Miller is crazy overrated.
Sobers is the greatest all rounder, after him come the fab 4 of the 80s and then Kallis.
But hey, opinions differ, your list was good. Just curious how you would rank them.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
My Post WWII Test Top 10
- Thread starter jayjay
- Start date
Sobers is the greatest all rounder, after him come the fab 4 of the 80s and then Kallis.
But hey, opinions differ, your list was good. Just curious how you would rank them.
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
Oops, I thought you were the guy who I quoted.I didn't do a list.
But still...
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
Ha, no - just a Miller fanboy.
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
Give some rationale as to why Miller is “overrated” in your opinion
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
Batting average close to Mark Waugh and bowling average close to McGrath’s
yeh, **** that
Line and Length
Cricketer Of The Year
.... and Miller achieved these figures while appearing disinterested in one-sided games. When the occasion arose he was always up to the challenge.
Overrated in the sense that he isn't better than the players I have listed and are yet to come. He is potentially the 6th greatest all rounder but no where close to a top 10 ATG. He was also in an era where he only played 12 tests outside of Aus and England. I can't rate that above guys who played tests in so many different conditions on so many different occasions.
If someone thinks of him as a top 50 ATG sure, but with the way you all talk about him on here, you'd think he was second only to Sobers
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
This is all pretty subjective I guess.Overrated in the sense that he isn't better than the players I have listed and are yet to come. He is potentially the 6th greatest all rounder but no where close to a top 10 ATG. He was also in an era where he only played 12 tests outside of Aus and England. I can't rate that above guys who played tests in so many different conditions on so many different occasions.
If someone thinks of him as a top 50 ATG sure, but with the way you all talk about him on here, you'd think he was second only to Sobers
As a guy who can bat top six in addition to being a frontline quick bowler, there’s really only him, Sobers, Botham and Kallis in the chat. I think he’s better than Botham overall personally, and I think he’s a much better bowler than Sobers and Kallis.
Line and Length
Cricketer Of The Year
I can't argue with the highlighted part of your statement, but "better opposition" is purely subjective.
If we look at some of the quality players that Miller played against they include luminaries such as Hutton, Sobers the 3W's, Compton and May. There were other solid batsmen who averaged over 40 such as Edrich, Washbrook, Graveney, Melville and McGlew.
He faced pace bowlers including Bedser, Statham and Trueman and an array of spinners such as Laker, Tayfield, Ramadhin, Valentine and Wardle. I believe that one could make a combined side of Miller's opponents that would be more than a little impressive.
I'm not saying the opposition for Miller was weak, but imagine Khan having to bowl to the likes of Viv, Gavaskar, batting against the Windies greatest ever players or playing in England against the likes of Botham and Willis. Hadlee had it even tougher, being a truly great player in a truly weak side, almost single handedly carrying them to wins.
Miller just isn't comparable.
But it's one where we will have to agree to disagree.
Line and Length
Cricketer Of The Year
So Miller isn't comparable? I would maintain, when you compare him to Khan, that Hutton, the 3 Ws, Compton and Sobers are equally if not tougher players to bowl to than Viv and Gavaskar. I'll concede that he never batted against the ATG Windies attack, but I believe that a bowling attack in England of Bedser, Trueman and Statham is superior to Botham and Willis.
The 4 all rounders you promote were fine players but, IMO, Miller played against more ATGs than they encountered.
The comparisons are fair, but to dismiss Miller's achievements would be foolosh.
But we'll probably have to agree to disagree.
Pap Finn Keighl
International Debutant
1.Gary Sobers
2. Mike Proctor
3. Sunil Gavaskar
4. Richard Hadlee
5. Sachin Tendulkar
6. Viv Richards
7. Imran Khan
8. Wasim Akram
9. Malcolm Marshall
10. Muttaiha Muralitharan
2. Mike Proctor
3. Sunil Gavaskar
4. Richard Hadlee
5. Sachin Tendulkar
6. Viv Richards
7. Imran Khan
8. Wasim Akram
9. Malcolm Marshall
10. Muttaiha Muralitharan
Coronis
International Coach
Hmm so if I’m putting up a list, not in order so I’ll actually put them chronologically but my Top 10 test players post WWII taking into account mainly just skillsets but a slight bit of impact too.
Sobers
Gavaskar
Imran
Hadlee
Richards
Tendulkar
Warne
Muralitharan
McGrath
Gilchrist
Very interesting the way my mind works. Just a few clarifications about certain players who would be there if I was just picking purely on how good a cricketer they are. Hutton - his career was split pre and post war and considering the modern emergence of India as a nation Gavaskar felt a better choice. Marshall - the best fast bowler imo, but can easily end up lost among all the West Indian bowling greats of the time, I did want to have some more bowlers aside from Imran there so Hadlee who carried New Zealand solely and McGrath as a fully modern standout ended up being the choices (maybe some unconscious bias picking him over Steyn). Kallis - love the bloke, both as a cricketer and a person but despite his obvious greatness when I think of cricket throughout his career, he’s not even among the first 10 names to mind, despite being so bloody talented and hard working as he obviously was, his impact on the game ended up being very small.
Sobers
Gavaskar
Imran
Hadlee
Richards
Tendulkar
Warne
Muralitharan
McGrath
Gilchrist
Very interesting the way my mind works. Just a few clarifications about certain players who would be there if I was just picking purely on how good a cricketer they are. Hutton - his career was split pre and post war and considering the modern emergence of India as a nation Gavaskar felt a better choice. Marshall - the best fast bowler imo, but can easily end up lost among all the West Indian bowling greats of the time, I did want to have some more bowlers aside from Imran there so Hadlee who carried New Zealand solely and McGrath as a fully modern standout ended up being the choices (maybe some unconscious bias picking him over Steyn). Kallis - love the bloke, both as a cricketer and a person but despite his obvious greatness when I think of cricket throughout his career, he’s not even among the first 10 names to mind, despite being so bloody talented and hard working as he obviously was, his impact on the game ended up being very small.
Proctor never had at least 25 tests....I'm just curious why various SA rank so highly with barely any test cricket under their belt on this forum?
Nice write up.
I feel the same way about Kallis, however I have him in the top 20, which seems about the right position for him. He was a great no doubt but never as great and as impactful on his side as Khan, Botham, Hadlee or Dev.
