BhupinderSingh
Banned
Despite the fact that they're both statistical replicas of each other,Imran has to be placed just above Miller when comparing them as allrounders.As bowlers,I think its a no contest as Imran is miles ahead of Miller.Imran played just around 68 matches as a bowler & took 5.4 wickets/match while Miller took just 3.0 wickets/match.Imran not only has a much better strike rate but also many times more five fors & 10 wicket hauls.Imran would almost make everyone's top 10 bowlers ever but Miller would struggle to find a plance in top 30 even.As a batsman,Miller was surely better than Imran but difference was not as much as some people here try to make.They had pretty similar batting averages but Miller has one more hundred despite playing 33 less games but I think it was due to the reason that Imran played as just a bowler for 5 years after becoming a regular in the team.Imran has more fifties than Miller though.And Imran Khan's batting is also cricticized for having 25 not outs out of 126 test innings played(1/5th).I think it also goes in Imran's favour as its not like he was a tailender & it was easy for him to achieve that,it rather shows his commitment with batting,ability to saty at the wicket & capability to form useful partnerships with tailenders.
Also,Imran Khan's average of 52 with the bat & 20 with the ball in last 50 tests of his career is the greatest peak of an allrounder ever.Imran also had the burden of captaincy on his shoulders.These are the reason why I think Imran Khan was a better allrounder than Keith Miller.
Also,Imran Khan's average of 52 with the bat & 20 with the ball in last 50 tests of his career is the greatest peak of an allrounder ever.Imran also had the burden of captaincy on his shoulders.These are the reason why I think Imran Khan was a better allrounder than Keith Miller.
Last edited: