Gilchrist vs Keith Miller - Greater Cricketer

[Coronis]

Miller would’ve definitely led the attack in most sides in history - he was unfortunate (in those terms) to happen to play alongside another better ATG for most of his career. Miller is definitely a better bowler than Gilly was either a batsman or a keeper tbh.

 

[ma1978]

Miller would’ve definitely led the attack in most sides in history - he was unfortunate (in those terms) to happen to play alongside another better ATG for most of his career. Miller is definitely a better bowler than Gilly was either a batsman or a keeper tbh.

there are five bowlers and five / six batsman, one keeper

leaving asidethat Gillywas absolutely a better batsman than Miller a bowler, the comparison is not relevant; a wicketkeepr bat of Gilly’s quality is a unicorn, has never existed before and may never exist again.

literally ever commentator of cricket history outside of this site would agree

 

[kyear2]

Miller would’ve definitely led the attack in most sides in history - he was unfortunate (in those terms) to happen to play alongside another better ATG for most of his career. Miller is definitely a better bowler than Gilly was either a batsman or a keeper tbh.

Gilchrist was objectively and by some distance the better batsman. So he's already in the lead there.

As great a bowler as Lindwall was, and he was probably the GOAT at the time, he wasn't exactly what future bowlers were and didn't hog all of the wickets.

Lindwall took 228 wickets at 3.7 wpm, averaging 23 with a strike rate of 60. He took 12 5fers and no 10 wicket hauls.

Miller by comparison, 170 wickets at 3.0 wpm, with very similar average and s/r. He took 7 5fers and 1 10 wicket haul.

In the famous '48 series Bradman somehow got the English to agree to a new ball every 55 overs, and Miller basically had short new ball spells.

So the highlighted text is objectively not true, even for the remainder of his career, he didn't carry a no. 1, or even no. 2 bowling load. And yes, this was a slower scoring era, so not penalizing for the s/r, but there's nothing here to suggest that he would have, or wanted to be a traditional no. 1 no matter who he played for.

Johnston really, it could be argued was the real no. 2, and otherwise the work horse for most of those teams. His numbers don't suffer from comparison, an average under 24 with 7 5fers from only 40 matches while taking 4 wpm.

So yes, Gilly was the much better batsman, and honestly factoring in keeping to Warne for his entire career his keeping was more impactful for the team.

As with so many charismatic players, he gets ridiculously over rated. He was the 3rd most important bowler on the team (despite getting the new ball) and an underwhelming and below average test batsman.

We really over romanticize some of these former players.

 

[Coronis]

Gilchrist was objectively and by some distance the better batsman. So he's already in the lead there.

As great a bowler as Lindwall was, and he was probably the GOAT at the time, he wasn't exactly what future bowlers were and didn't hog all of the wickets.

Lindwall took 228 wickets at 3.7 wpm, averaging 23 with a strike rate of 60. He took 12 5fers and no 10 wicket hauls.

Miller by comparison, 170 wickets at 3.0 wpm, with very similar average and s/r. He took 7 5fers and 1 10 wicket haul.

In the famous '48 series Bradman somehow got the English to agree to a new ball every 55 overs, and Miller basically had short new ball spells.

So the highlighted text is objectively not true, even for the remainder of his career, he didn't carry a no. 1, or even no. 2 bowling load. And yes, this was a slower scoring era, so not penalizing for the s/r, but there's nothing here to suggest that he would have, or wanted to be a traditional no. 1 no matter who he played for.

Johnston really, it could be argued was the real no. 2, and otherwise the work horse for most of those teams. His numbers don't suffer from comparison, an average under 24 with 7 5fers from only 40 matches while taking 4 wpm.

So yes, Gilly was the much better batsman, and honestly factoring in keeping to Warne for his entire career his keeping was more impactful for the team.

As with so many charismatic players, he gets ridiculously over rated. He was the 3rd most important bowler on the team (despite getting the new ball) and an underwhelming and below average test batsman.

We really over romanticize some of these former players.

The highlighted is objectively not true as I’ve discussed in another thread recently. He was the opening bowler in almost every match he played in and was bowling 18+ overs an innings and taking wickets at 22. He absolutely had a full workload.

“We” really tend to ignore some of these former players and ignore the facts because they didn’t play in the 70’s or beyond.

 

[kyear2]

The highlighted is objectively not true as I’ve discussed in another thread recently. He was the opening bowler in almost every match he played in and was bowling 18+ overs an innings and taking wickets at 22. He absolutely had a full workload.

“We” really tend to ignore some of these former players and ignore the facts because they didn’t play in the 70’s or beyond.

Yes he did get the new ball, but how many overs did he bowl in comparison to Lindwall and Johnston? And if he did bowl a full work load, which he didn't for the era, a wpm of 3 for an entries career is well below par and lower than both his team mates.

His 23 wasn't the same as Imran's, Lillee's or even Lindwall's.

 

[Coronis]

Yes he did get the new ball, but how many overs did he bowl in comparison to Lindwall and Johnston? And if he did bowl a full work load, which he didn't for the era, a wpm of 3 for an entries career is well below par and lower than both his team mates.

His 23 wasn't the same as Imran's, Lillee's or even Lindwall's.

He didn’t bowl as much as Lindwall or Johnston, (though Johnston also bowled spin). I haven’t and I don’t think anybody here as ever claimed him as a better bowler than Imran, Lillee or Lindwall and they’d be foolish to do so, thats not the argument here at all.

 

[kyear2]

He didn’t bowl as much as Lindwall or Johnston, (though Johnston also bowled spin). I haven’t and I don’t think anybody here as ever claimed him as a better bowler than Imran, Lillee or Lindwall and they’d be foolish to do so, thats not the argument here at all.

I'm not saying you did, I'm just stating that he objectively wasn't.

So to say he bowled a full load at 23, is a bit misleading. He was on average the 3rd guy in his team.

And I understand that back etc, but what he could have been and what he was was quite different. He wasn't no. 1 quality and we're comparing him to Adam Gilchrist.

 

[subshakerz]

If Miller didn't bowl a regular workload and his 3WPM is below his colleagues, then I think it is fair to say he was below Gilly with the bat.

 

[Bolo.]

Miller would’ve definitely led the attack in most sides in history - he was unfortunate (in those terms) to happen to play alongside another better ATG for most of his career. Miller is definitely a better bowler than Gilly was either a batsman or a keeper tbh.

He took around 2 WPM in FC.

I think he was just a reluctant bowler.

 

[Coronis]

He took around 2 WPM in FC.

I think he was just a reluctant bowler.

Makes sense, iirc he publicly claimed he didn’t want to bowl a lot which partially led to an initial non-selection in a South African tour. As captain of NSW he probably bowled himself less.

 

[Himannv]

As with many of the other bowlers who bowled around his time, I feel as though it is unlikely that Miller was genuinely a quick bowler by modern standards.

When I watch footage of him, I feel as though the lack of a leap and his comparatively short run up aren't as conducive to genuine fast bowling. Most of his pace seems to be generated off his arm action instead of any other contributing factors like runup, follow through, leap, etc. I always wonder how bowlers of those times would be if they bowl today, and he's another one of those that I'm not sure about.

 

[shortpitched713]

As with many of the other bowlers who bowled around his time, I feel as though it is unlikely that Miller was genuinely a quick bowler by modern standards.

When I watch footage of him, I feel as though the lack of a leap and his comparatively short run up aren't as conducive to genuine fast bowling. Most of his pace seems to be generated off his arm action instead of any other contributing factors like runup, follow through, leap, etc. I always wonder how bowlers of those times would be if they bowl today, and he's another one of those that I'm not sure about.

He'd certainly have to adjust his action, but the athleticism and talent to bowl quick are certainly there. Fast bowling technique has advanced by leaps and bounds though ( pun intended), in the intervening period so there definitely is some uncertainty there. I tend to think he's not that far off ( I definitely like Trueman's and of course Hall's action much more though).

 

[kyear2]

Makes sense, iirc he publicly claimed he didn’t want to bowl a lot which partially led to an initial non-selection in a South African tour. As captain of NSW he probably bowled himself less.

So how can we say that and then say he would have been a no. 1 for any other team?

 

[Coronis]

So how can we say that and then say he would have been a no. 1 for any other team?

He actually bowled more and more as his career went on. I think it would really depend on the captain and the team. He was always surrounded by other quality bowlers who were nearly as/more talented than him. He would be far more likely to lean into that role surrounded by lesser bowlers. For example, taking the current Australian lineup into consideration I think Miller would do a great job replacing Cummins and would take to that role. (I don’t think he’s as good as Cummins tbf)

 

[Himannv]

He'd certainly have to adjust his action, but the athleticism and talent to bowl quick are certainly there. Fast bowling technique has advanced by leaps and bounds though ( pun intended), in the intervening period so there definitely is some uncertainty there. I tend to think he's not that far off ( I definitely like Trueman's and of course Hall's action much more though).

Yeah, I have no doubt Wes Hall would be a legit quick bowler even in modern cricket. He had a nice long run up, a leap akin to modern bowlers, and bowled what looked like a genuinely quick ball.

In fairness to Miller, he did look like he troubled the batsmen of his time and seemed to bowl a very accurate bouncer. However, his suitability/adaptability to modern cricket is somewhat subjective and I don't know if we can judge a cricketer accurately enough this way.

 

[kyear2]

He actually bowled more and more as his career went on. I think it would really depend on the captain and the team. He was always surrounded by other quality bowlers who were nearly as/more talented than him. He would be far more likely to lean into that role surrounded by lesser bowlers. For example, taking the current Australian lineup into consideration I think Miller would do a great job replacing Cummins and would take to that role. (I don’t think he’s as good as Cummins tbf)

You last line kinda contradicts the premise of the last paragraph, but understood.

He was used in shorter bursts compared to his peers, and more as a shock bowler I would imagine. I don't see him as a no 1 in any scenario, because the opening was there for him to be that for Australia, he literally shared the new ball with Lindwall, but was still out performed by even Johnston.

Also believe we've got off topic a bit. I'm not trying to down grade Miller's bowling, I just don't think as a 3rd wicket taking option, and it's more than likely he was, he's better or more impactful to the team that Gilchrist was with the gloves, especially taking into account replacing Healy standing up to Warne, with hardly a beat missed.

Batting I think we can agree is a no contest.

 

[shortpitched713]

Gilchrist was above average, but not earth shatteringly so, with the gloves. The vast majority of his added value, I think definitely comes from his world class batting.

I think it's really close, but the quality of "traditionally defined" all-round talent of Miller has only 1 peer, in Imran imo. So he has to pip Gilchrist, if only just.

 

[kyear2]

Gilchrist was above average, but not earth shatteringly so, with the gloves. The vast majority of his added value, I think definitely comes from his world class batting.

I think it's really close, but the quality of "traditionally defined" all-round talent of Miller has only 1 peer, in Imran imo. So he has to pip Gilchrist, if only just.

He wasn't close to Imran with the ball though, that's the fallacy of the argument

 

[shortpitched713]

He wasn't close to Imran with the ball though, that's the fallacy of the argument

For a preponderance of his career, Imran wasn't close to Miller's level with the bat, either. They are both a fair step above any other truly "balanced" all-rounder, i.e. Botham. I know you generally don't like such players, as compared to specialists, but they could all win matches with either discipline, at a pretty even frequency between the disciplines.

 

[kyear2]

For a preponderance of his career, Imran wasn't close to Miller's level with the bat, either. They are both a fair step above any other truly "balanced" all-rounder, i.e. Botham. I know you generally don't like such players, as compared to specialists, but they could all win matches with either discipline, at a pretty even frequency between the disciplines.

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.