• 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

Better cricketer?

  • Total voters
    32
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
Poll has tightened, I do always wonder if the discourse has any impact in these things
 
Slifer

Slifer

International Captain
Patience and Accuracy+Gut said:
Comparison across era is so flawed really. Though, Plain as day to me Miller at his peak directly transported to 1975 would still be one of the best if not the best cricketer in the world. Viv on the other hand I don’t think is in the Fab 4 or Babar class if we are talking absolute objectively.
Click to expand...
Bro gtfoh. Smith I'd agree is probably above Viv but the other three? No way. And that Babar comment is insulting. Someone asked what Viv would average today, imo he'd average whatever he wanted.

Now take any of the fab 4 and put then up against Lillee, Thomson etc and take away their protection, give them 70s bats, bouncer rules, and pushed back boundaries etc. Let's see how they do.
 
P

PlayerComparisons

International Vice-Captain
Slifer said:
Bro gtfoh. Smith I'd agree is probably above Viv but the other three? No way. And that Babar comment is insulting. Someone asked what Viv would average today, imo he'd average whatever he wanted.

Now take any of the fab 4 and put then up against Lillee, Thomson etc and take away their protection, give them 70s bats, bouncer rules, and pushed back boundaries etc. Let's see how they do.
Click to expand...
Babar > Viv. Better player of fast bowling IMO
 
P

Patience and Accuracy+Gut

State Vice-Captain
Slifer said:
Bro gtfoh. Smith I'd agree is probably above Viv but the other three? No way. And that Babar comment is insulting. Someone asked what Viv would average today, imo he'd average whatever he wanted.

Now take any of the fab 4 and put then up against Lillee, Thomson etc and take away their protection, give them 70s bats, bouncer rules, and pushed back boundaries etc. Let's see how they do.
Click to expand...
I pretty much said absolute objectively rather than anything else. If Viv was born in this era, had todays facilities etc etc. you may be right ,may be not. Viv is greater than them except Smith because he stood above his peers ahead of the other fab 4 except Smith. But anyone stating Viv objectively was better than Fab 4 is just living in past. The fab 4 basically average the same as Viv in a higher standard sport. Smith ofc averages around 8.5 more.
 
M

ma1978

International Debutant
Patience and Accuracy+Gut said:
You are basically acting like standards have remained same since 3-5 decades of Viv’s time and acting like how the game went to different league in like 15 years between Miller and Viv.

The game is way better to what Viv’s played objectively and Viv averaged just over 50 in his era. All the member of the fab 4 average the same in a higher standard sport.
Click to expand...
Yes if you transmogrified him without the benefit of training and technology. Even Bradman would probably be an above average player today on that basis.

But Viv was the best batter of the 70
Patience and Accuracy+Gut said:
I pretty much said absolute objectively rather than anything else. If Viv was born in this era, had todays facilities etc etc. you may be right ,may be not. Viv is greater than them except Smith because he stood above his peers ahead of the other fab 4 except Smith. But anyone stating Viv objectively was better than Fab 4 is just living in past. The fab 4 basically average the same as Viv in a higher standard sport. Smith ofc averages around 8.5 more.
Click to expand...
says the man who rates O’Reilly over Warne
 
P

Patience and Accuracy+Gut

State Vice-Captain
ma1978 said:
Yes if you transmogrified him without the benefit of training and technology. Even Bradman would probably be an above average player today on that basis.

But Viv was the best batter of the 70


says the man who rates O’Reilly over Warne
Click to expand...
That’s the point we can only judge the players by their time instead of acting how the game went to different league in 15 years and has remained constant in 3-5 decade.

For Bradman though, he averaged 100, so he would still be The Best Ever by a lot smaller margin than like 2x the Gap that exist. Born today with today’s facilities like we are applying for Viv, it would probably be lot higher margin though.

For other normal beings of all eras except the True Modern era (Fab 4 era) and may be a era earlier (at max) earlier though the point exist.
 
Last edited:
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
This entire argument is disingenuous.

Training, fielding, batting techniques, competitiveness and quality of fast bowling are the biggest areas of development in cricket. I believe there was a jump even between the 20's and the start of the war, and definitely by the 50's. There was probably a jump, all be it a small one between then and the '70's and 80's.

But there are transcendent talents, an aging Sobers being able to produce an innings of a life time vs a rampaging Lillee

And for Baz to wonder how did Miller's bowling load affect his batting take a gander at Sobers overs per match.

With regards to Bradman, there isn't a serious observer who would call him anything that the greatest batsman of all time, but to pretend he wasn't born into a perfect storm is to not want to see it. Less that great attacks (and body line was basically what the '50's, 70's and 80's were like), flatter than imaginable pitches, primarily minnows and one legit opponent and only having to play in 2 countries. The best pace attack of the era being the WI was somewhat of an eyeopener. Imagine batting in the 80s and 90s vs those guys. Viv didn't have to imagine

Finally, with regards to Viv, no one who went through WSC and especially those like Richards and Chappell who thrived, there can be no dispute over the level of cricket, professionalism and talent they faced. Joffra Archer gave Smith issues, give me a break, and unlike the other 3, Smith is an top tier bat.
 
BazBall21

BazBall21

International Captain
Slifer said:
Bro gtfoh. Smith I'd agree is probably above Viv but the other three? No way. And that Babar comment is insulting. Someone asked what Viv would average today, imo he'd average whatever he wanted.

Now take any of the fab 4 and put then up against Lillee, Thomson etc and take away their protection, give them 70s bats, bouncer rules, and pushed back boundaries etc. Let's see how they do.
Click to expand...
I think Kohli, Kane or Root being better than Viv is verging on a trollish take.
 
BazBall21

BazBall21

International Captain
kyear2 said:
This entire argument is disingenuous.

Training, fielding, batting techniques, competitiveness and quality of fast bowling are the biggest areas of development in cricket. I believe there was a jump even between the 20's and the start of the war, and definitely by the 50's. There was probably a jump, all be it a small one between then and the '70's and 80's.

But there are transcendent talents, an aging Sobers being able to produce an innings of a life time vs a rampaging Lillee

And for Baz to wonder how did Miller's bowling load affect his batting take a gander at Sobers overs per match.

With regards to Bradman, there isn't a serious observer who would call him anything that the greatest batsman of all time, but to pretend he wasn't born into a perfect storm is to not want to see it. Less that great attacks (and body line was basically what the '50's, 70's and 80's were like), flatter than imaginable pitches, primarily minnows and one legit opponent and only having to play in 2 countries. The best pace attack of the era being the WI was somewhat of an eyeopener. Imagine batting in the 80s and 90s vs those guys. Viv didn't have to imagine

Finally, with regards to Viv, no one who went through WSC and especially those like Richards and Chappell who thrived, there can be no dispute over the level of cricket, professionalism and talent they faced. Joffra Archer gave Smith issues, give me a break, and unlike the other 3, Smith is an top tier bat.
Click to expand...
I think when Viv played, the overall standard of the sport was better than when Miller played. But that doesn't mean Miller can't be better than Viv. The greatest cricketer of all time played before the modern era. So did the second greatest cricketer of all time.
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
BazBall21 said:
I think when Viv played, the overall standard of the sport was better than when Miller played. But that doesn't mean Miller can't be better than Viv. The greatest cricketer of all time played before the modern era. So did the second greatest cricketer of all time.
Click to expand...
Not saying it doesn't, I made my argument as to why I think Miller is being over rated. I was answering to specific posts about eras, and that the 80's were miles off the standard of the modern era. Nothing comes close to the bowling standards of the 80's and 90s
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top