Imran Khan vs Keith Miller

[JBH001]

I agree with subshakerz that people are very seriously underestimating Imran's bowling, and I've no idea why. On the other hand, his batting was overrated.

Are they really? I dont think so - God knows we have had enough threads to do with bowlers, all-rounders and Imran to know that he was among the best bowlers of all time.

But the issue does come down to the fact that Miller was a proper and natural batsman, whilst Imran (with all credit to the work he put into his batting) was not. It also misses the fact that Miller was a better bowler than his figures suggest, and was also a much better fielder.

But yes, as you say, it is a shame that the figures are split along regional lines.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I think some people voted for Miller because they find the OP's constant hero worship of Imran Khan rather tedious. I however voted for him because of his likeness to Minnie Caldwell.

 

[Anil]

imran was better...he was miles ahead as a bowler and not that far behind as a batsman...

 

[grecian]

I think some people voted for Miller because they find the OP's constant hero worship of Imran Khan rather tedious.

Yes, that was my reason tbh. I thought BhuS had promised not to do these polls any more? I'd of voted for an irrelevant third option ITBT, even Ian Austin. In fact if BhuS had put Imran against Austin in a "who was more svelte, handsome and ***y" poll, I'd of voted for the Lancastrian trundler.

I actually prefer Imran to Miller, but it's very close. Khan was brilliant with the ball, and either devastating or resolute, depending on the situation, with the bat.
.
Having said that it's created some interesting chat, so maybe I shouldn't be so judgmental

 

[archie mac]

And I am highly saddened at the polarization of votes. Virtually every Imran poster is a subcontinent guy and virtually every Miller is a non subcontinent guy. I have a feeling that if Miller and Imran switched countries, the results would be equally switched, and that's pretty unfortunate.

I, on the other hand, will continue to not vote and instead judge everyone else.

Not sure about that, if it was Sobers and Miller I would go Sobers but only just

 

[Richard]

And I am highly saddened at the polarization of votes. Virtually every Imran poster is a subcontinent guy and virtually every Miller is a non subcontinent guy. I have a feeling that if Miller and Imran switched countries, the results would be equally switched, and that's pretty unfortunate.

I, on the other hand, will continue to not vote and instead judge everyone else.

Thought exactly that myself. Sadly I can't break with the norm here, as I rate Miller > Imran.

Never mind, we do have Yawer to do that.

 

[Richard]

Having said that it's created some interesting chat, so maybe I shouldn't be so judgmental

Certainly you shouldn't.

 

[silentstriker]

Thought exactly that myself. Sadly I can't break with the norm here, as I rate Miller > Imran..

Well obviously you rate him higher. I am not accusing people that they rate one higher than the other, but vote the opposite. My problem is that there seems to be a very strong (maybe unconscious, maybe not) bias between the subcontinent/non-subcontinent ratings by virtually everyone involved and it irks me to no end. So much so that I am pretty much no longer going to participate in any 'who is better discussions' on CW.

 

[Richard]

You know, I would really break that up into 4 parts or maybe 3 (the last two parts sort of meld one into the other). Certainly the first part of his career as you so nicely expressed it was sensational beyond sensation (even more so if you take his captaincy stats out of the picture). However, even after his first set of injuries and his return as a lesser player, he was still a very good all-rounder right upto about, what? 84/85 was it? Then you really had a steep and sharp decline, apart from the occassional good performance, and then the intermittent returns to test cricket where he looked steadily worse and worse. I really think he ought to have retired around 86/87 when he was nobbled again by injuries. But, meh.Thats how it goes, sometimes I guess.

Yeah, certainly 3 at least. In fact, maybe 5 or 6. 2 is nice and simple for the masses tho.

1. The first phase, containing two parts (captain and non-captain) The non-captaincy figures truly do boggle the mind - 41 with the bat and 18 with the ball Though it was just 30 Tests.
2. The second phrase between Second Test 1981\82 and Third Test 1984 when he lost his bowling but kept his batting
3. The phrase between Fourth Test 1984 and 1989 when he was a shadow of his old self
4. The final phrase in the 1990s when he should never have been playing and never mind a shadow was a skeleten of his original self. But old glories keep selectors calling.

 

[Richard]

Well obviously you rate him higher. I am not accusing people that they rate one higher than the other, but vote the opposite. My problem is that there seems to be a very strong (maybe unconscious, maybe not) bias between the subcontinent/non-subcontinent ratings by virtually everyone involved and it irks me to no end. So much so that I am pretty much no longer going to participate in any 'who is better discussions' on CW.

I think it's totally natural and unavoidable TBH. Those (Yawer excepted) who have heard most about Imran's deeds and have good reason to be massively thankful for them are almost always going to find him better than someone who didn't impact so much on them.

Likewise, Miller's stories are well-told obviously in his home country (and if so much as one "normal" Australian would vote for Imran ahead of him I'd be astonished) and he's held in massive regard over here too.

Anyway, there's JBH001 and my near-namesake R_D who've voted for Miller who while they're both immigrants maintain their subcontinental loyalties, and DoG who's a Kiwi who voted for Imran.

How many SAfricans, Kiwis and WIndians have voted on the poll so far?

 

[silentstriker]

I think it's totally natural and unavoidable TBH. Those (Yawer excepted) who have heard most about Imran's deeds and have good reason to be massively thankful for them are almost always going to find him better than someone who didn't impact so much on them.

Likewise, Miller's stories are well-told obviously in his home country (and if so much as one "normal" Australian would vote for Imran ahead of him I'd be astonished) and he's held in massive regard over here too.

Anyway, there's JBH001 and my near-namesake R_D who've voted for Miller who while they're both immigrants maintain their subcontinental loyalties, and DoG who's a Kiwi who voted for Imran.

How many SAfricans, Kiwis and WIndians have voted on the poll so far?

Err, I am not implying racism of any kind. Just a bias, which I am sure is unavoidable. The only unfortunate thing is the extent that it seems to occur, and how it manifests itself in every damn thread in CC. It's completely tedious. I am not surprised that it's close - it should be. What I am consistently disappointed at is the distribution of votes by nationality - if 60% of a group of people voted for a specific player vs. another (and vice versa), its one thing, but its constantly like a 90-10 split.

Whatever, I'm just tired of this crap. I wish there was a 'subject ignore' feature.

 

[Athlai]

Err, I am not implying racism of any kind. Just a bias, which I am sure is unavoidable. The only unfortunate thing is the extent that it seems to occur, and how it manifests itself in every damn thread in CC. It's completely tedious. I am not surprised that it's close - it should be. What I am consistently disappointed at is the distribution of votes by nationality - if 60% of a group of people voted for a specific player vs. another (and vice versa), its one thing, but its constantly like a 90-10 split.

Whatever, I'm just tired of this crap. I wish there was a 'subject ignore' feature.

Said similar on a previous page.

 

[Richard]

Err, I am not implying racism of any kind.

Dude, please don't err me. I've been at pains to cut down on that myself of late except where patently deserved, and I never remotely implied you were suggesting any racism. D'you think I'd accuse Faraz of that?

Just a bias, which I am sure is unavoidable. The only unfortunate thing is the extent that it seems to occur, and how it manifests itself in every damn thread in CC. It's completely tedious. I am not surprised that it's close - it should be. What I am consistently disappointed at is the distribution of votes by nationality - if 60% of a group of people voted for a specific player vs. another (and vice versa), its one thing, but its constantly like a 90-10 split.

Whatever, I'm just tired of this crap. I wish there was a 'subject ignore' feature.

Just leave a thread - I do it... occasionally.

And as I say - I don't think there's any bias which is not totally natural and present in virtually every single thing human (with the exceptions of the like of you and me). It's not something that annoys me nearly as much as the Watson-is-a-***** or whatever crew.

 

[silentstriker]

Dude, please don't err me. I've been at pains to cut down on that myself of late except where patently deserved, and I never remotely implied you were suggesting any racism. D'you think I'd accuse Faraz of that?

I know - just making sure people don't misunderstand me.

Just leave a thread - I do it... occasionally.

This stuff infests every thread, better to leave CC alone except for tour threads I think. Or at least avoid the 'better player' threads. I'm just going to vote and go away on this one.

 

[Perm]

And he really did a great job of it by leaving a love child in every city he played.

 

[Richard]

This stuff infests every thread, better to leave CC alone except for tour threads I think.

That would be a massive, massive loss and one we can very much do without at present.

Or at least avoid the 'better player' threads. I'm just going to vote and go away on this one.

Maybe those with polls.

 

[Perm]

Not sure about that, if it was Sobers and Miller I would go Sobers but only just

 

[Sanz]

I think the criteria of 30+ with the bat & 30- with the ball is already more strict than those of many other persons(most have 25 with the bat & 35 with the ball) & taking the criteria to 35 would leave me with only 2 true allrounders which would be Imran & Miller.Although,I think there is not much wrong with my current criteria but if I make it 35 with the bat,then I think Sobers would definitely find a place in my top 5.

And that criteria basically goes against everything that I have seen, read and heard about the great Man (Sir Gary - if you were wondering who I was talking about). I have no problem if you think of Imran as the best AR of all time, many do but to not consider Sir Gary Sobers among top 5 of all time is basically goes against your credibility.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=u-Uuon0CWk0 - Watch the man bat and bowl.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0_RTODqOTGI - Watch him field. He was one of the best fielders of all time.

He aslo dated a Bollywood actress before Imran did, just incase it was one of the criteria for not picking him.

 

[Ikki]

Some posters are seriously underestimating Imran's worth as a bowler, he was a genuine all-time great up there with Lillee and Marshall in the highest pedigree. Imran was a pioneer of reverse swing, bowled mostly on pancake wickets, and had a better record against the mighty West Indies line up than any other pacer of the era. Miller had only 170wickets in 55 matches and you seriously suggest he was better than Imran in this category? A comparison with Ray Lindwall is more suitable.

Miller was arguably the better batsman, but not by the wide gap some people are suggesting. Imran had a slow start career-wise, but managed to average over 50 is his last 50 tests, no small feat when you consider he batted so low down the order. He could adjust his strokeplay to almost any situation, and played purely as a batsman when he was injured as a bowler.

Finally, he wasn't just a captain, he was a leader. Landmark victories in England and India, never losing to the West Indies, winning the World Cup, etc. All this with the most fractious side in world cricket.

Don't get me wrong, Keith Miller was fantastic, a man capable of captivating audiences with the ball and bat. But come on, he played in the Invincibles alongside Bradman, Barnes, Lindwall, etc., you can't tell me he experienced the same pressures as Imran did to transform his side to a cricketing force.

For his status as a bowling legend, fantastic stats against the best, shouldering the lion's share of his team's responsibility and a proven track track record as captain, Imran simply rates higher. Don't just take my word for it, ask Richie Benaud, who adored Keith Miller but had to concede that Imran was the better all-rounder.

For one, it's strange you say Miller took x wickets per x matches disregarding the fact that Miller only bowled 30 overs a game, on average. Imran even bowls more than this. An SR of 61 is hardly poor. What makes that strange is when you talk about Imran's batting and saying he averaged 50. In playing 39 more innings he has 1 less 100 and 5 more 50s. So his average lends a lot to his not-outs. Now, I've gone on to say that you should give credit to him for doing so, but the last thing you should let that do is fool you into thinking Imran was that kind of batsman.

As you said Miller played for the Invincibles...batting at #5 for the Invincibles says a whole lot IMO.

 

[Ikki]

Well obviously you rate him higher. I am not accusing people that they rate one higher than the other, but vote the opposite. My problem is that there seems to be a very strong (maybe unconscious, maybe not) bias between the subcontinent/non-subcontinent ratings by virtually everyone involved and it irks me to no end. So much so that I am pretty much no longer going to participate in any 'who is better discussions' on CW.

Maybe it's true to an extent, there will always be bias. Speaking for myself, if it wasn't for looking more into it the last couple months I'd have voted Imran. But really, whilst we're saying "he's a bit better with the ball and him better with the bat", Miller was a good batsman and bowler throughout his career, not one part a great bowler, the other a great batsman.

So if we're comparing them as all-rounders, this sets them apart by a bit.