Gilchrist vs Keith Miller - Greater Cricketer

[shortpitched713]

Ok, step by step.

Neither were world class batsmen. Keith Miller wasn't even a very good batsman. Better of not, he wasn't great.

And as we just agreed he wasn't nearly the bowler.

It's not the same, and I wish people would take the extra second to realize that Imran was levels above as a player.

I wantnyou to do be a favor and look at all of the hundreds of Imran, Pollock, Hadlee. Tell how many were match winning. I can answer for you, but I'll let you look.

First off, I don't know why it has to be a hundred. Plenty of sub hundred knocks in the 90s, even sometimes 80s clearly classify as match-winning.

Still, I'll give it a go with Imran, when I get the time.

 

[Slifer]

Hayden
Langer
Ponting
Waugh (M)
Waugh (S)*
Martyn
???????
???????
Warne
Gillespie
McGrath

Of the two, who would make the above team more unbeatable. Pick Miller and an average keeper like a Healy or pick Gilchrist and an average fast bowler like Fleming/Reiffel?

We already know that Gilchrist made Australia unfair but adding Miller in place of Lee then instead of Gilchrist we had a regular like Haddin or Healey, would Australia have been as unfair? I honestly don't know.

 

[kyear2]

First off, I don't know why it has to be a hundred. Plenty of sub hundred knocks in the 90s, even sometimes 80s clearly classify as match-winning.

Still, I'll give it a go with Imran, when I get the time.

When bagapath was conducting his all -rounder ratings, he specifically said to some consensus that it's the 100's that separates the batsmen who can bat from the all rounders. And it's easier to pin point the signature innings....

And I can save you some time.

6 hundreds.

1. Vs Australia, 3rd innings hundred where he and Wasim likely saved the game and set up a draw. Definitely a plus and his most. Impactful innings. Draw

2. Vs England, 1st innings hundred in score of 708 where his was the 3rd hundred of the innings. Draw

3. Vs West Indies, 1st innings hundred that set up competitive score. Impactful score. Draw

4. Vs India, 1st innings hundred in total of 652, where his was the 4th hundred of the innings. He gets credit for wining this game with the ball though. Win (probably best came of career)

5. Vs India, 1st innings hundred in total of 487, 3rd significant score of innings. Draw

6. Vs India, 1st innings hundred and top score in competitive innings. Draw

6 hundreds, great. 0 4th innings hundreds, 0 match winning innings, only one even came in a (10 wicket) victory. To his credit he did have 1 stabilizing and potentially 3rd innings match saving knock.


As you mentioned it, I also looked into the 90's and 80's and there was none of those either. There was a 1st innings knock of 93 vs SL in a draw however.

 

[kyear2]

Note, I bring this up only because you specifically mentioned match winning efforts with bat and ball.
Pollock nor Hadlee didn't have any match winning hundreds with the bat either.
Miller I would imagine he did, I would have to check.

I know it annoys most the forum when I compare impact of slip catching to lower order batting, but it's comparable if not slated towards catching especially contributing to wins.

It may be confirmation bias, but I know for sure for us it did during the hey day, and for Australia during their run.

But back to your original point, no, they didn't regularly or routinely win matches with the bat. Not the mega knocks anyways.

 

[subshakerz]

When bagapath was conducting his all -rounder ratings, he specifically said to some consensus that it's the 100's that separates the batsmen who can bat from the all rounders. And it's easier to pin point the signature innings....

And I can save you some time.

6 hundreds.

1. Vs Australia, 3rd innings hundred where he and Wasim likely saved the game and set up a draw. Definitely a plus and his most. Impactful innings. Draw

2. Vs England, 1st innings hundred in score of 708 where his was the 3rd hundred of the innings. Draw

3. Vs West Indies, 1st innings hundred that set up competitive score. Impactful score. Draw

4. Vs India, 1st innings hundred in total of 652, where his was the 4th hundred of the innings. He gets credit for wining this game with the ball though. Win (probably best came of career)

5. Vs India, 1st innings hundred in total of 487, 3rd significant score of innings. Draw

6. Vs India, 1st innings hundred and top score in competitive innings. Draw

6 hundreds, great. 0 4th innings hundreds, 0 match winning innings, only one even came in a (10 wicket) victory. To his credit he did have 1 stabilizing and potentially 3rd innings match saving knock.


As you mentioned it, I also looked into the 90's and 80's and there was none of those either. There was a 1st innings knock of 93 vs SL in a draw however.

Imran was an average/good bat for a median test side, Miller a solid good bat.

But ultimately Imran's ATG bowling skills are way more important for any test team. Miller was a very good pacer at best.

 

[subshakerz]

Hayden
Langer
Ponting
Waugh (M)
Waugh (S)*
Martyn
???????
???????
Warne
Gillespie
McGrath

Of the two, who would make the above team more unbeatable. Pick Miller and an average keeper like a Healy or pick Gilchrist and an average fast bowler like Fleming/Reiffel?

We already know that Gilchrist made Australia unfair but adding Miller in place of Lee then instead of Gilchrist we had a regular like Haddin or Healey, would Australia have been as unfair? I honestly don't know.

Obviously in that side Miller would be preferred since Brett Lee was a weak link as third pacer.

Healy was a much better keeper than Gilly but average bat

 

[Slifer]

So the batting would be much weaker but the bowling improved. The reverse would see the batting improved but the bowling weaken. Hence why for me it's a toss up. Then again, Miller does offer more with the bat than pretty much any Aussie bowler. So maybe Miller's batting plus Healy's could make up for Gilchrist??

 

[subshakerz]

So the batting would be much weaker but the bowling improved. The reverse would see the batting improved but the bowling weaken. Hence why for me it's a toss up. Then again, Miller does offer more with the bat than pretty much any Aussie bowler. So maybe Miller's batting plus Healy's could make up for Gilchrist??

Exactly. Miller offers more to an ATG side.

 

[Coronis]

Exactly. Miller offers more to an ATG side.

Its not the same for every ATG side. e.g the Windies with their pace barrage would always pick Gilchrist.

 

[subshakerz]

Its not the same for every ATG side. e.g the Windies with their pace barrage would always pick Gilchrist.

Agreed. I don't like valuing cricketers this way.

 

[capt_Luffy]

So the batting would be much weaker but the bowling improved. The reverse would see the batting improved but the bowling weaken. Hence why for me it's a toss up. Then again, Miller does offer more with the bat than pretty much any Aussie bowler. So maybe Miller's batting plus Healy's could make up for Gilchrist??

The batting isn't really improving that much with Gilly here as if he pick him we also have to pick Lee. Now, I don't think batting of Gilly + Lee is really much better than that of Miller + Healy. Bowling of Miller is much better than that of Lee, and similarly, Healy was a much superior keep to Gilchrist. I don't think this particular conversation is close just because how big of a downgrade Lee is with both the ball and the bat (over Healy).

 

[capt_Luffy]

When bagapath was conducting his all -rounder ratings, he specifically said to some consensus that it's the 100's that separates the batsmen who can bat from the all rounders. And it's easier to pin point the signature innings....

And I also stated back there why it was stupid just comparing people's hundreds when he concluded Trevor Goddard was a bowling all rounder. Not all great innings are century. Laxman's 2 best innings after that 281 were a match saving 96 in SA and a match winning 73 vs Australia..... You can't judge a players impacts solely on 100s, that's a stupid comparison. Chetan Chauhan have never scored a single Test Century (don't get me wrong, he was no Gavaskar), but his 2 80+ knocks in Australia against a raging Lillee was crucial in India's that series draw. Also, many players best innings comes in draws and losses. Ofcourse you can say they aren't really that valuable if the result is negative, but I would argue that doesn't mean we shouldn't count those in the player's favour while rating them (Ex- Hazare in Adelaide). Miller was most probably a better batsman than Imran, though their bowling abilities aren't really close.

 

[Bolo.]

Gilly is closer to being a 'perfect' AR than Miller. Bump his keeping and batting up a bit and he's ATG in both. This doesn't apply to Miller's batting.

But (at least this century), the typical keeper bat is far closer in quality to Gilly than the typical bowler or AR is to Miller.

Feels like a question without a definative answer.

 

[kyear2]

So the batting would be much weaker but the bowling improved. The reverse would see the batting improved but the bowling weaken. Hence why for me it's a toss up. Then again, Miller does offer more with the bat than pretty much any Aussie bowler. So maybe Miller's batting plus Healy's could make up for Gilchrist??

Gilly's runs weren't just how many he scored, but how quickly. He also saved games.

Don't think it's a toss up, Gilchrist was better for that team, and as you said earlier, made it unfair.

 

[kyear2]

And I also stated back there why it was stupid just comparing people's hundreds when he concluded Trevor Goddard was a bowling all rounder. Not all great innings are century. Laxman's 2 best innings after that 281 were a match saving 96 in SA and a match winning 73 vs Australia..... You can't judge a players impacts solely on 100s, that's a stupid comparison. Chetan Chauhan have never scored a single Test Century (don't get me wrong, he was no Gavaskar), but his 2 80+ knocks in Australia against a raging Lillee was crucial in India's that series draw. Also, many players best innings comes in draws and losses. Ofcourse you can say they aren't really that valuable if the result is negative, but I would argue that doesn't mean we shouldn't count those in the player's favour while rating them (Ex- Hazare in Adelaide). Miller was most probably a better batsman than Imran, though their bowling abilities aren't really close.

I agree with what you're saying. 3 runs extra doesn't make a hundred much more valuable than a 97, same way one extra wicket makes a 10 wicket hauls infinitely more important than 9fer.

I also said that I looked at 90's and 80's as well and he did get credit for saving a test match in a 3rd innings century knock.

The point was only raised when @shortpitched713 said that they had match winning efforts with both disciplines at relatively equal intervals. That just wasn't true.

As far as Miller being a better batsman goes, yes, I would have to say he was, but not by much. Weekes and Walcott get down graded due to being HTBs, but Miller had as many hundreds in one test series in the Caribbean as he had in 28 matches at home (3) and only 1 in England where he averaged 24.

As per your last point, their bowling isn't close at all. That the point where comparing them as all rounders doesn't make any sense. Imran was an ATG and a match winner with the ball, and an average bat. Miller was a slightly above average bat and a very good shock bowler.

 

[kyear2]

Gilly is closer to being a 'perfect' AR than Miller. Bump his keeping and batting up a bit and he's ATG in both. This doesn't apply to Miller's batting.

But (at least this century), the typical keeper bat is far closer in quality to Gilly than the typical bowler or AR is to Miller.

Feels like a question without a definative answer.

They typical keeper who was closer to him with the bat was typically well behind with the gloves (Sanga apart of course), and Jadeja isn't that far off Miller as a bowling all rounder.

 

[kyear2]

The batting isn't really improving that much with Gilly here as if he pick him we also have to pick Lee. Now, I don't think batting of Gilly + Lee is really much better than that of Miller + Healy. Bowling of Miller is much better than that of Lee, and similarly, Healy was a much superior keep to Gilchrist. I don't think this particular conversation is close just because how big of a downgrade Lee is with both the ball and the bat (over Healy).

Healy was better than Gilly, but how many chances did Gilly miss in his prime?

 

[capt_Luffy]

Healy was better than Gilly, but how many chances did Gilly miss in his prime?

Gilly missed a fair few years due to Healy. Considering everything, you have to say Healy was a better keeper than Gilchrist. And as I already said, Miller is a much better bowler than Lee; and with bat Miller + Healy isn't really below Gilly + Lee.... Though you can complain whether it's even fair to include Lee with Gilchrist and Healy with Miller; as I think undoubtedly Healy is a better Test cricketer

 

[kyear2]

Gilly missed a fair few years due to Healy. Considering everything, you have to say Healy was a better keeper than Gilchrist. And as I already said, Miller is a much better bowler than Lee; and with bat Miller + Healy isn't really below Gilly + Lee.... Though you can complain whether it's even fair to include Lee with Gilchrist and Healy with Miller; as I think undoubtedly Healy is a better Test cricketer

Oh God, I never said Healy wasn't better, I saw Healy during and after his prime. I'm asking how many chances did Gill miss.

You're saying now that Healy is better test cricketer than Gilchrist?

 

[capt_Luffy]

Oh God, I never said Healy wasn't better, I saw Healy during and after his prime. I'm asking how many chances did Gill miss.

You're saying now that Healy is better test cricketer than Gilchrist?

Nope, a better wicket keeper. Haven't you read what I wrote? I clearly said Gilly's with Lee's batting isn't much better than Miller's with Healy's, so they are a better pick in Silfer's 'What if' scenario.