He’s behaving like I stole his pet kangaroo
-
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.
Keith Miller vs Vivian Richards
- Thread starter Adorable Asshole
- Start date
Yes, he brought a dash of glamor to a drab post war society and epitomised the Australian masculine ideal. I’ve read the history books. It doesn’t make him better than Warne or Mcgrath or Smith or Ponting
He had an iconic series in 1945 which in itself was iconic for historical reasons. I can see why he is a hugely important cricketer, and I’m obviously being facetious but I’m sorry, he’s not one of the top greatest cricketers of all time or one of the top five Australian cricketers.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
So glad you're in this thread. One of the best and biggest Miller fans and you can apparently actually be bothered to sift through this bullshit.
Adorable Asshole
International Regular
I thought Lillee epitomizes the Australian masculine ideal? Don’t wanna sound rude but wasn't Miller too refined and posh for Australian taste?
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Maybe, but it's not an outrageous comparison like he implied.
BazBall21
International Captain
The only argument for Warne over McGrath is he was probably a bigger point of difference. But most people rate Warne higher because of more subjective reasons. He was not a better bowler than McGrath. But he was more captivating, original, entertaining, likeable etc. Miller however has astonishing Test figures that conveys a near-unprecedented balance to his team. These are bolstered further by his even more remarkable first-class figures. Even before we get into the cultural icon business and explosive game-breaking ability in both disciplines, he has the numbers alone to be a top ten cricketer of all time (perhaps top five), thus he is not as reliant on subjectivity as Shane Warne. So yeah, some people might give Miller subjectively warm treatment because everybody loves their dashing all-rounders. But is he reliant on them in achieving his golden status? I don't think so.
BazBall21
International Captain
Yeah it isn't
wpdavid
Hall of Fame Member
Nobody ever suggested that Botham diddled Princess Margaret.
Maybe mid-1980s Diana though.
Beyond that, I feel informed to have learnt that they still used curved bats and bowled underarm when Miller was playing.
To add to my view that this adulation of Keith Miller is niche, and unique to this site, when Wisden (which was then merged with cricinfo) did the voting for cricketers of the century with 100 voters, he was not on a single voters five person ballot.
www.espncricinfo.com
Five cricketers of the century
The selection of Wisden's Five Cricketers of the Year has always been the perquisite of the Almanack's editor of the day
www.espncricinfo.com
BazBall21
International Captain
The same survey that saw Denis Compton smash Malcolm Marshall out of the ground.....To add to my view that this adulation of Keith Miller is niche, and unique to this site, when Wisden (which was then merged with cricinfo) did the voting for cricketers of the century with 100 voters, he was not on a single voters five person ballot.
Five cricketers of the century
The selection of Wisden's Five Cricketers of the Year has always been the perquisite of the Almanack's editor of the day
It certainly had the most respected cricket journalists and observers of its time. I’m not saying I agree. I’m just saying Keith Miller was not perceived amongst pundits the way he is on this site.
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
So rather than acknowledge the many factual inaccuracies you've posted which have been called out repeatedly during this thread, you ignore them completely and instead decide to respond with this.
While I have accepted that the prospect of a good faith discussion is long since past, if nothing else we have at least confirmed that your posting integrity is at the same level as your posting quality.
kyear2
International Coach
All rounders, especially bowling all rounder's are severely over rated on CW. I can understand Imran, but this Keith Miller top 10 fanaticism is a bit crazy, but since then it's now apparently top 5. Which is indeed insane.
An average at best test batsman and a great, not ATG bowler is not even a marginal top 5 player of all time..
An average at best test batsman and a great, not ATG bowler is not even a marginal top 5 player of all time..
If he was a very good batsman, why are his numbers so average. And don’t bring up FC cricket because then Gareme Hick would be in this discussion.
Coronis
International Coach
Try a bit harder mate.
You are literally going by the opinion of 1 (ridiculous with completely unclear criteria) list. Seriously Larwood has twice as many votes as Marshall. Compton has more votes than Hutton. Worrell has the equal 6th amount of votes. Broaden your horizons a bit and you might understand.To add to my view that this adulation of Keith Miller is niche, and unique to this site, when Wisden (which was then merged with cricinfo) did the voting for cricketers of the century with 100 voters, he was not on a single voters five person ballot.
Five cricketers of the century
The selection of Wisden's Five Cricketers of the Year has always been the perquisite of the Almanack's editor of the day
kyear2
International Coach
I'm not trying to disrespect the legend, but Carl Hooper wasn't a very good batsman.
Keith Miller was a great player, an amazing player. He was one half of one of the greatest opening partnerships of all time. But he wasn't a number one, he wasn't even a clear cut ATG fast bowler and an average to above average middle order batsman. How the hell does that equal to a top 10, far less top 5 player of all time. At highest he's a top 20ish bowler? I know the site's fascination with all rounders, but this is a bridge too far.
Coronis
International Coach
Lotta teams these days would love to have him purely as a batsman. It all depends on your perception as to how “good” or “great” are defined. As a general rule of thumb I’d say 40 is a good test batsman, 45 is great and 50+ is an ATG.
NOTE: THIS IS JUST A CASUAL LOOK AT AVERAGES OVERALL WITHOUT DELVING DEEPER INTO PLAYERS ACTUAL CAREERS (I’m sure I’ll still cop **** for this somehow)