• 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.

Tendulkar vs Keith Miller

Better cricketer?

  • Total voters
    32
karan_fromthestands

karan_fromthestands

State Captain
Patience and Accuracy+Gut said:
Comparison across era is so flawed really. Though, Plain as day to me Miller at his peak directly transported to 1975 would still be one of the best if not the best cricketer in the world. Viv on the other hand I don’t think is in the Fab 4 or Babar class if we are talking absolute objectively.
Click to expand...
Comparison across era is so flawed really... continues to do a cross-era comparison with zero substance.

It's tough to think of players doing well in a different era if they were directly transported using a Time Machine.
 
karan_fromthestands

karan_fromthestands

State Captain
kyear2 said:
This entire argument is disingenuous.

Training, fielding, batting techniques, competitiveness and quality of fast bowling are the biggest areas of development in cricket. I believe there was a jump even between the 20's and the start of the war, and definitely by the 50's. There was probably a jump, all be it a small one between then and the '70's and 80's.

But there are transcendent talents, an aging Sobers being able to produce an innings of a life time vs a rampaging Lillee

And for Baz to wonder how did Miller's bowling load affect his batting take a gander at Sobers overs per match.

With regards to Bradman, there isn't a serious observer who would call him anything that the greatest batsman of all time, but to pretend he wasn't born into a perfect storm is to not want to see it. Less that great attacks (and body line was basically what the '50's, 70's and 80's were like), flatter than imaginable pitches, primarily minnows and one legit opponent and only having to play in 2 countries. The best pace attack of the era being the WI was somewhat of an eyeopener. Imagine batting in the 80s and 90s vs those guys. Viv didn't have to imagine

Finally, with regards to Viv, no one who went through WSC and especially those like Richards and Chappell who thrived, there can be no dispute over the level of cricket, professionalism and talent they faced. Joffra Archer gave Smith issues, give me a break, and unlike the other 3, Smith is an top tier bat.
Click to expand...
Man, I'd pay you to post stuff like this. (Only 5 bucks though, I am cheap)
 
shortpitched713

shortpitched713

International Captain
trundler said:
West Indies won a series in England in 1950 and the 1960 series in Australia was seen as an unofficial world championship. Your knowledge of cricket history is sorely lacking.
Click to expand...
A detail which misses his overall point, i.e., there was a lot more competition from a half dozen or so teams in the latter professional era, as compared to 2-4 max (lol New Zealand) in the pre professional one.

The other points on increase in top end quality, I also agree with ma on, but it is more arguable. The point that there is simply more meaningful competition in the modern Era than before, is not.
 
shortpitched713

shortpitched713

International Captain
Patience and Accuracy+Gut said:
Comparison across era is so flawed really. Though, Plain as day to me Miller at his peak directly transported to 1975 would still be one of the best if not the best cricketer in the world. Viv on the other hand I don’t think is in the Fab 4 or Babar class if we are talking absolute objectively.
Click to expand...
DWTA. Viv's late end career decline masks a truly incredible run against all comers, without any opportunity to "bash" low quality opposition. He was among the very top end in history in terms of ability to take a game away just with his batting from his end.

When we are talking about the greatest batsmen of all time (none of which can really average much more than about mid 50s) that ability to aggressively dictate a match is the true hallmark of special quality separating batsmen like Viv, Sobers, Lara from the rest. I mean it's basically the MO of Bradman, although used in much different conditions of his time. But, I'll always take a great batsman, who is also an excellent "clean hitter" in many different conditions, than a more "technical, stolid" counterpart.
 
N

number11

State Vice-Captain
On topic, Miller adds more to a team. Sachin obviously is greater in 1 discipline but overall, Miller provides more value.
 
karan_fromthestands

karan_fromthestands

State Captain
number11 said:
On topic, Miller adds more to a team. Sachin obviously is greater in 1 discipline but overall, Miller provides more value.
Click to expand...
Agree 100%. Sachin is no match to Miller. In fact, I'd even argue that David Miller is better than Sachin. Much more impactful than Sachin ever was. Also, we should stop considering players after late 80s, early 90s for any sort of serious discussions. The quality isn't there.

Sachin faced such weak bowling lineups that it's laughable to even rate him. Who did he really face? Akram, McGrath Waqar, Murali, Warne, Walsh, Ambrose, Akhtar, Steyn, etc.

This thread is a joke. Can't compare Miller to Sachin.
 
N

number11

State Vice-Captain
karan_fromthestands said:
Agree 100%. Sachin is no match to Miller. In fact, I'd even argue that David Miller is better than Sachin. Much more impactful than Sachin ever was. Also, we should stop considering players after late 80s, early 90s for any sort of serious discussions. The quality isn't there.

Sachin faced such weak bowling lineups that it's laughable to even rate him. Who did he really face? Akram, McGrath Waqar, Murali, Warne, Walsh, Ambrose, Akhtar, Steyn, etc.
Click to expand...
That's not what I said or meant. You are being childish.
 
M

ma1978

International Debutant
number11 said:
On topic, Miller adds more to a team. Sachin obviously is greater in 1 discipline but overall, Miller provides more value.
Click to expand...
im a big fan of Colin Miller but this seems a bit gratuitous.

In all seriousness, I don’t agree; I think value in cricketers follows a normal distribution and the very top specialists are a standard deviation or more above the simply good. As such, someone like Tendulkar (or Mcgrath or Lara or Viv) are worth more than someone like Miller who was very good but not ATG at two disciplines, it’s Imran and Sobers and Hadlee who are the unicorns because they are ATG as specialist and add value elsewhere, even those three are below Bradman though.
 
karan_fromthestands

karan_fromthestands

State Captain
ma1978 said:
im a big fan of Colin Miller but this seems a bit gratuitous.

In all seriousness, I don’t agree; I think value in cricketers follows a normal distribution and the very top specialists are a standard deviation or more above the simply good. As such, someone like Tendulkar (or Mcgrath or Lara or Viv) are worth more than someone like Miller who was very good but not ATG at two disciplines, it’s Imran and Sobers and Hadlee who are the unicorns because they are ATG as specialist and add value elsewhere, even those three are below Bradman though.
Click to expand...
Yap, agree 100%.
 
P

Patience and Accuracy+Gut

State Vice-Captain
Anyone acting like how Standard of the game went so much higher in 15 Years between Miller and Viv and hasn’t changed at all between Viv and Now in 3-5 decades has rocks in their head.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top