The Greatest All-Rounder of All Time

[MrIncredible]

Miller is not good enough to make the team as a bat. Maybe at his peak yes (doubt it) but overall 37 is not good enough to make ne body's all time XI's batting lineup.

 

[Ikki]

Miller was clearly a great all-rounder but, realistically, with the bat alone it's hard to see a way for him to get into an all-time convict middle order past the likes of both Chappells, Border, Ponting, both Waughs, Harvey and Bradman; arguably a whole host of others from recent times (Martyn, Langer, Boon, Jones among them); and a galaxy of pre-War stars (including Hill, Jackson, McCabe). Bearing in mind also that you can have at most 4 middle-order bats given that Gilchrist would (for most people's money) bat at 7.

My whole contention was: had he not missed his prime, gotten injured, etc, I could see him doing it. Neil Harvey averaged 50 in FC cricket and Miller 49. He clearly had the talent.

 

[fredfertang]

It is well chronicled, admittedly in the main by those of a similar ilk, that Keith Miller never let anything as trivial as cricket get in the way of his enjoyment of life - had he had the mentality of the Don then his achievements might have been bradmanesque

 

[zaremba]

My whole contention was: had he not missed his prime, gotten injured, etc, I could see him doing it. Neil Harvey averaged 50 in FC cricket and Miller 49. He clearly had the talent.

Yeah I know that's what you're saying, but I just don't think I agree. Mind you, I know less about him than you, never watched him play and haven't even seen footage of him so my knowledge is pretty limited.

 

[Gowza]

my father said that miller sometimes turned up to games late with a hangover, didn't always appeal so as to give the batsman a chance, sometimes gave his wicket away to make the match closer and things of that nature. one of my dad's teacher's was peter philpott who played with miller, don't know if the stories are exaggerated or not but if there is some truth in them it makes you wonder what his stats could have looked like if he had a different attitude.

 

[MrIncredible]

My whole contention was: had he not missed his prime, gotten injured, etc, I could see him doing it. Neil Harvey averaged 50 in FC cricket and Miller 49. He clearly had the talent.

And maybe if WI selectors hadnt selected Sobers at such an early age (17) and had given him time in domestic cricket to mature, and maybe had his knees held up etc etc We can only go by what they achieved overall my friend.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

If we're going to on ifs and buts then Ian Botham leaves them all standing. If he'd spent even an average amount of time in the nets working on his game he could have been the best England batsman of his generation.............but he didn't.

 

[aussie]

It's the high-point of his career, half-way through it. From 52 onwards he also had several back and knee injuries IIRC to add to his already limited physicality due to his war injuries.

When you look at his cricketing career it's a shame. He missed his absolute prime and could have possibly been what MrIncredible is after (a player who can genuinely get into an all-time team with both bat and ball). Add also the fact that after the war he didn't see it as important as he used to. But I guess these things add to his mystique.

Yea i agree. But i have always wondered if WW2 never existed at what point in the 40s would Miller have actually debuted?.

Since its clear he took up bowling pretty late. Read the 1st victory test article.

Plus if you check FC states from for Victoria from 1937/38 up until the start of the war, he never bowled. So that kind of tells for sure, he was always a top batsman.

 

[Ikki]

Yeah, I reckon you're right Aussie.

 

[subshakerz]

If we're going to on ifs and buts then Ian Botham leaves them all standing. If he'd spent even an average amount of time in the nets working on his game he could have been the best England batsman of his generation.............but he didn't.

I agree its not accurate to judge based on hypotheticals. Miller was a great player but his record shouldn't be embellished by bringing his FC average or how he may possibly have played in his prime. Based on what Ikki posted, his career seemed to consist of a first half when he was an excellent bat but underused bowler, followed by being an average bat and a very good bowler. He didn't seem to peak with both disciplines at the same time.

 

[zaremba]

If he had played during the War years, he might have lost interest in cricket earlier and retired much sooner. Who can say?

 

[Ikki]

I agree its not accurate to judge based on hypotheticals. Miller was a great player but his record shouldn't be embellished by bringing his FC average or how he may possibly have played in his prime. Based on what Ikki posted, his career seemed to consist of a first half when he was an excellent bat but underused bowler, followed by being an average bat and a very good bowler. He didn't seem to peak with both disciplines at the same time.

Not really. He was used as a bowler pretty much the same throughout his career. IIRC he was just limited to shorter spells than one would give someone of his talent. You can't really bowl someone with a crook back for 35-40 overs a test. Still, he has a great average and a sublime SR for his time. I really don't think you can question his quality as a bowler, he was up there. Lindwall was better but I've read there were times when that question was in doubt. Such is the man's talent that he took up bowling so late and to perform as well as the best in the world.

Aussie is right though because Miller essentially became a front-line bowler in the Aussie side as that was what was needed and he hit the ground running. He was always a top batsman though - which is the question here, not his bowling. It's strange how someone who essentially did as well as Neil Harvey in FC cricket ended up with a lower average whereas everyone still regarded him so highly - he batted #5 for the Invincibles. For a time (half his career) he averaged 45 with the bat and 22 with the ball so he certainly was good with both at the same time. Still, questions can be asked why his batting dropped off.

The Sean is more knowledgeable than I, I hope he kicks in with his 2 bob.

If he had played during the War years, he might have lost interest in cricket earlier and retired much sooner. Who can say?

LOL, I mean had the war not even existed...not had he played then while it was going on.

 

[Matt79]

Millers batting form was frequently affected by the bowling load he carried. His inability to function as well with a full load in both disciplines should probably count against him a bit in this kind of elite company. He had a persistant back injury that would become a distraction when he bowled a lot of overs. That said, it also means that too often we didn't see his best with the bat for sustained periods. 37 certainly doesn't reflect what all the judges who saw him bat say about his ability - the player who the descriptions of witnesses always puts me in mind of is Adam Gilchrist. I haven't done the work
in Statsguru but I'd suspect his pressure-on average is much better than his career average. He was a player who relished the contest and being the man for the moment, but who had little stomach for burying an already defeated opposition or feasting on inferior opponents.

to answer an earlier point there are many stories of him showing up hungover (or still drunk tbh) in his evening wear from the previous night, but none I'm aware of to suggest it ever affected his performance. One story is that he showed up to a shield match bleary eyed in his tux, just made it onto the field looking very green indeed and told Davidson he wouldn't be able to bowl. He got out to the middle, saw the green top pitch, snatched the ball from Davo and bowled unchanged through the session, having decimated the opposition by lunch.

 

[Matt79]

In an all time team, where he wouldn't be one of only two top drawer quicks in the team and could be used as a shock bowler for a couple of spells a day, i'd back him to average mid-40s at least.

 

[JBH001]

Millers batting form was frequently affected by the bowling load he carried. His inability to function as well with a full load in both disciplines should probably count against him a bit in this kind of elite company. He had a persistant back injury that would become a distraction when he bowled a lot of overs. That said, it also means that too often we didn't see his best with the bat for sustained periods. 37 certainly doesn't reflect what all the judges who saw him bat say about his ability - the player who the descriptions of witnesses always puts me in mind of is Adam Gilchrist. I haven't done the work
in Statsguru but I'd suspect his pressure-on average is much better than his career average. He was a player who relished the contest and being the man for the moment, but who had little stomach for burying an already defeated opposition or feasting on inferior opponents.

TBPH, I think that buying into the Miller 'myth'. From my recollection of the statistical record, he did indeed, to a great extent, feast on average and inferior opponents, and non/low pressure situations. Not that there is anything wrong in that mind you - I just dont buy the "Miller didnt try hard enough because he didnt care" argument.

 

[The Sean]

The Sean is more knowledgeable than I, I hope he kicks in with his 2 bob.

Flattery will get you everywhere Ikki!

There’s no question that in his early career Miller was seen predominantly as a batsman, and an outstanding one at that, nor is there any question that the demands of bowling – and of not taking anything particularly seriously – took the edge off his batting as his career progressed. Phillip Derriman put it best when he noted that “Miller came into big cricket as a brilliant batsman who surprised people by bowling as well as he did, and went out of it as a great fast bowler who could still bat brilliantly but only on occasion.“

For most people, Miller shone brightest as a batsman in 1945 in the Victory Tests and for the Dominions XI against England – in those six “Tests” he made 654 runs at 72 with four centuries and his batting was by all accounts of absolutely the highest class. Bill O’Reilly was one of many convinced he would go on to become one of Australia’s greatest ever batsmen but as Tiger himself later said: “He never blossomed out as I was certain he would.”

There are a number of reasons for this, and Bradman can take some credit/blame – he recognised in Miller early on a great natural bowler and the Australian side of the time needed Miller’s bowling more than his batting, so as Nugget’s career progressed bowling assumed the greater significance, even if his back problems meant that he couldn’t bowl the sheer quantity of overs that his captains might have liked. It should be remembered as well that due to the war Miller didn’t play his first Test until the age of 26, and was 27 by the time he played his second. It’s only natural then that he declined after a few years, given by that time he was well into his 30s.

It was noted too by John Warr among others that Miller’s technique, particularly on wet wickets or those taking spin, could be found wanting – too much pad and not enough bat, and without the patience required in those conditions to build a big score. As Ikki, Matt and several other posters have also correctly pointed out, Miller relished a contest and found it hard to motivate himself to cash in against minnows – it’s no coincidence that all of Miller’s Test centuries came against either England or WI, the two other major powers in world cricket at the time.

To say that he never performed with both bat and ball at the same time isn’t correct though. He’s one of only two men along with Sobers to score 300 runs and take 20 wickets in the same series more than once, and topped 200 runs/15 wickets in four further series. For a player renowned for flights of erratic behaviour and a devil-may-care attitude, his overall Test career is actually one of admirable consistency. Whether he would have achieved more or less with a different attitude is a moot point, what he did achieve still puts him among a tiny elite.

 

[The Sean]

TBPH, I think that buying into the Miller 'myth'. From my recollection of the statistical record, he did indeed, to a great extent, feast on average and inferior opponents, and non/low pressure situations. Not that there is anything wrong in that mind you - I just dont buy the "Miller didnt try hard enough because he didnt care" argument.

TBF, most of Miller's best performances came against stronger opposition. His record against the lesser teams of the time is pretty ordinary.

 

[zaremba]

LOL, I mean had the war not even existed...not had he played then while it was going on.

I realised that! All those Messerschmitts up his arse would have been very distracting.

What I was trying to say was that these sorts of things are desperately difficult to call. It's impossible to know what would have happened had the War not interrupted his career. The fact that he didn't start playing Tests till 1945 might have helped his career, or it might have hindered it. You just can't be sure.

What I find a little easier to call is that he would have been an even better batsman had he not bowled. I wouldn't say this is a given (for example in the cases of Gilchrist and Botham, I think that their other skills (keeping / bowling) helped liberate them as batsmen) but it sounds quite plausible. But the fact is that he was an all-rounder, and it's in that role that we know him as the great player that he was.

ps great post, Sean.

 

[kingkallis]

TBF, most of Miller's best performances came against stronger opposition. His record against the lesser teams of the time is pretty ordinary.

Even Imran avoided playing minnows!

 

[The Sean]

Even Imran avoided playing minnows!

I'm not sure I get your point mate. Imran played plenty against Sri Lanka IIRC.