Keith Miller vs Vivian Richards

[The Sean]

He was never the best bowler in the team (that would have been Lindwall and Benaud and later Davidson)

His WPM was well below his peers

Firstly, there were points in his career where he was the best bowler in the team (and according to the ICC ratings, the best bowler in the world).

Secondly, "not as good as Ray Lindwall" and "not a frontline bowler" aren't the same thing and you know it.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Viv himself is a pretty old player. Closer to Miller than he is to Kohli.

This. Not like Viv is Smith/ Kohli that are still playing.

 

[Bolo.]

The logic behind 'needs to be the best in his team' is always going to be poor, but it's pretty funny when discussing a guy that was actually teammates with Bradman.

 

[ma1978]

This. Not like Viv is Smith/ Kohli that are still playing.

Viv played in a modern, professional era of cricket. It’s a lot closer to today’s standards than the 1940s / 1950s.

 

[kyear2]

Miller was a great player. Short burst opening bowler, competent middle oder batsman and superb slip fielder.

But of his two primary disciplines, which was he an ATG? I would propose neither. He may have had a similar raw average to Imran but he isn't nearly the bowler Imran was.

Does he make an ATG XI? I know for Red he does, but for the most of us, no. You bat him at 5, he weakens the batting line up and he's not a "full time" or fully fledged bowler (to justify a selection there), who from when he played required the new ball.

So he wasn't an ATG at either discipline, and if you want to say bowler, show me where he fits in on a top 15 list. Batsman, he averaged under 40. He's not a legitimate contender for an AT XI and unlike Sobers, Imran, Kallis or Hadlee, he can't make such a team based on his primary skill alone.

So under what grounds is he a top 10 player? Because at CW we have an all rounder fascination?

I named my person top 15 top tier ATG list in another thread, he wasn't on it, even the borderline 5 thereafter didn't include his name. Yes, that's just mine, but I don't see how it can be justified.

I know that many here, especially a core 5 members or so love to remind us of the black and white days and think O'Reilly is the greatest bowler of all time etc and all of whom would select, Hammond over Richards. And yes the forum has apparently collectively lowered it's perception of The Master Blaster of late, but how many batsman in history could have done what he did (and what he did was dominate) vs Lillee, Thompson, Imran, Hadlee et al, home and away. Less than a handful and certainly not Hammond.

 

[ma1978]

Firstly, there were points in his career where he was the best bowler in the team (and according to the ICC ratings, the best bowler in the world).

Secondly, "not as good as Ray Lindwall" and "not a frontline bowler" aren't the same thing and you know it.

I’m probably being combative for the sake of it, and obviously Keith Miller is a great cricketer and a huge cultural influence as an icon post a devastating war. But I rate a great specialist over an all rounder, and I don’t see Keith Miller as one of the 20 greatest batsman or bowlers of all time (whereas Sobers, Imran, Hadlee and possibly Kallis clearly were)

 

[kyear2]

Viv played in a modern, professional era of cricket. It’s a lot closer to today’s standards than the 1940s / 1950s.

1000 times this, the standards of cricket haven't increased by leaps and bounds, if at all from that era. Even from the 60's the standards were improved.

 

[kyear2]

I’m probably being combative for the sake of it, and obviously Keith Miller is a great cricketer and a huge cultural influence as an icon post a devastating war. But I rate a great specialist over an all rounder, and I don’t see Keith Miller as one of the 20 greatest batsman or bowlers of all time (whereas Sobers, Imran, Hadlee and possibly Kallis clearly were)

Not with the possibly Kallis, lol. Definitely Kallis.

 

[Silver Silva]

Damn this is a crazy result

 

[ma1978]

Makes no sense - people voting for Miller because he diddled Princess Margaret

 

[ma1978]

Some go for the statline, others because I think Miller somehow represents the Australia. Ideal (in a way that someone like Bradman doesn’t) - and he diddled Princess Margaret

 

[BazBall21]

Some go for the statline, others because I think Miller somehow represents the Australia. Ideal (in a way that someone like Bradman doesn’t) - and he diddled Princess Margaret

Lad

 

[OverratedSanity]

You don't necessarily need to be an ATG in either discipline to be better than an ATG in one discipline.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Miller is basically what English media thought Botham was.

 

[Coronis]

Miller is basically what English media thought Botham was.

Well Botham was til he got fat.

He was never the best bowler in the team (that would have been Lindwall and Benaud and later Davidson)

His WPM was well below his peers

So?

He was never the best batsman in his team (that would be Arthur Morris)

So?

But of his two primary disciplines, which was he an ATG? I would propose neither. He may have had a similar raw average to Imran but he isn't nearly the bowler Imran was.

Just like Imran wasn’t nearly the batsman Miller was. You don’t need to be an ATG in either discipline to be an ATG allrounder and you know that.

And yes the forum has apparently collectively lowered it's perception of The Master Blaster of late, but how many batsman in history could have done what he did (and what he did was dominate) vs Lillee, Thompson, Imran, Hadlee et al, home and away. Less than a handful and certainly not Hammond.

How many players could score 905 runs in a series (an away series at that too)? Less than a handful and certainly not Viv.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Well Botham was til he got fat.



So?



So?



Just like Imran wasn’t nearly the batsman Miller was. You don’t need to be an ATG in either discipline to be an ATG allrounder and you know that.



How many players could score 905 runs in a series (an away series at that too)? Less than a handful and certainly not Viv.

Viv was close to scoring that and that too in an away series but played 1 less match.

Test matches | Batting records | Most runs in a series | ESPNcricinfo

Find records of Most runs in a series in Test matches only on ESPNcricinfo.

www.espncricinfo.com

 

[Coronis]

Viv was close to scoring that and that too in an away series but played 1 less match.

Test matches | Batting records | Most runs in a series | ESPNcricinfo

Find records of Most runs in a series in Test matches only on ESPNcricinfo.

www.espncricinfo.com

Too bad for him.

 

[ma1978]

Well Botham was til he got fat.



So?



So?



Just like Imran wasn’t nearly the batsman Miller was. You don’t need to be an ATG in either discipline to be an ATG allrounder and you know that.



How many players could score 905 runs in a series (an away series at that too)? Less than a handful and certainly not Viv.

He averaged in his mid 30s. Maybe he was better than Imran but )4 wasn’t l

Well Botham was til he got fat.



So?



So?



Just like Imran wasn’t nearly the batsman Miller was. You don’t need to be an ATG in either discipline to be an ATG allrounder and you know that.



How many players could score 905 runs in a series (an away series at that too)? Less than a handful and certainly not Viv.

Miller was a mid 30s average batsman in ore of the most benign eras of all time

He was a 3 WPM bowler

Yea like a Flintoff and Stokes the sum of the parts is worth a lot but this is just Aussie myth creation

 

[ma1978]

You don't necessarily need to be an ATG in either discipline to be better than an ATG in one discipline.

I disagree with this. No selector would ever trade Viv or Sachin’s career for Keith Miller’s career. Or Ricky Pontings for that matters. The top specialists are worth a lot more than very good in each discipline all rounders.

 

[BazBall21]

He averaged in his mid 30s. Maybe he was better than Imran but )4 wasn’t l

Miller was a mid 30s average batsman in ore of the most benign eras of all time

He was a 3 WPM bowler

Yea like a Flintoff and Stokes the sum of the parts is worth a lot but this is just Aussie myth creation

That's not true. The 50s was a bowling era and the runs-per-wicket in Miller's Tests is low. There is nothing to suggest he played on mostly benign pitches.