criteria for comparisons like these.

 

[kyear2]

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

Highly productive batsman? His primary role was a top order batsman, and he averaged the same as Carl Hooper. Guys stop.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Edit : spark

 

[BazBall21]

Highly productive batsman? His primary role was a top order batsman, and he averaged the same as Carl Hooper. Guys stop.

Averages 40 below no4. That's in tough batting conditions by and large and with a pace bowling workload. First class average is more evidence of high quality also. I would still say bowling was his better suit also.

 

[kyear2]

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.

This isn't football where you can only have one QB. San Antonio had the twin towers, many NBA teams play multiple guards. If he's undisputed top 10, he makes it, especially ahead of the man leading in this poll. Bradman, Tendulkar, Miller, Gilchrist. That's Red 's team (if I recall correctly). When you're top 10, you're special, you find a way to fit them in.

 

[Coronis]

Highly productive batsman? His primary role was a top order batsman, and he averaged the same as Carl Hooper. Guys stop.

How is his primary role a top order batsman when he was more successful as a bowler? Just curious.

His preferred position was 5 - he was much less effective when he moved up the order. (he had a few times batting at 6/7 - mainly on his last tour of England)

Batting position is pretty important when considering AR’s I’d say.

at 3:
10 matches 11 innings 384 @ 34.9, 1 ton 2 fifties
at 4:
15 matches 17 innings 423 @ 28.2, 1 ton 1 fifty
at 5:
36 matches 52 innings 1973 @ 41.97, 5 tons 9 fifties

Seems like when he was moved up the order for whatever reason it was more experimental or covering for another player perhaps, considering the match/innings ratio.

He batted at 5 following a strong but short top order, Australia played with a lot of bowlers (many of whom could bat decently) due to a fair bit of depth there. And of course he was an essential part of that attack - part of the reason he has a lower WPM is that he was part of such a deep and strong attack, they shared around the overs a bit more.

Also for those SR haters I’ll chuck in this info, Miller struck at ~43. I’m sure he could turn it up if needed, if that changes your opinion thats fine.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Highly productive batsman? His primary role was a top order batsman, and he averaged the same as Carl Hooper. Guys stop.

Stop. Lying.

 

[Coronis]

This isn't football where you can only have one QB. San Antonio had the twin towers, many NBA teams play multiple guards. If he's undisputed top 10, he makes it, especially ahead of the man leading in this poll. Bradman, Tendulkar, Miller, Gilchrist. That's Red 's team (if I recall correctly). When you're top 10, you're special, you find a way to fit them in.

This isn’t basketball either. Duncan could play either PF or C, the Spurs were lucky in that regard - 20 years ago those positions played similarly and were quite different to the rest of the others.

Of course teams play multiple guards, um you’re meant to have 2 guards traditionally anyway?

A comparison with basketball is pretty pointless anyway especially with the evolution of the game over the past decade towards a positionless style of play - we’re not seeing 4 and 5 allrounders in a test team.

I have players in my top 10 NBA players who wouldn’t make it into my All time team Squad of 10, I’m sure you could say the same of other sports, and I know you definitely can of cricket.

 

[kyear2]

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

We're not talking about what makes a player valuable, he was extremely valuable to his team, probably only behind Bradman and Lindwall.

We aren't talking about if he was valuable, he was. He was even great. The argument is that he's a top 10 player of all time when he wasn't ATG at anything. Sobers was a top tier ATG batsman, top 5 off all time, plus the bowling, plus being an top tier ATG slip fielder and arguably the greatest fielder ever. Imran was an ATG fast bowler, arguably (and for me top 6), who pioneered reverse swing, a more than capable lower order batsman and inspirational captain of note. Gilchrist revolutionized how wicket keepers were selected and graded, he was a world class ATG wicket keeper and and borderline if not ATG impactful batsman.

We're not talking valuable, were talking About the top 10 players of all time. Have to be something otherworldly if you want to be seen as top 3 or top 10.

 

[Coronis]

We're not talking about what makes a player valuable, he was extremely valuable to his team, probably only behind Bradman and Lindwall.

We aren't talking about if he was valuable, he was. He was even great. The argument is that he's a top 10 player of all time when he wasn't ATG at anything. Sobers was a top tier ATG batsman, top 5 off all time, plus the bowling, plus being an top tier ATG slip fielder and arguably the greatest fielder ever. Imran was an ATG fast bowler, arguably (and for me top 6), who pioneered reverse swing, a more than capable lower order batsman and inspirational captain of note. Gilchrist revolutionized how wicket keepers were selected and graded, he was a world class ATG wicket keeper and and borderline if not ATG impactful batsman.

We're not talking valuable, were talking About the top 10 players of all time. Have to be something otherworldly if you want to be seen as top 3 or top 10.

Miller = not ATG bowler
Gilchrist = ATG batsman

This is what you’re saying right?

 

[kyear2]

I don’t disrespect him, I rate him as a top 15 batsman of all time and I’ve seen others still rate him well within the top 10 - but not top 5 - and get destroyed here. Specifically you said there’s a group of posters doing this lol. I also don’t disregard all players of a certain era and say they can’t compete with modern players. You consistently bring up lots of older players and discount their achievements.




No he was not an ATG batsman. ATG bowler - Idk it really depends how ATG is defined person to person. I think he’s definitely in the discussion for a borderline ATG bowler - again thats just me. He can definitely be argued as a top 10 player (I’m unsure of where exactly I’d have him, I find it more difficult to rate players across disciplines).

Making an ATG XI shouldn’t be a criteria imo or should it necessarily reflect how great you are when comparing with other players with different roles. Picking ATG XI’s focuses on specialists because we know we’re going to have other ATGs supporting them and its about the best team fit rather than the best overall player, especially when it comes to allrounders.

For me at least I’ll follow Richie’s thinking, Miller would be the perfect 12th man for any XI.

Yes I believe if a player played in the latter parts of the 19th century or ended their careers in the 1920's we can't evaluate them properly and likely can't compete with today's players. The game has drastically changed. The main player I reference is Barnes and sometimes Sutcliffe. Hobbs, honestly not sure, but have to go along with contemporary reports.

I've never attacked anyone for not having Viv in their top 5, there's about 4 or 5 (Richards, Lara, Smith, Hutton) that are hard to rank past the top 4.

As far as all round cricketers go, just all round cricketers, not counting specialists as yet. I'll take Sobers, Imran, Gilchrist, Kallis, Hadlee over him. That doesn't include Bradman, Marshall, McGrath, Tendulkar, Hobbs , Steyn.

Perfect 12th man for me is probably Kallis or Hammond, but no argument.

I don't know, I've never understood CWs obsession with all-rounders, just for the sake of being all rounders. I don't think because you can do two things well, that it makes you better that does one thing superbly. Not if you do one thing superbly, and another well, that's a different story.

 

[kyear2]

Miller = not ATG bowler
Gilchrist = ATG batsman

This is what you’re saying right?

I am pretty sure I typed borderline if not ATG impactful batsman.