Which players would be locks in every OTHER country’s ATG XI?

[kyear2]

One can make the argument that with Lillee, McGrath and Warne, Miller's load will manage itself. I agree he doesnt belong at no.6.

Yeah, how important can your first change bowler possibly be?

Seriously?

 

[subshakerz]

Sorry to continue this tangent, but how is that a winner mindset?

Are you kidding? Miller was a player of aggression and charisma, Kallis was dour and conservative.

Miller is the sort of player who can augment a winning side in ways that won't be reflected in a spreadsheet. Counter attacking cameos, wickets or catches out of nowhere, generally a net boost to team morale compared to deadweights like Kallis.

 

[kyear2]

Lindwall over Lillee for me considering their overall skill sets. And likewise, McGrath/Warne/Lindwall/Davidson/Miller is much stronger than McGrath/Warne/Lillee/Davidson
Miller is perfectly fine at no 6, having him as a frontline bowler with only 3 others doesn't makes any sense though.

How is a 35 averaging batsman at 6 perfectly ok in an ATG XI?

If Bradman is worth 2 batsmen (a notion I don't buy btw), Miller is about half and Bradman can always fail. You're giving away the advantage that you have.

It really make no sense. One person is arguing that the 4th bowler isn't that important while the other is arguing that you need 5 front liners.

 

[subshakerz]

How is a 35 averaging batsman at 6 perfectly ok in an ATG XI?

If Bradman is worth 2 batsmen (a notion I don't buy btw), Miller is about half and Bradman can always fail. You're giving away the advantage that you have.

I think Australia can afford it with Bradman and Gilly. But I am not sure having Miller as a fifth bowler is enough to justify it.

It really make no sense. One person is arguing that the 4th bowler isn't that important while the other is arguing that you need 5 front liners.

Nah. I am not saying that a 4th bowler is not important. I am wondering if Miller's weaknesses in terms of bowling load and output are mitigated by taking a 4th bowler role in an ATG XI.

Like I said, once Cummins confirms ATG status, Miller may have to be 12th man.

Australia really are spoiled for options. You can make compelling cases for different lineups, can we agree there?

 

[Coronis]

Are you kidding? Miller was a player of aggression and charisma, Kallis was dour and conservative.

Miller is the sort of player who can augment a winning side in ways that won't be reflected in a spreadsheet. Counter attacking cameos, wickets or catches out of nowhere, generally a net boost to team morale compared to deadweights like Kallis.

Bro, Miller batted more slowly than Kallis. Give it a rest. Kallis also took wickets and catches out of nowhere - in fact thats generally a 5th bowlers main role.

 

[capt_Luffy]

How is a 35 averaging batsman at 6 perfectly ok in an ATG XI?

If Bradman is worth 2 batsmen (a notion I don't buy btw), Miller is about half and Bradman can always fail. You're giving away the advantage that you have.

It really make no sense. One person is arguing that the 4th bowler isn't that important while the other is arguing that you need 5 front liners.

Counting Miller as half a batsman is almost as stupid as counting Bradman as 2..... Not to mention, they also have Gilchrist at 7 and a solid tail of Davidson and Lindwall. 5 bowling options and a batsman of Miller's class, I don't think it's an issue honestly.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

5 ATG batsmen + Gilly + Miller + Davidson
4 ATG Bowlers + 1 ATVG Bowler

I prefer this compared to,

6 ATG batsmen + Gilly + Davidson
4 ATG bowlers + 1 Avg bowler.

 

[subshakerz]

Bro, Miller batted more slowly than Kallis. Give it a rest. Kallis also took wickets and catches out of nowhere - in fact thats generally a 5th bowlers main role.

Bro, that was an entirely different era. Miller reportedly was an aggressive bat for his time.

Kallis was a very predictable, steady bat and bowler. Slip catcher yes he was awesome.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Bro, that was an entirely different era. Miller reportedly was an aggressive bat for his time.

Kallis was a very predictable, steady bat and bowler. Slip catcher yes he was awesome.

As far as know, Miller wasn't an aggressive bat for his time. His batting was really slow.

 

[subshakerz]

As far as know, Miller wasn't an aggressive bat for his time. His batting was really slow.

Check virtually every profile on Miller and how they describe his batting.

 

[ankitj]

Kallis over Ponting very comfortably Imo if you include his bowling.

Even if you don't include bowling.

 

[kyear2]

Sorry to continue this tangent, but how is that a winner mindset?

Yeah, who cares about skill, lets go with their mindsets.

 

[Coronis]

Bro, that was an entirely different era. Miller reportedly was an aggressive bat for his time.

Kallis was a very predictable, steady bat and bowler. Slip catcher yes he was awesome.

Yeah mate and Barrington was described as slow and he has a SR of 41 compared to Miller’s 43.

In fact, looking at Miller’s tons, only 2 out of 7 were even at a SR of 50.

 

[Socerer 01]

Check virtually every profile on Miller and how they describe his batting.

yeah because the old timey writers are known to not wax lyrically about players then and exaggerate to the moon

 

[smash84]

If Bradman is worth 2 batsmen (a notion I don't buy btw),

Why?

 

[kyear2]

Bro, that was an entirely different era. Miller reportedly was an aggressive bat for his time.

Kallis was a very predictable, steady bat and bowler. Slip catcher yes he was awesome.

Hyperbole and just meant flashy shots in between the defending. His personality could have also been conflated with his batting.
Journalists fawn over who they like.

Kallis also broke partnerships and was a game changer at slip.

 

[kyear2]

Check virtually every profile on Miller and how they describe his batting.

Hence why peer review alone is flawed.

 

[srbhkshk]

Why?

Bradman's average is twice that of Tendulkar, but his failure rate isn't half of tendulkar.

Assuming a definition of getting out on <30 as a failure, Bradman failed about ~35% of the time, Tendulkar failed ~45% of the time. A team with two tendulkars will have both of them failing ~ 20% of the time (0.45 * 0.45), so they wouldn't fail as much. [Edit - actually, this is questionable, batsman tend to fail more often on tougher pitches, so they would likely fail together more often, I assume it would still be less than 35% though] [Edit 2 - Although with 2 of them playing I need to revise their failure to <20 or something, because they can collectively pass the cut-off by scoring 15+ both, all in all this a tougher analysis than what I thought it would be at the start]

Bradman's average being twice is a consequence of him scoring a lot more when he did get set (so if he does get to 30, he averages ~160, compared to Tendulkar's ~100) , but the problem with that is that beyond a certain point more runs are meaningless, additionally high scores tend to be correlated with pitches where batting is easier, making these runs not as important (again).

tldr - Two Tendulkar's will fail less often than one Bradman, they will sometimes score 140 runs combined compared to Bradman's 200 but that wouldn't be as meaningful as the failures.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah, how important can your first change bowler possibly be?

Seriously?

We lost the 2021 series in RSA coz we did not have a good enough #3 seamer and they had Ngidi. Soz....

 

[Bolo.]

Hyperbole and just meant flashy shots in between the defending. His personality could have also been conflated with his batting.
Journalists fawn over who they like.

Kallis also broke partnerships and was a game changer at slip.

Sounds a lot like Kallis actually.