I has been drinking...

[SJS]

I guess it is unfortunate. A great bat; could bat anywhere from 3-5 and had the habit of scoring well when his team needed it. He doesn't have all the not-outs like Imran but his average is still very healthy with his bowling being one part of the best duo in the world. They say his side needed him more as a bowler hence his bowling took the fore.

When I read about Miller I get the idea that if he had more focus or, should I say, if he cared more and took cricket more seriously he would have been irrefutable when considering the top 3 players of all time. One comment which encapsulates him, I think:

"pressure is a Messerschmitt up your arse, playing cricket is not"

Miller is a very rare player.

It has often been said that a true all rounder is one who will could play for his side either as a batsman (even if he coulldn't bowl to save his life) or as a bowler even if he batted like McGrath

And then this criteria is 'retrofitted' to most all rounders. But if you look carefully there are flaws in most fits.

either the player in question was in such a situation at two completely different times - Imran is an example since when he could play as a pure bowler, he would not have commanded a p[lace in a solid Pakistani batting side. or when he developed into a consistent test class batsman he was not the bowler who could have played purely as batsman.

or one of the two disciplines is much weaker and it would make him only a fringe player in the weaker discipline not a regular - say Hadlee as a batsman.

Very few players are there that one can think of who were, for bulk of their career good enough to easily play as a bowler who couldn't bat or as a batsman who couldn't bowl.

Miller is the foremost amongst these.

Another one you can think of is a wicket keeper batsman like Ames who was one of the finest wicket keepers and as good a bat as most in the world in his time.

 

[Perm]

Properly analyzed stats,thats all what matters IMO.Stats are not ideal but best possible way of rating and judging quality of players,especially in case of those whom you've never seen playing.

Far more to cricket than stats buddy

 

[Perm]

So Sobers is a better batsmen cus he scored more runs when his team didn't need to score heavy and dominated already beaten attacks batting down low at 6. Don't get me wrong Sobers was a great batsmen and his consistency was awsome. But I rather a match winner anyday of the week, who when the chips were down would step up and win you matches.

Miller averaged 45 when Australia were chasing totals to win matches. The guy averaged 53 against the best bowling attack of his era (West Indies).

Sobers dominated the fairly weak bowling attacks of his era 80 odd against India and Pakistan. Yeah he still averaged 60 odd against England and 40 odd against Australia. But like most batsmen of this era he made the most of some weakess bowling attack of his era. And lets not get into his bowling, as compared to Miller he was extremely poor.

Overall Sobers is a better batsmen, but not that much better then Miller. As a bowler Miller was significant clas above and overall a better all rounder.

Sobers was one of the best batsman to play the game, Miller wasn't, he wasn't even close. You say you'd rather have a match-winner, somebody who performs when needed. So is it okay for him not to score when the pressure is off? No. A batsman who can score runs in all situations, in all conditions and against all opposition will always be better than somebody who might play a few match winning innings.

I rate Keith Miller extremely highly as an all-rounder, I really do, but he doesn't come close to Sobers. Sir Garfield was head and shoulders above all other all-rounders IMO, with Keith Miller and Imran Khan leading the pack.

 

[Perm]

I rate Imran Khan as the worst allrounder, because I rate fielding better than batting and bowling.

 

[Ikki]

I rate Keith Miller extremely highly as an all-rounder, I really do, but he doesn't come close to Sobers. Sir Garfield was head and shoulders above all other all-rounders IMO, with Keith Miller and Imran Khan leading the pack.

We may end up having this argument for pages and pages but I vehemently disagree with Sobers being 'head and shoulders' better than the others as an all-rounder.

I mean, if I had to pick a true all-rounder, it would not be Sobers. Sobers' bowling requires too many balls to be effective and in most sides, especially when you consider selecting him for an 'all-time' side it would be quite a waste to give him 15 overs an innings to take 1 wicket instead of giving it to your 4 true bowlers. Whilst someone like Miller is more than good enough to bat at 6-7 and will also be heavily in the mix with the bowling.

 

[The Sean]

When I read about Miller I get the idea that if he had more focus or, should I say, if he cared more and took cricket more seriously he would have been irrefutable when considering the top 3 players of all time. One comment which encapsulates him, I think:

Ironically, this more serious attitude may have improved his stats, but would almost certainly have lessened how highly he is thought of by players and fans alike. And I suppose it's a sign of his greatness that even though we accuse him of not taking his stats seriously (and he didn't - I remember a quote where he couldn't remember how many Tests he'd played or how many wickets he took, he just told the interviewer he'd "have to look it up"!) his pure numbers still place him among the top handful of all round cricketers in the history of the game.

Great to see all this Miller-love coming to the fore.

 

[Richard]

Jeys, KaZo confused me there for a sec - the Miller avatar made me think he was Sean (who coincidentally has just posted).

 

[The Sean]

Jeys, KaZo confused me there for a sec - the Miller avatar made me think he was Sean (who coincidentally has just posted).

He actually made ME think he was me for a second there!

 

[Richard]

Some bowlers can't even control what they send down...I know I can't anyway.

Obviously. These are the not very good bowlers. I'm the exact same.

I'm talking good bowlers who can aim at a spot and consistently hit it.

And sometimes the bowler can be at the mercy of a batsman, rare, but it happens. Some were at the mercy of Ponting, Lara, Tendulkar, etc. when they were in prime form. Meaning they didn't know where to bowl to in the end.

That can be the impression (and as you say... exceptionally rare) but the reality is that there is still somewhere to bowl, and if you produce one that pitches middle and hits off the batsman still has no realistic chance.

 

[Richard]

He actually made ME think he was me for a second there!

Haha. I've had that with sledger several times of late.

 

[Matt79]

Sobers was one of the best batsman to play the game, Miller wasn't, he wasn't even close. You say you'd rather have a match-winner, somebody who performs when needed. So is it okay for him not to score when the pressure is off? No. A batsman who can score runs in all situations, in all conditions and against all opposition will always be better than somebody who might play a few match winning innings.

I rate Keith Miller extremely highly as an all-rounder, I really do, but he doesn't come close to Sobers. Sir Garfield was head and shoulders above all other all-rounders IMO, with Keith Miller and Imran Khan leading the pack.

When you only focus on the difference in quality between Miller and Sobers as batsmen, you're doing Miller quite the disservice by ignoring the equally massive gap in their quality as bowlers. Overall I have Sobers ahead, but its not 'head and shoulders'.

Miller was unfortunate in his batting in a way because he was frequently called upon to bowl a lot, and not spin, but genuine fast bowling. His performances with the bat on the occasions when his back complaint left him unable to bowl support the argument that had he played as a specialist batsman, he would have been as good as any Australian batsman since Bradman.

As for holding his lack of application with the bat when his team didn't really need him against him, that was an integral part of his approach and attitude to the game - it was a game, and the joy was in the contest and the friendship, not in the victory. If he failed to step up when required, you might hold that attitude against him, but times when he failed to produce with either bat or ball when the team was in trouble were pretty rare.

 

[Richard]

It may have been part of who he was - and beyond doubt it made him a loveable character - but sadly it did make him a lesser batsman. There's no two ways about that. Whether he had some of the ability to be as good as a Greg Chappell, Allan Border or Stephen Waugh is irrelevant, really. Because if you had a choice between Miller the all-rounder and (for instance) Greg Chappell the batsman to score runs for you, you'd take the latter, every day. Because they performed when they were "most" needed and "least" needed (and as I've said before, the idea that runs are ever not really needed from someone is pretty ludicrous IMO), and didn't have the "distraction" (in a loose sense of the word) of having to bowl.

 

[Ikki]

It may have been part of who he was - and beyond doubt it made him a loveable character - but sadly it did make him a lesser batsman. There's no two ways about that. Whether he had some of the ability to be as good as a Greg Chappell, Allan Border or Stephen Waugh is irrelevant, really. Because if you had a choice between Miller the all-rounder and (for instance) Greg Chappell the batsman to score runs for you, you'd take the latter, every day. Because they performed when they were "most" needed and "least" needed (and as I've said before, the idea that runs are ever not really needed from someone is pretty ludicrous IMO), and didn't have the "distraction" (in a loose sense of the word) of having to bowl.

But it would be kind of unfair to compare an all-rounder's weaker discipline to a specialist in that area. I mean, you may say Miller is a bowling all-rounder because of it but he was a very good bat and I don't think an average of 37 does him much justice. Maybe he could have been in the 40s, whilst bowling, and that's what I think most people seem to envisage. Because Imran and Miller have similar averages in batting but, apart from the end of Imran's career, I wouldn't say they were near in terms of batting talent.

And when it comes to Sobers and his bowling comparing it to Miller's batting, I think Miller comes out on top comfortably whilst both were world beaters with their stronger disciplines.

 

[Matt79]

It may have been part of who he was - and beyond doubt it made him a loveable character - but sadly it did make him a lesser batsman. There's no two ways about that. Whether he had some of the ability to be as good as a Greg Chappell, Allan Border or Stephen Waugh is irrelevant, really. Because if you had a choice between Miller the all-rounder and (for instance) Greg Chappell the batsman to score runs for you, you'd take the latter, every day. Because they performed when they were "most" needed and "least" needed (and as I've said before, the idea that runs are ever not really needed from someone is pretty ludicrous IMO), and didn't have the "distraction" (in a loose sense of the word) of having to bowl.

There are times when runs from an individual are more needed than other times - eg. lots of Miller's best innings occurred when he came to the wicket at 3/not much - clearly then him scoring a half-century or more was more important than him doing so when the top order had done their job.

Your stated opinion that such an idea is ludicrous is itself quite ridiculous IMO...

 

[Richard]

But it would be kind of unfair to compare an all-rounder's weaker discipline to a specialist in that area. I mean, you may say Miller is a bowling all-rounder because of it but he was a very good bat and I don't think an average of 37 does him much justice. Maybe he could have been in the 40s, whilst bowling, and that's what I think most people seem to envisage. Because Imran and Miller have similar averages in batting but, apart from the end of Imran's career, I wouldn't say they were near in terms of batting talent.

And when it comes to Sobers and his bowling comparing it to Miller's batting, I think Miller comes out on top comfortably whilst both were world beaters with their stronger disciplines.

I certainly think Miller was a much truer all-rounder than Sobers, who was a fantastic batsman who, at certain stages of his career, also bowled reasonably, and could bowl lots of styles. I'd certainly not call Miller a bowling-all-rounder at all, even though statistically his bowling is superb and his batting merely good (or at least, at-first-glance - remember this was the 1940s and 1950s and pitches were generally pretty bowler-friendly), and though bowling was almost undoubtedly his stronger suit it was IMO only by a small amount.

And certainly, I'd rate Miller > Imran as a batsman, no question, even though Miller "only" averaged around the 40 mark throughout his career, while Imran averaged in the high 40s during the time he was a batsman of repute.

I've never been in that much doubt, much as it may upset BhupinderSingh, that Miller was indeed a better all-rounder than Imran.

As far as the question about comparing him to a specialist batsman in batting terms; in no way was I saying Greg Chappell was a more valuable cricketer than Miller, who I'd personally rate behind only Bradman among Australians. That was merely in response to Matt (of the 79 variety) who said that Miller could have been as good a batsman as any Australian since Bradman. He said "he could have been"; I said "yes, he maybe could, but he wasn't".

 

[The Sean]

Trying to quantify Miller as a "batting" or "bowling" all rounder is somewhat problematic as he actually switched from one to the other as his career developed. As Phillip Derriman noted, and as has been quoted many times since - Miller came into big cricket as a brilliant batsman who surprised people by bowling as well as he did, and went out of it as a great fast bowler who could still bat brilliantly but only on occasion.

It's a common misconception that Nugget batted in the classic all rounders position of no.6, but he played only 3 Test innings there. The majority of his batting came at no.5, and he spent a good deal of time at no 3-4 as well. Sadly, he was probably at his peak as a batsman in 1945 when he was playing the Victory Tests in England and then for the Dominions XI - in those six "Tests" in 1945 against a pretty much full strength England side he made 654 runs at 73 including his greatest ever innings, an unforgettable 185 at Lord's, which included 7 sixes and is still considered one of the finest exhibitions of batting ever at the home of cricket.

Of course, once he became a fixture in the Australian Test side the following year and took on greater responsibilities with the ball, it can be argued that Test cricket never saw that same Miller as a batsman due to the demands that bowling put on him and his back, and the fact that he never took any of it too seriously anyway. By the end of his career his bowling was certainly the stronger half of his game, at Test level at least, though it should be noted that at FC and Sheffield Shield level he was always at least as successful a batsman as he was a bowler.

Either way, an absolute uber gun.

 

[Ikki]

Trying to quantify Miller as a "batting" or "bowling" all rounder is somewhat problematic as he actually switched from one to the other as his career developed. As Phillip Derriman noted, and as has been quoted many times since - Miller came into big cricket as a brilliant batsman who surprised people by bowling as well as he did, and went out of it as a great fast bowler who could still bat brilliantly but only on occasion.

It's a common misconception that Nugget batted in the classic all rounders position of no.6, but he played only 3 Test innings there. The majority of his batting came at no.5, and he spent a good deal of time at no 3-4 as well. Sadly, he was probably at his peak as a batsman in 1945 when he was playing the Victory Tests in England and then for the Dominions XI - in those six "Tests" in 1945 against a pretty much full strength England side he made 654 runs at 73 including his greatest ever innings, an unforgettable 185 at Lord's, which included 7 sixes and is still considered one of the finest exhibitions of batting ever at the home of cricket.

Of course, once he became a fixture in the Australian Test side the following year and took on greater responsibilities with the ball, it can be argued that Test cricket never saw that same Miller as a batsman due to the demands that bowling put on him and his back, and the fact that he never took any of it too seriously anyway. By the end of his career his bowling was certainly the stronger half of his game, at Test level at least, though it should be noted that at FC and Sheffield Shield level he was always at least as successful a batsman as he was a bowler.

Either way, an absolute uber gun.

Spot on. I'd also add that batting with the company he had, Barnes, Morris, Bradman, Hassett and Harvey meant his team really didn't need him often to bat them home.

 

[Richard]

There are times when runs from an individual are more needed than other times - eg. lots of Miller's best innings occurred when he came to the wicket at 3/not much - clearly then him scoring a half-century or more was more important than him doing so when the top order had done their job.

Oh, of course, beyond a doubt. But I'll give you two case-scenarios, and you tell me which you prefer:
a) top-order does its job, and Miller then comes in and adds a quick 40*.
b) top-order does its job, and Miller then comes in and hits one straight up from his 3rd ball.
I know which I'd prefer...

Your stated opinion that such an idea is ludicrous is itself quite ridiculous IMO...

(Click the smiley TBH)

 

[Ikki]

Oh, of course, beyond a doubt. But I'll give you two case-scenarios, and you tell me which you prefer:
a) top-order does its job, and Miller then comes in and adds a quick 40*.
b) top-order does its job, and Miller then comes in and hits one straight up from his 3rd ball.
I know which I'd prefer...


(Click the smiley TBH)

Wouldn't it be more apt to say he would score a 20 or something? It's not like Miller averaged 10 and made runs only when his team needed it.

 

[Richard]

I honestly don't know - I'm not the person making the claims about when Miller did and didn't perform.